General Petraeus.....

[Bill Peckham]

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

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.

[Hemodoc]

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

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.

[Bill Peckham]

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

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?

[Wat76]

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.

[Rerun]

  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.

[Willis]

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.

 

[Rerun]

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.

     

[Willis]

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.

     

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! 

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.

 

[Rerun]

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.

[Willis]

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.

 

[Hemodoc]

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.

[Zach]

Here's an interesting OP-ED in the NY Times about Allen Dulles, Director of Central Intelligence from February 1953 to November 1961.



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

[Rerun]

Here's an interesting OP-ED in the NY Times about Allen Dulles, Director of Central Intelligence from February 1953 to November 1961.



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!     

[Hemodoc]

Here's an interesting OP-ED in the NY Times about Allen Dulles, Director of Central Intelligence from February 1953 to November 1961.



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.

[jbeany]

Here's an interesting OP-ED in the NY Times about Allen Dulles, Director of Central Intelligence from February 1953 to November 1961.



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.....