I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Political Debates - Thick Skin Required for Entry => Topic started by: Rerun on November 13, 2012, 05:03:00 AM
-
He said.... she said.... What is the truth? Was this scandal saved for after the election? Did he leek secrets in the heights of passion. Should he still testify on the Libya murders?
The spin STOPS here.... Fair and Balanced on IHD.... :rofl;
-
I just hope he thinks it was worth it, though I doubt it...
-
I think he should testify, because even though he is not in his position any longer, he was in that position during the time. Why should his current status matter?
-
Haven't we all been there..... watching an office affair..... everyone wants to throw up watching the 2 love birds who are oblivious to the outside world. Tickles and giggles. Disappearances for hours.....
People knew long before the confession.
:urcrazy;
-
My personal theory is that all men in power positions are secretly jealous of Henry VIII. He could behead his women when he tired of them so they wouldn't be a problem later on....
-
Yeah, but these days it takes 2. She was a power monger herself.
Now the other other woman is having an affair with the General John Allen in Afghanistan? What is going on?
Uggh!
-
The real scandal is that this whole affair is proof of "a surveillance state run amok":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/13/petraeus-surveillance-state-fbi (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/13/petraeus-surveillance-state-fbi)
"So all based on a handful of rather unremarkable emails sent to a woman fortunate enough to have a friend at the FBI, the FBI traced all of Broadwell's physical locations, learned of all the accounts she uses, ended up reading all of her emails, investigated the identity of her anonymous lover (who turned out to be Petraeus), and then possibly read his emails as well. They dug around in all of this without any evidence of any real crime - at most, they had a case of "cyber-harassment" more benign than what regularly appears in my email inbox and that of countless of other people - and, in large part, without the need for any warrant from a court."
How is it that a military groupie in Tampa can get the FBI to launch a far reaching investigation, spanning the country because of a few catty emails? That's the disgrace, this nation's disgrace.
-
Are you kidding? >:( You would rather they not be caught. and Her get pissed off and maybe breach security?
There is a guy here in Spokane sitting in jail because he was looking (looking) at child pornography. Good I say!
Oh and he worked for Child Services....
This is not a normal email it is the head of the CIA ! The real scandal is it wasn't brought out until AFTER the election. WOW What a discrace. We all know it was know about in October!
This isn't a sex scandal anymore this is treason.
If all this gets swept under the rug I'll not be a bit surprised.
-
Are you kidding? >:( You would rather they not be caught. and Her get pissed off and maybe breach security?
There is a guy here in Spokane sitting in jail because he was looking (looking) at child pornography. Good I say!
Oh and he worked for Child Services....
This is not a normal email it is the head of the CIA ! The real scandal is it wasn't brought out until AFTER the election. WOW What a discrace. We all know it was know about in October!
This isn't a sex scandal anymore this is treason.
If all this gets swept under the rug I'll not be a bit surprised.
The ends do not justify the means. When the FBI launched their investigation they did not know the general was involved.
And why would anyone change their vote if Petraeus had been revealed as an adulterer prior to the election? The general was not an Obama surrogate. He isn't even a Democrat. In what way does this reflect badly on the President? Are you really shocked that powerful men canoodle? And as for Allen - exchanging emails does not an affair make, the General deserves the benefit of the doubt rather than quickly jumping to your preferred conclusion.
-
This isn't a sex scandal anymore this is treason.
In everything I've seen about this sordid story, I've missed anything that would sniff of treason. What makes you think that line has been crossed? Bad judgement, yes, treason, not quite.
-
It's called fruit of the poisonous tree in the legal field. Get it properly or it doesn't exist in court.
And while I do think he's an idiot to be sending anything incriminating back and forth on emails - no, men in power having affairs neither shocks me or makes me think they are incapable of doing a job.
-
The real scandal is it wasn't brought out until AFTER the election. WOW What a discrace.
What exactly did it have to do with the election?
I guess if you want to know why we didn't know about it until after the election, you'll have to ask Republican Congressman Eric Cantor. He knew about it before the election.
-
The real scandal is it wasn't brought out until AFTER the election. WOW What a discrace.
What exactly did it have to do with the election?
I guess if you want to know why we didn't know about it until after the election, you'll have to ask Republican Congressman Eric Cantor. He knew about it before the election.
Good grief, the FBI head knew about this months, the Attorney General knew about the investigation for months and they were both supposed to report this to congress and the president. I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you truly believe that Obama found out the night of the election.
To place this on Cantor with an unsubstantiated whistle blower a little more than a week before the election is ludicrous. Cantor did the correct thing in seeking confirmation before going public. Cantor is not at issue in this unfolding scandal. One more scandal to add to all those that came before the election and are sure to surface now that the great one has been reelected. Obama is very good at getting elected but not very good at all running this nation once he won. Scandal after scandal already just after the election such a short time ago. Cantor is not at issue at all in this investigation but only a weird side story. The other players are at the heart of the issue. Perhaps they should take responsibility for their own actions, it is not Bush's fault nor is it Cantor's.
-
The real scandal is it wasn't brought out until AFTER the election. WOW What a discrace.
What exactly did it have to do with the election?
I guess if you want to know why we didn't know about it until after the election, you'll have to ask Republican Congressman Eric Cantor. He knew about it before the election.
Good grief, the FBI head knew about this months, the Attorney General knew about the investigation for months and they were both supposed to report this to congress and the president. I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you truly believe that Obama found out the night of the election.
To place this on Cantor with an unsubstantiated whistle blower a little more than a week before the election is ludicrous. Cantor did the correct thing in seeking confirmation before going public. Cantor is not at issue in this unfolding scandal. One more scandal to add to all those that came before the election and are sure to surface now that the great one has been reelected. Obama is very good at getting elected but not very good at all running this nation once he won. Scandal after scandal already just after the election such a short time ago. Cantor is not at issue at all in this investigation but only a weird side story. The other players are at the heart of the issue. Perhaps they should take responsibility for their own actions, it is not Bush's fault nor is it Cantor's.
Are you suggesting the President is responsible for his general's private lives or are you suggesting that the affair is a national security matter? That Petraeus has been derelict in his duties. Do you think Petraeus did a good job as CIA chief?
Do you find it acceptable that a friend of an FBI agent can launch an investigation with a phone call?
EDITED TO ADD: Here is a Tic Tock on the whole sordid affair (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/us/us-officials-say-petraeuss-affair-known-in-summer.html?smid=pl-share). Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, Peter.
-
The real scandal is it wasn't brought out until AFTER the election. WOW What a discrace.
What exactly did it have to do with the election?
I guess if you want to know why we didn't know about it until after the election, you'll have to ask Republican Congressman Eric Cantor. He knew about it before the election.
Good grief, the FBI head knew about this months, the Attorney General knew about the investigation for months and they were both supposed to report this to congress and the president. I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you truly believe that Obama found out the night of the election.
To place this on Cantor with an unsubstantiated whistle blower a little more than a week before the election is ludicrous. Cantor did the correct thing in seeking confirmation before going public. Cantor is not at issue in this unfolding scandal. One more scandal to add to all those that came before the election and are sure to surface now that the great one has been reelected. Obama is very good at getting elected but not very good at all running this nation once he won. Scandal after scandal already just after the election such a short time ago. Cantor is not at issue at all in this investigation but only a weird side story. The other players are at the heart of the issue. Perhaps they should take responsibility for their own actions, it is not Bush's fault nor is it Cantor's.
Are you suggesting the President is responsible for his general's private lives or are you suggesting that the affair is a national security matter? That Petraeus has been derelict in his duties. Do you think Petraeus did a good job as CIA chief?
Do you find it acceptable that a friend of an FBI agent can launch an investigation with a phone call?
EDITED TO ADD: Here is a Tic Tock on the whole sordid affair (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/us/us-officials-say-petraeuss-affair-known-in-summer.html?smid=pl-share). Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, Peter.
Bill, as a prior Army officer promoted to the rank of Major, what Petraeus did is a big deal. He claims no affair occurred while on active duty. Had he stated the affair occurred during his military days, he could potentially still be prosecuted for adultery, a seldom enforced element of the uniform code of military justice, but one that has and continues to be a big deal when it occurs. The biggest issue is when it occurs within the chain of command.
Not sure what the rules are for the CIA, but it is indeed a national security issue where the director opens himself to potential blackmail. That may or may not be an issue in the current scandal. Not enough information at present. When it comes to military and security forces, adultery is a big deal especially when it occurs with those at the top of the chain of command. That betrays a very poor judgement that is surprising at his level.
There may also be an issue of classified information directly from Petraeus. If that is proven, then it is a big deal indeed and it also would expand the Benghazi scandal as well.
If Obama truly did not know of the FBI investigation until the night of the election, that defies credulity. I don't believe that, but that is his cover story at the minimum.
Time will tell what comes of this. Not a good day for America and there is more to come.
-
If the details of the case were different it might be a big deal, I'll give you that. The worst part of this whole thing isn't the idea that the FBI would launch an investigation based on a friend's complaint, the worse part is that in the process of finding out who sent the emails they would read all her emails and then seek the identity of an anonymous correspondent - what is the rationale for allowing the FBI the ability to cast this sort of net?
Before there is any national political intrigue involved the FBI is nosing around people's email accounts for shits and giggles. Is it now the law of the land that if you are under FBI investigation for any reason or if someone who you email is under FBI investigation, your emails are completely public? If Kent Thiry takes a dislike to your blog and has a well placed friend, is it alright for the FBI to read through your emails? To study your computer habits? Check into the identity of your correspondents?
-
If the details of the case were different it might be a big deal, I'll give you that. The worst part of this whole thing isn't the idea that the FBI would launch an investigation based on a friend's complaint, the worse part is that in the process of finding out who sent the emails they would read all her emails and then seek the identity of an anonymous correspondent - what is the rationale for allowing the FBI the ability to cast this sort of net?
Before there is any national political intrigue involved the FBI is nosing around people's email accounts for shits and giggles. Is it now the law of the land that if you are under FBI investigation for any reason or if someone who you email is under FBI investigation, your emails are completely public? If Kent Thiry takes a dislike to your blog and has a well placed friend, is it alright for the FBI to read through your emails? To study your computer habits? Check into the identity of your correspondents?
Not sure what you are trying to imply with your comments, but anything you say on the telephone is subject to surveillance as well as emails through computer protocols. In this case, they are using laws on cyber-harassment whatever that is to justify looking into private emails:
However, Fox News confirmed Monday from multiple law enforcement sources that the emails came from multiple dummy accounts, which were traced back to Broadwell. The reason the FBI had jurisdiction is because cyber-harassment is a federal crime, and once the FBI got to Broadwell they uncovered the affair.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/13/top-us-commander-in-afghanistan-gen-john-allen-under-investigation-for-alleged/#ixzz2CB4XDsZp
Apparently, under Obama, this electronic eaves dropping has "surged."
Warrantless Electronic Surveillance Surges Under Obama Justice Department
NEW YORK -- The Obama administration has overseen a sharp increase in the number of people subjected to warrantless electronic surveillance of their telephone, email and Facebook accounts by federal law enforcement agencies, new documents released by the American Civil Liberties Union on Friday revealed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/warrantless-electronic-surveillance-obama_n_1924508.html
-
Geez will you two let me have a shot! :waiting;
Here in Spokane a young girl was getting anonmyous nasty texts threatening to rape her. Her Dad called the FBI.... so they must be in the phone book.... not hard. The FBI went to the school and by lunch time found the 2 bad boys and hauled them in and scared them "straight". I say Good! I heard this and said "this is good". Maybe her dad was a friend of an FBI agent?
The guy sitting in jail for child pornography was doing it through his computer and it alerted the FBI.... it is illegal. So, they then offered to buy some pictures and he sold them. Bingo! Bango! He is getting 5 years hard time.
I guess if the FBI got me on anti Obama material on this site then that would violate my Freedom of speech. But, I'm not a head of a Security Bureau either.
That Paula woman is on camera telling a group of people (could be journalists) that 'They probably didn't know this but in the Libya compound they were holding some insurgents and that might have been the reason for the raid.'
We weren't supposed to be holding insurgents.... breach of security. I mean go ahead and hold the b'tards but I don't think she was supposed to tell anyone. What else does she know? What if she comes up with he WAS on duty when they were screwing around and has pictures to prove it.
Where this thing got started is Jill the socialite, called the FBI agent because she was getting threatening emails. I think I could call the FBI and tell them I was getting threatening emails and they would investigate it.
-
Looks like this case has broken wide open with classified documents found in his mistresses home. If he is the source of those documents, this will become VERY ugly indeed. Not good for anyone, not good for America.
-
Looks like this case has broken wide open with classified documents found in his mistresses home. If he is the source of those documents, this will become VERY ugly indeed. Not good for anyone, not good for America.
I have not heard this. Are you sure? Why were these documents classified? Did they have anything to do with national security? I'm home sick in bed, and I've been watching the news all day, and I've heard nothing about this case being "broken wide open". In fact, it just gets weirder and weirder.
-
Looks like this case has broken wide open with classified documents found in his mistresses home. If he is the source of those documents, this will become VERY ugly indeed. Not good for anyone, not good for America.
I have not heard this. Are you sure? Why were these documents classified? Did they have anything to do with national security? I'm home sick in bed, and I've been watching the news all day, and I've heard nothing about this case being "broken wide open". In fact, it just gets weirder and weirder.
http://www.examiner.com/article/petraeus-girlfriend-stored-classified-material-at-home
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/fbi-seizes-classified-documents-broadwell-home-article-1.1202043
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/14/us-usa-generals-idUSBRE8AD0GT20121114
-
Oh, OK. Well, according to the Reuter's article, Broadwell was authorized to have access to these classified documents, but the accusation is that she should have stored them more securely. She had security clearance to those documents, according to Reuter's.
I'm sure the FBI will do its job and will investigate fully, although I hope that Tampa FBI agent won't be involved in the case! LOL!
-
Oh, OK. Well, according to the Reuter's article, Broadwell was authorized to have access to these classified documents, but the accusation is that she should have stored them more securely. She had security clearance to those documents, according to Reuter's.
I'm sure the FBI will do its job and will investigate fully, although I hope that Tampa FBI agent won't be involved in the case! LOL!
Dear Moosemom,
NO ONE with any security clearance is allowed to have classified documents in an unsecure area. That is the issue at hand from what we know, not whether she had clearance to review those documents. Very different issue than you are putting forth.
-
Hemodoc, I agree with you. I think you must have misunderstood my post. My understanding of the Reuters article was that she had security clearance to those documents but she had them stored insecurely, all as you have said. I'm not sure why you think this is a "very different than am putting forth."
-
Hmph...having worked as an intern for the federal prosecutor, let me say that every piece of paperwork they have ever produced is considered classified - even if it's nothing more than a list of speakers invited to come to a public meeting. So I can't say I'm too impressed with them saying the documents were classified.
-
If the details of the case were different it might be a big deal, I'll give you that. The worst part of this whole thing isn't the idea that the FBI would launch an investigation based on a friend's complaint, the worse part is that in the process of finding out who sent the emails they would read all her emails and then seek the identity of an anonymous correspondent - what is the rationale for allowing the FBI the ability to cast this sort of net?
Before there is any national political intrigue involved the FBI is nosing around people's email accounts for shits and giggles. Is it now the law of the land that if you are under FBI investigation for any reason or if someone who you email is under FBI investigation, your emails are completely public? If Kent Thiry takes a dislike to your blog and has a well placed friend, is it alright for the FBI to read through your emails? To study your computer habits? Check into the identity of your correspondents?
Not sure what you are trying to imply with your comments, but anything you say on the telephone is subject to surveillance as well as emails through computer protocols. In this case, they are using laws on cyber-harassment whatever that is to justify looking into private emails:
However, Fox News confirmed Monday from multiple law enforcement sources that the emails came from multiple dummy accounts, which were traced back to Broadwell. The reason the FBI had jurisdiction is because cyber-harassment is a federal crime, and once the FBI got to Broadwell they uncovered the affair.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/13/top-us-commander-in-afghanistan-gen-john-allen-under-investigation-for-alleged/#ixzz2CB4XDsZp (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/13/top-us-commander-in-afghanistan-gen-john-allen-under-investigation-for-alleged/#ixzz2CB4XDsZp)
Apparently, under Obama, this electronic eaves dropping has "surged."
Warrantless Electronic Surveillance Surges Under Obama Justice Department
NEW YORK -- The Obama administration has overseen a sharp increase in the number of people subjected to warrantless electronic surveillance of their telephone, email and Facebook accounts by federal law enforcement agencies, new documents released by the American Civil Liberties Union on Friday revealed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/warrantless-electronic-surveillance-obama_n_1924508.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/warrantless-electronic-surveillance-obama_n_1924508.html)
They were harassing emails - I saw you do this, you should stop doing that - to an adult, not threats of rape or violence directed at a minor. And that was enough for the FBI to expend resources on identifying the sender? And then once they identified the sender they have license to read all her emails? And then the FBI has license to identify someone who was stexting the "harasser" anonymously? That's how you want your tax dollars spent?
Think about this - the justification can not be that you might discover another crime, the justification can not be that a fishing expedition is a type of police work. An adult woman receives an anonymous email that upsets her and this causes the FBI to expend significant resources chasing down the identities of people who were trying to be anonymous. That's the scandal.
It is not true that "anything you say on the telephone is subject to surveillance". The article you link to explains that meta data is subject to collection - phone numbers, who is calling who, that is not the same as "anything you say on the telephone is subject to surveillance". If they had called each other instead of emailed none of this would have come to light.
The lesson here is don't come to the FBI's attention unless your shit doesn't stink - the agent is under investigation, the original complainant's life is not holding up to scrutiny, people are reading the biography, General Alan won't get promoted - don't make a complaint, don't be involved in anyway.
And now the biographer is being put under an investigative microscope, complete with anonymous sources leaking to websites, and it all fine because we can retroactively claim its a national security issue. That's the scandal.
-
If the details of the case were different it might be a big deal, I'll give you that. The worst part of this whole thing isn't the idea that the FBI would launch an investigation based on a friend's complaint, the worse part is that in the process of finding out who sent the emails they would read all her emails and then seek the identity of an anonymous correspondent - what is the rationale for allowing the FBI the ability to cast this sort of net?
Before there is any national political intrigue involved the FBI is nosing around people's email accounts for shits and giggles. Is it now the law of the land that if you are under FBI investigation for any reason or if someone who you email is under FBI investigation, your emails are completely public? If Kent Thiry takes a dislike to your blog and has a well placed friend, is it alright for the FBI to read through your emails? To study your computer habits? Check into the identity of your correspondents?
Not sure what you are trying to imply with your comments, but anything you say on the telephone is subject to surveillance as well as emails through computer protocols. In this case, they are using laws on cyber-harassment whatever that is to justify looking into private emails:
However, Fox News confirmed Monday from multiple law enforcement sources that the emails came from multiple dummy accounts, which were traced back to Broadwell. The reason the FBI had jurisdiction is because cyber-harassment is a federal crime, and once the FBI got to Broadwell they uncovered the affair.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/13/top-us-commander-in-afghanistan-gen-john-allen-under-investigation-for-alleged/#ixzz2CB4XDsZp (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/13/top-us-commander-in-afghanistan-gen-john-allen-under-investigation-for-alleged/#ixzz2CB4XDsZp)
Apparently, under Obama, this electronic eaves dropping has "surged."
Warrantless Electronic Surveillance Surges Under Obama Justice Department
NEW YORK -- The Obama administration has overseen a sharp increase in the number of people subjected to warrantless electronic surveillance of their telephone, email and Facebook accounts by federal law enforcement agencies, new documents released by the American Civil Liberties Union on Friday revealed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/warrantless-electronic-surveillance-obama_n_1924508.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/warrantless-electronic-surveillance-obama_n_1924508.html)
They were harassing emails - I saw you do this, you should stop doing that - to an adult, not threats of rape or violence directed at a minor. And that was enough for the FBI to expend resources on identifying the sender? And then once they identified the sender they have license to read all her emails? And then the FBI has license to identify someone who was stexting the "harasser" anonymously? That's how you want your tax dollars spent?
Think about this - the justification can not be that you might discover another crime, the justification can not be that a fishing expedition is a type of police work. An adult woman receives an anonymous email that upsets her and this causes the FBI to expend significant resources chasing down the identities of people who were trying to be anonymous. That's the scandal.
It is not true that "anything you say on the telephone is subject to surveillance". The article you link to explains that meta data is subject to collection - phone numbers, who is calling who, that is not the same as "anything you say on the telephone is subject to surveillance". If they had called each other instead of emailed none of this would have come to light.
The lesson here is don't come to the FBI's attention unless your shit doesn't stink - the agent is under investigation, the original complainant's life is not holding up to scrutiny, people are reading the biography, General Alan won't get promoted - don't make a complaint, don't be involved in anyway.
And now the biographer is being put under an investigative microscope, complete with anonymous sources leaking to websites, and it all fine because we can retroactively claim its a national security issue. That's the scandal.
Actually, the emails involved personal knowledge of the CIA director and a 4 star general. That is where the national security issue came into place. Since we don't yet know what the FBI recently found in the mistress house, we will just have to wait and see what unfolds, but it is an issue that does need to be investigated.
It appears the CIA director was compromised and subject to potential black mail. That shows incredibly poor judgement. Does it go any further? Only time will tell. Sad day for America once again and it is far from over.
-
Actually, the emails involved personal knowledge of the CIA director and a 4 star general. That is where the national security issue came into place. Since we don't yet know what the FBI recently found in the mistress house, we will just have to wait and see what unfolds, but it is an issue that does need to be investigated.
It appears the CIA director was compromised and subject to potential black mail. That shows incredibly poor judgement. Does it go any further? Only time will tell. Sad day for America once again and it is far from over.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/12/exclusive-paula-broadwell-s-emails-revealed.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/12/exclusive-paula-broadwell-s-emails-revealed.html)
The emails don't mention Petraeus , the CIA or General Allan by name. They're catty (my emphasis) :
"When the FBI friend showed the emails to the cyber squad in the Tampa field office, her fellow agents noted that the absence of any overt threats.
“No, ‘I’ll kill you’ or ‘I'll burn your house down,’” the source says. “It doesn’t seem really that bad.”
The squad was not even sure the case was worth pursuing, the source says.
“What does this mean? There’s no threat there. This is against the law?” the agents asked themselves by the source’s account.
At most the messages were harassing. The cyber squad had to consult the statute books in its effort to determine whether there was adequate legal cause to open a case.
“It was a close call,” the source says.
What tipped it may have been Kelley’s friendship with the agent. The squad opened a case, though with no expectation it would turn into anything significant.
“They weren’t seeing this as the crime of the century,” the source says.
And certainly nobody was looking to do anything that might cause a huge fuss and maybe get them bounced from Tampa. The field office there is a $35 million palace with a second-floor fitness center whose plate-glass windows overlook Tampa Bay, and an eating area that includes an outdoor, screened-in extension for fed al fresco. The closest agents get to that in, say, cold and grimy New York is eating in their cars."
The only reason they even looked into the case is because they had millions of dollars of technology at their finger tips and really how much time can you spend looking out the window at the nice view?
-
Wow, he got caught, itis nothing new, Technology is why these people are getting caught. Just think about how many people have gotten away with all sorts of things and what is messing them up is this new technology. email trails, cellphones, they are all traceable. to do anything wrong these days, ypoi need to revert back to the old way of doing things. I bet my life this is not his first affair. Power = Stupidity sometimes. I worked in the pentagon for several years and this is nothing compared to what I've seen, most of the time theses things get covered up big time.
-
The emails don't mention Petraeus , the CIA or General Allan by name. They're catty (my emphasis) :
"The source reports that the emails did make one reference to Gen. David Petraeus, but it was oblique and offered no manifest suggestion of a personal relationship or even that he was central to the sender’s spite."
That is enough. Investigation starts right there.
The "B" called the FBI. She was high society and probably did know who was sending them to her but wanted to get her plowed under by the FBI. Sorry, but you call the FBI they are going to look into things.
The timeline will come out as to who knew what when.
Like the US drone that was fired on by Iran wasn't important for the public to know? If it would have been any other time besides the week of elections it would have hit the news.
Weird stuff going on. Not that it would have made any difference. But, why not be transparent? There is no big deal..... just tell us. The whole secrecy thing is a scandal.
-
Hmph...having worked as an intern for the federal prosecutor, let me say that every piece of paperwork they have ever produced is considered classified - even if it's nothing more than a list of speakers invited to come to a public meeting. So I can't say I'm too impressed with them saying the documents were classified.
I agree. One job I had in the Air Force for three years was to inspect all classified material to make sure it was classified correctly, destroyed when required, and properly secured depending on the level of classification. There are many levels and sub-levels of "classification" and in my direct experience I'd say any secrets of REAL significance were TOP SECRET or higher and the controls on classified material at that level is probably unbelievable to most civilians. An example of that might be the actual targeting codes and sequences for a nuclear missile. I can't imagine that TOP SECRET material could be as badly mishandled as depicted in this scandal--and if so then people will probably spend time in jail because of it.
However, lower classifications such as CONFIDENTIAL and SECRET are really more about current, tactical military operations and plans or general methodologies. These types of secrets are usually extremely perishable time-wise and of no use once a mission has been carried out. Yet, keeping "how things are done" out of the public view is not a bad idea most of the time and thus such things will often remain classified for several years even though the information has little current value after the fact. But it is such classified data that must by military necessity be made more available to those who need it and the level of security around such information is much lower as necessitated by practical needs. So that someone might take possession of CONFIDENTIAL or SECRET information inappropriately and in violation of security protocols is not unusual at all. That is why the government assigned people like me to nose around and try to keep track of such materials. Such violations were subject to prosecution under military law and I've seen all levels of violations that ended up with anything from minor reprimands to actual court-martials.
Most "stuff" that remains classified is really kept "secret" to help putting together information "puzzles." Individually, most classified items are remarkably mundane and I often wondered why certain items were even considered something to be kept secret. But with enough pieces the puzzle begins to look like something and that is why so much government information is kept classified.
-
Willis, so if you ran across a paper or some pictures of two Generals having an affair would you just ignore that or reprot it.
:waiting;
-
Willis, so if you ran across a paper or some pictures of two Generals having an affair would you just ignore that or reprot it.
:waiting;
That's actually a good question! All members of the Unites States Armed Forces are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). That is the law for military members and where procedures for Courts Martial and other disciplinary actions are authorized and defined. And generally speaking (no pun intended), committing adultery is a violation of the UCMJ. Now admittedly it is fairly rare for an adulterer to actually be prosecuted. But especially among commissioned officers adultery is considered "conduct unbecoming an officer." Even if that doesn't result in an actual court-martial conviction, just a reprimand alone can end an officer's career. If such an affair occurs with an enlisted person or a subordinate the chances of prosecution increase and can result in dismissal from service (for officers this is equivalent to a Dishonorable Discharge).
If I was still an officer of the United States Army, and learned of such a case as in your hypothetical example, I would be bound by duty to report the alleged offense to my superior officer. Politics exist in the military just as in any organization so the wisdom of reporting the allegation or whether or not it would "go up the line" is only speculation. As a former Commanding Officer myself, if such a formal charge had been brought before me I would have been forced to act upon it. Fortunately, I was never put into that situation...formally. I have been made aware of situations in which I or other officers have made informal warnings to stop such potential behavior. It's usually when the parties involved ignore such "advice" that they wind up facing military justice (that is where sub-section #3 below comes into play).
Now I did have at least one occasion where I reported something serious to my commanding officer (not adultery) and was pretty much told to "mind my own business." Like I said, the military has its politics too and when a CO tells me something like that I'm going to comply unless the infraction involved something like nuclear weapons or murdering innocent civilians! :P
Manual for Courts Martial
Section IV.
Paragraph 62. Article 134 (Adultery)
a. Text See paragraph 60.
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.
-
Thanks Willis for the explanation.
The military has a code of ethics. IMO God has a code of ethics too. There will be consequences.
Ugggh. I'm not trying to start another argument. It just hit me when reading Willlis' post.
I'm surprised it is still an offence in the military. I bet it will be thrown out before too long.
-
Thanks Willis for the explanation.
The military has a code of ethics. IMO God has a code of ethics too. There will be consequences.
Ugggh. I'm not trying to start another argument. It just hit me when reading Willlis' post.
I'm surprised it is still an offence in the military. I bet it will be thrown out before too long.
It's been many years since I was subject to the UCMJ so you are probably correct. Prosecuting someone for adultery alone under that clause was rare and usually a "throw-in" count to pile on someone who disobeyed an order or something more severe. It was kind of a catch-all "conduct unbecoming" (for officers) or "prejudicial to good order and discipline" (for enlisted personnel) when coming up with a specific prosecutable offense would have been difficult. It's kind of like a civilian police officer busting out a drug dealer's taillight and then using that as an excuse to pull him over.
Those who were never associated with the U.S. military probably don't realize that there are several levels of "court martial." The composition of a judicial hearing can be just ONE officer with the role of judge and jury (usually the service member's commanding officer). This is called in military-speak a "Non-Judicial Punishment" hearing or an "Article 15 hearing" based on the section of the UCMJ for which it is authorized. (In the Navy and Coast Guard this is called a "Captain's Mast.") The service member can refuse this lowest-level one man judge and jury, but the penalties under Article 15 are more like civil penalties and the higher ranked the officer/judge is the harsher the penalties can be. In most cases, a non-judicial judgment against the accused is career wrecking. Often enlisted personnel who are not planning a military career anyway will just accept an Article 15 rather than risk the prospect of a real court-martial. A "real" court-martial carries with it all the negatives of conviction in a civil court whereas the non-judicial punishment is more like going to traffic court.
I apologize for getting carried away with this explanation, but this Non-Judicial Punishment approach is how 99% of the non-felonious infractions under military law are dealt with. The likelihood that adultery would go beyond that level of judicial proceeding would be slim. So in the case of our now infamous Generals, if they were to face judicial proceedings at all it would likely be of the Article 15 variety in which they could be demoted and fined perhaps but confinement would be off the table. On the other hand, if the adultery was somehow tied into other outright stupid behavior such as compromising classified information, having sex with your lover while on duty, using government communications for sending thousands of personal emails, or getting drunk and making an ass of yourself in uniform in public, then one could expect multiple charges to pile up. Adultery just happens to be one holdover from the days when officers were still considered "gentlemen." Like many civilian laws it's still on the books and I'm sure it's a rarely enforced anachronism to only be used when the top brass gets really pissed off and can't find something better to charge someone with.
-
I spent 9 years in the Army and was promoted to the rank of Major. You learn very quickly the power that your commanding officers have over you even as an officer. In the Army, if your command is not happy, you can easily "volunteer" for duty in a combat situation or end up at Ft Polk or other such assignment in the middle of a swamp with mosquitoes and snakes and alligators everywhere.
You can also be subject to UCMJ for personal actions. As Willis states, these actions are quite rare even though adultery is not in the Army. High profile positions are subject to more scrutiny and higher levels of conduct and character are expected with the privileges of the rank and position make the current case quite surprising really. Especially for a CIA director which takes on even higher levels of conduct and avoiding a compromising position where blackmail is a reality. I find that truly a surprising aspect especially being involved in what appears to be a rather unstable individual, or at least that is how she is portrayed.
Perhaps they should go back to letting spies run the spy industry as they did during the cold war. The events of the last week are truly surprising and we have more to come I am sure.
-
Here's an interesting OP-ED in the NY Times about Allen Dulles, Director of Central Intelligence from February 1953 to November 1961.
8)
When a C.I.A. Director Had Scores of Affairs
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/opinion/when-a-cia-director-had-scores-of-affairs.html
-
Here's an interesting OP-ED in the NY Times about Allen Dulles, Director of Central Intelligence from February 1953 to November 1961.
8)
When a C.I.A. Director Had Scores of Affairs
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/opinion/when-a-cia-director-had-scores-of-affairs.html
Ugh! Aweful man! :Kit n Stik;
-
Here's an interesting OP-ED in the NY Times about Allen Dulles, Director of Central Intelligence from February 1953 to November 1961.
8)
When a C.I.A. Director Had Scores of Affairs
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/opinion/when-a-cia-director-had-scores-of-affairs.html
Never heard that before. I guess they gave Kennedy a pass as well in those days.
-
Here's an interesting OP-ED in the NY Times about Allen Dulles, Director of Central Intelligence from February 1953 to November 1961.
8)
When a C.I.A. Director Had Scores of Affairs
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/opinion/when-a-cia-director-had-scores-of-affairs.html
Well, that's one way to improve foreign relations..... :rofl;