F.B.I. and Justice Dept. Said to Seek Charges for Petraeus By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and MATT APUZZOJAN. 9, 2015
WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. and Justice Department prosecutors have recommended bringing felony charges against David H. Petraeus, contending that he provided classified information to a lover while he was director of the C.I.A., officials said, leaving Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to decide whether to seek an indictment that could send the pre-eminent military officer of his generation to prison.
The Justice Department investigation stems from an affair Mr. Petraeus had with Paula Broadwell, an Army Reserve officer who was writing his biography, and focuses on whether he gave her access to his C.I.A. email account and other highly classified information.
F.B.I. agents discovered classified documents on her computer after Mr. Petraeus resigned from the C.I.A. in 2012 when the affair became public.
Mr. Petraeus, a retired four-star general who served as commander of American forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan, has said he never provided classified information to Ms. Broadwell, and has indicated to the Justice Department that he has no interest in a plea deal that would spare him an embarrassing trial. A lawyer for Mr. Petraeus, Robert B. Barnett, said Friday he had no comment.
The officials who said that charges had been recommended were briefed on the investigation but asked for anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it.
Mr. Holder was expected to decide by the end of last year whether to bring charges against Mr. Petraeus, but he has not indicated how he plans to proceed. The delay has frustrated some Justice Department and F.B.I. officials and investigators who have questioned whether Mr. Petraeus has received special treatment at a time Mr. Holder has led a crackdown on government officials who reveal secrets to journalists.
The protracted process has also frustrated Mr. Petraeus’s friends and political allies, who say it is unfair to keep the matter hanging over his head. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, wrote to Mr. Holder last month that the investigation had deprived the nation of wisdom from one of its most experienced leaders.
“At this critical moment in our nation’s security,” he wrote, “Congress and the American people cannot afford to have his voice silenced or curtailed by the shadow of a long-running, unresolved investigation marked by leaks from anonymous sources.”
Since his resignation from the C.I.A. on Nov. 10, 2012, Mr. Petraeus has divided his time between teaching, making lucrative speeches and working as a partner in one of the world’s largest private-equity firms, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts.
Mr. Holder has said little publicly about the investigation. The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, asked by reporters in December why it was taking so long, said: “I can’t say. I mean, I guess I could say, but I won’t say.”
Marc Raimondi, a Justice Department spokesman, declined to comment on the investigation.
At a news conference shortly after Mr. Petraeus resigned, President Obama said he had no evidence that Mr. Petraeus had disclosed classified information “that in any way would have had a negative impact on our national security.”
“We are safer because of the work that Dave Petraeus has done,” Mr. Obama said, referring to his career in government. “And my main hope right now is — is that he and his family are able to move on and that this ends up being a single side note on what has otherwise been an extraordinary career.”
But investigators concluded that, whether or not the disclosure harmed national security, it amounted to a significant security breach in the office of one of the nation’s most trusted intelligence leaders. They recommended that Mr. Petraeus face charges, saying lower-ranking officials had been prosecuted for far less.
Federal agents stumbled onto the affair after Jill Kelley, a friend of Mr. Petraeus, complained to the F.B.I. that she had received anonymous threatening emails about her relationship with Mr. Petraeus. F.B.I. agents opened a cyberstalking investigation, traced the message to Ms. Broadwell and began searching her emails. That is when they discovered evidence that she and Mr. Petraeus were having an affair.
Mr. Petraeus is said to have begun the affair with Ms. Broadwell in 2011, soon after taking the job at the C.I.A. and she was interviewing him for her book, “All In: The Education of General David Petraeus.”
Mr. Petraeus resigned from the C.I.A. three days after Mr. Obama was re-elected. In a brief statement, Mr. Petraeus admitted to the affair, saying that “after being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment.”
“Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours,” Mr. Petraeus said, referring to the C.I.A. “This afternoon, the president graciously accepted my resignation.”
Mr. Petraeus, 62, a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, took command of American forces in Iraq in 2007, one of the lowest points in the war. Al Qaeda controlled large parts of the country, and dozens of American soldiers were dying each month.
Mr. Petraeus directed the so-called “surge” of American forces that helped stabilize Iraq enough so that the United States could withdraw its troops under Mr. Obama. In 2010, Mr. Obama chose him to lead American forces in Afghanistan, where the Taliban was gaining territory. Mr. Petraeus had some success — although not nearly as much as he had in Iraq.
Along with his acumen on the battlefield, Mr. Petraeus was considered a natural political operator in Washington, where he easily navigated the politics of Congress, the White House and the Pentagon.
He fielded calls to run for president and cultivating a larger-than-life media image. All the while, he remained a trusted adviser to Mr. Obama, who appointed him to lead the C.I.A. in 2011.
What an unfortunate end to such a distinguished career.
On this plus side, I found: "The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, asked by reporters in December why it was taking so long, said: “I can’t say. I mean, I guess I could say, but I won’t say.” to be an unexpected comedy gem.
I like Petraeus, but if your classified documents get found on your mistress's laptop as is allegedly the case here, I think you're probably going to jail.
Maybe he should call whoever Sandy Burglar Berger's lawyer was.
Wouldn't most emails from his email account be called classified documents? You know, those emails where there's a disclaimer at the bottom saying this email is intended for a certain recipient, that sort of thing. Intel may have changed hands, but it may not have.
I don't buy it... yeah, there was the lapse in judgement on the affair issue, but classified data?
That is a huge horse of a different color. A 4 star, especially a 4 star of his position, does not mess around with that. Just simply doesn't. ESPECIALLY after the Bradley Manning thing. Hell, the Army won't even let people around scanners anymore because of that.
It just doesn't make sense to me. I'm getting a strong wiff of a witch hunt here...
djones520 wrote: I don't buy it... yeah, there was the lapse in judgement on the affair issue, but classified data?
That is a huge horse of a different color. A 4 star, especially a 4 star of his position, does not mess around with that. Just simply doesn't. ESPECIALLY after the Bradley Manning thing. Hell, the Army won't even let people around scanners anymore because of that.
It just doesn't make sense to me. I'm getting a strong wiff of a witch hunt here...
I guess we'll see.
If however, his judgement was poor in more than simply his pants, and he did mishandle such documents, a major hammering at the top is a good way to make sure that message gets down through the ranks.
It's also a mistake to assume people in high positions of authority also always follow the rules, they get careless, let their egos take over, forget things, etc like anyone else, often moreso.
The conversations I've had with people in...surprisingly senior positions have been awkward indeed.
djones520 wrote: I don't buy it... yeah, there was the lapse in judgement on the affair issue, but classified data?
That is a huge horse of a different color. A 4 star, especially a 4 star of his position, does not mess around with that. Just simply doesn't. ESPECIALLY after the Bradley Manning thing. Hell, the Army won't even let people around scanners anymore because of that.
It just doesn't make sense to me. I'm getting a strong wiff of a witch hunt here...
I guess we'll see.
When the dick comes out to play the brain is not long to stay.
Not so stupid translation: Horny people do stupid gak, regardless of their actual intelligence level.
If you've prosecuted lower ranking individuals for similar or lesser offenses
they you've got to prosecute him no matter how much he's done for the country (no matter whether the info leaks were totally harmless). All that stuff is can be brought up in mitigation during sentencing,
so if the state wants to let him off with a suspended sentence or whatever fine, so be it, but to fail to prosecute just sends the wrong message to everybody else
AlexHolker wrote: If only Obama & Co cared half as much about rapists and torturers as they do about keeping secrets from the American people.
Actually the mistress receiving secrets from a high ranking official via the bedroom is a classic move of a professional intelligence organisation. With many many examples.
I would be 0% surprised if the mistress was actively working for the KGB, Chinese Intelligence or Mossad at first guess. Or perhaps for one of the European nations.
If a pretty woman asks a general for access to his CIA email account, then he should have better common sense than to give it to her. That's a massive breach of security. We all want to impress women sometimes, but that strikes me as an absolutely idiotic breach of security for someone at his level. If that woman was working for the Chinese or Russians, he'd have basically given them free access into the CIA network.
You can be an absolutely wonderful general if most ways, but if you screw up majorly in another way, the first does not necessarily mitigate the latter.What's more he's now retired, he no longer plays any active role in the defence of the nation, and therefore there is no current operational reason to mitigate any investigation or sentencing.
Ketara wrote: If a pretty woman asks a general for access to his CIA email account, then he should have better common sense than to give it to her. That's a massive breach of security. We all want to impress women sometimes, but that strikes me as an absolutely idiotic breach of security for someone at his level. If that woman was working for the Chinese or Russians, he'd have basically given them free access into the CIA network.
You can be an absolutely wonderful general if most ways, but if you screw up majorly in another way, the first does not necessarily mitigate the latter.What's more he's now retired, he no longer plays any active role in the defence of the nation, and therefore there is no current operational reason to mitigate any investigation or sentencing.
The pretty woman was his biographer that he was having an affair with. One could say that the poor judgement started before classified documents became involved.
If I have this correctly, it appears that he had been offered some sort of a plea deal to avoid a trial, but demurred. This could mean that the deal was simply not advantageous to him or that he feels the charges are unjust and he could beat them in court.
However, he needs to be held accountable if he truly did compromise intelligence/security, and at the same time we shouldn't forget his distinguished career either.
Orlanth wrote: Actually the mistress receiving secrets from a high ranking official via the bedroom is a classic move of a professional intelligence organisation. With many many examples.
I would be 0% surprised if the mistress was actively working for the KGB, Chinese Intelligence or Mossad at first guess. Or perhaps for one of the European nations.
The Cold War's over, Orlanth. Broadwell already has a motive for her part in what Petraeus did without inventing commie plots.
This scandal's the only good thing the CIA's done in the past twenty years. People need to get it through their thick heads that the intelligence community do not deserve the respect and powers they are given, and the head of the CIA embarassing himself by thinking with his dick helps get that point across without leaving another trail of dead and wounded in its wake.
Jihadin wrote: To access his email account she needed his CAC card itself to log onto his account. I've a feeling he forwarded some email to her then.
Going by feeling I doubt he gave her any info at all. He may of been of a rank that allowed him to take info home with him. She may have had devices from her handlers in whatever lodging she shared with him.
I am thinking along the lines that she was a BFE in the employ of a foreign power. Most senior staff will not just hand over secrets just because some pretty blonde bats her eyelids, its likely far more subtle than that. This is to a limited extend corroborated by the charge of mishandling classified infiormation, which is not the same as disclosing or stealing classified information. There is a clue in the (potential) charge, and it implies he was careless witgh security of info he was handling, rather than actively selling out the secrets.
Its likely he will have to face the shame, admit he was very foolish and get a wrist slap.
If the girl is outsourced things will go badly for her, if an agent of a foreign power she will be treated well, will avoid regular jail, and exchanged for an agent the other side are holding or put on ice until someone from the CIA is caught and cooling his heels in a foreign detention centre.
Jerram wrote: So everyone is keeping in mind that she was a reserve Army LTC with a clearance right ?......
At this point I am keeping in mind that it is just an accusation most likely spawning from Bang Bangin' the Army LTC. I'll be more interested when there is an actual verdict TBH.
The Cold War's over, Orlanth. Broadwell already has a motive for her part in what Petraeus did without inventing commie plots.
Yes. I forgot Post Cold war Russians dont do spying anymore because its naughty.
They so don't do it, that when ten of them are not caught and not expelled from the United States for not-spying a few years (not) back, some of them become not-celebrities in Russia. [/sarcasm]
Note: I am not saying the Russians did it, just knocking on the head the idea that it doesn't happen anymore.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: ...what transparency are you talking about? The way Obama takes down actual whistleblowers it's like he's reading stalin's playbook.
You mean he's having millions of perceived political opponents shot in the head or sent with their families to be worked to death in labor camps without trial?
More the sense of any one stepping out of line has the boot dropped on them, even if they do reveal illegal U.S. behavior, plenty of whistleblowers going to prison that didn't get the same press as Eddy Snowden.
Not sure about unmarked graves. Never know what's going on in Nevada. The U.S. government does have the right to black bag you now and even has a "classified" kangaroo court for your trial.
This can't be a case of the American government, "who wouldn't think of spying on it's own people" clearing the way for better yes men. Could it ? How many more top brass have been retired.
whembly wrote: So... the guy who helped win war in Iraq to be prosecuted by man who lost it.
Do I have that right?
Interestingly enough, there's bi-partisan efforts to encourage Obama to grant Petraeus a Prez Pardon.
I won't throw Iraq at Obama. He could have tried pushing harder for a continued SOFA that kept us there, but what happened in Iraq falls squarely on the Iraqi's soldiers. Their the ones who decapitated their own command structure after we left, which put their military into the shambles that got steam rolled by ISIS.
whembly wrote: So... the guy who helped win war in Iraq to be prosecuted by man who lost it.
Do I have that right?
Interestingly enough, there's bi-partisan efforts to encourage Obama to grant Petraeus a Prez Pardon.
I won't throw Iraq at Obama. He could have tried pushing harder for a continued SOFA that kept us there, but what happened in Iraq falls squarely on the Iraqi's soldiers. Their the ones who decapitated their own command structure after we left, which put their military into the shambles that got steam rolled by ISIS.
Torga_DW wrote: Wait! What? You're calling iraq a win? The iraqi soldiers decapitated their command structure now?
It wasn't Iraqi soldiers that purged sections of their officer corps after the US left, it was the Iraqi government. And yes that is a real thing that happened.
Torga_DW wrote: Wait! What? You're calling iraq a win? The iraqi soldiers decapitated their command structure now?
It wasn't Iraqi soldiers that purged sections of their officer corps after the US left, it was the Iraqi government. And yes that is a real thing that happened.
the key words being: after the US left. Iraq used to have a command structure, his name was saddam.
Torga_DW wrote: Wait! What? You're calling iraq a win? The iraqi soldiers decapitated their command structure now?
It wasn't Iraqi soldiers that purged sections of their officer corps after the US left, it was the Iraqi government. And yes that is a real thing that happened.
the key words being: after the US left. Iraq used to have a command structure, his name was saddam.
Torga_DW wrote: Wait! What? You're calling iraq a win? The iraqi soldiers decapitated their command structure now?
It wasn't Iraqi soldiers that purged sections of their officer corps after the US left, it was the Iraqi government. And yes that is a real thing that happened.
the key words being: after the US left. Iraq used to have a command structure, his name was saddam.
Yeah, and that's not what we are talking about.
I rather think it is. You can't talk about Petraeus 'winning' the iraq war without mentioning saddam, especially given the state the country is in after his removal. American presence was the only thing holding the place together afterwards.
Torga_DW wrote: Wait! What? You're calling iraq a win? The iraqi soldiers decapitated their command structure now?
It wasn't Iraqi soldiers that purged sections of their officer corps after the US left, it was the Iraqi government. And yes that is a real thing that happened.
the key words being: after the US left. Iraq used to have a command structure, his name was saddam.
Yeah, and that's not what we are talking about.
I rather think it is. You can't talk about Petraeus 'winning' the iraq war without mentioning saddam, especially given the state the country is in after his removal. American presence was the only thing holding the place together afterwards.
Yes, American presence allowed the Iraqis to develop a relatively effective command structure and officer corps, and shortly after we left, they wrecked it. Just in time for ISIS to move in and take the territory they now hold.
A high ranking official passing classified information to his mistress is such a cliché I’m amazed to see still happen in real life. People have been imprisoned for it and the past and rightly so.
I understand Generals having mistresses, many great military minds have been serial philanderers, but for goodness sake you never take classified information into that sort of environment.
LuciusAR wrote: A high ranking official passing classified information to his mistress is such a cliché I’m amazed to see still happen in real life. People have been imprisoned for it and the past and rightly so.
I understand Generals having mistresses, many great military minds have been serial philanderers, but for goodness sake you never take classified information into that sort of environment.
I used to be a serial philanderer, but it was getting expensive.
Yes, American presence allowed the Iraqis to develop a relatively effective command structure and officer corps, and shortly after we left, they wrecked it. Just in time for ISIS to move in and take the territory they now hold.
was tribalism the deciding factor?
My current guess is that if they had a professional officer corps aware of the risks its couldn't collapse too quickly. But if but the newly unshackled Iraqi government wanted to shift power around in favour of people from the same tribe as the guy in charge, then the officer cadre could be undermined in a matter of days.
Yes, American presence allowed the Iraqis to develop a relatively effective command structure and officer corps, and shortly after we left, they wrecked it. Just in time for ISIS to move in and take the territory they now hold.
was tribalism the deciding factor?
My current guess is that if they had a professional officer corps aware of the risks its couldn't collapse too quickly. But if but the newly unshackled Iraqi government wanted to shift power around in favour of people from the same tribe as the guy in charge, then the officer cadre could be undermined in a matter of days.
Doubt it. It was Mawlaki who did that damage if I recall correctly. He probably didn't trust them, since they were American trained.
I'm just surprised the Feds are bothering to prosecute it.
That doesn't surprise me at all. Obama should and Ithink will go easy on him. he was/is a loyal man who thought with his dick, but was not a traitor. And the woman concerned held rank in her own right and should have been trustworthy and well vetted.
What 'surprises' me is the complete lack of attention to a BFE caught with info she wasn't supposed to have. That is a far more serious accusation, its secure data theft rather than mishandling, and it wouldn't take long to present a case.
Yet she is still all free as a bird.
Hordini wrote: Yes, American presence allowed the Iraqis to develop a relatively effective command structure and officer corps, and shortly after we left, they wrecked it. Just in time for ISIS to move in and take the territory they now hold.
If it only works while someone else is there to overseer it, i submit that it didn't actually work to begin with.
Hordini wrote: Yes, American presence allowed the Iraqis to develop a relatively effective command structure and officer corps, and shortly after we left, they wrecked it. Just in time for ISIS to move in and take the territory they now hold.
If it only works while someone else is there to overseer it, i submit that it didn't actually work to begin with.
Has nobody been reading what I've been saying? The civilian command structure tore apart the military leadership after we left. They didn't need to be overseen by us. They just needed to be left in place, and allowed to proceed as they had been trained.
Ah, i'm talking about the government. The problem is the military reports to the government, not the other way around. Saddam was both, both needed to be replaced. What happened to the military was symptomatic of the problems with their government. Not saying it was a good thing, just not unexpected.
WASHINGTON — Former CIA director David Petraeus has reached a plea agreement with the Justice Department, concluding a years-long investigation into his divulging to his mistress secret information, including names of covert officers and war strategy, according to court documents.
The explosive details in the agreement show that Petraeus lied to investigators, divulged a massive amount of sensitive data to Paula Broadwell, his mistress and biographer, and worried about how she handled them in an interview she taped with him.
The criminal information filed in federal court in North Carolina states that from August 2011 to April 5, 2013, Petraeus did "unlawfully and knowingly'' remove classified materials and retained them at "unauthorized'' locations. Petraeus agreed to plead guilty to one criminal count of mishandling classified information.
The plea agreement includes a recommendation of two years probation and a $40,000 fine.
Petraeus declined to comment. An attorney for Petraeus, Robert Barnett, also declined to comment on the plea deal.
In court documents filed in support of the government's case, prosecutors alleged that Petraeus, while commander in Afghanistan, maintained eight so-called black books that contained classified and unclassified notes he took during meetings, conferences and briefings. And in late August 2011, he delivered the books to the private Washington residence where Broadwell — his biographer and mistress— was staying during a week-long trip to the area.
"The D.C. private residence was not approved for the storage of classified information,'' the documents state.
Among the mass of sensitive information contained in the books were the "identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions … and deliberative discussions from high-level National Security Council meetings, and discussions with the president of the United States.''
Also contained in the "black books'' was national defense information, including secret code word information.
In a conversation recorded by Broadwell, she asked Petraeus about the whereabouts of the black books, and he acknowledged their sensitivity.
"By the way, where are your black books?'' Broadwell asks Petraeus, according to a transcript of an Aug. 4, 2011, conversation. "Um, well, they're really — I mean they are highly classified, some of them."
Yet, later that month Petraeus sent Broadwell an e-mail in which he "agreed to provide the black books to his biographer'' and left the binders there between Aug. 28 and Sept. 1.
The court documents also state that Petraeus lied to FBI agents Oct. 26, 2012, when they questioned him at CIA headquarters. Asked about his handling of classified information, Petraeus stated that he "had never provided any classified information to his biographer and he had never facilitated the provision of classified information to his biographer.''
"These statements were false,'' the court documents state. "Defendant David Howell Petraeus then and there knew that he previously shared the black books with his biographer.''
After acknowledging the affair and resigning from the CIA in November 2012, Petraeus signed an agency "security exit form,'' in which he assured authorities that there was "no classified material in my possession, custody or control at this time.''
"At the time he provided this assurance, the black books were still in the Petraeus residence,'' the court documents state.
A statement from the Justice Department added: "The criminal Information charges the defendant with one count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1924. The plea agreement and corresponding statement of facts, both signed by the defendant, indicate that he will plead guilty to the one-count criminal Information."
Petraeus was the most lauded general in the post-9/11 era, having devised the counterinsurgency strategy that tamped down violence in Iraq but did not result in creating the conditions he deemed necessary to build an inclusive government. U.S. troops withdrew in 2011, but now 3,000 have returned to advise Iraqi forces battling Islamic State extremists.
Petraeus went on to lead Central Command, which oversees military operations stretching from the Middle East to Afghanistan. President Obama chose him to command of all forces in Afghanistan after Gen. Stanley McChrystal was fired in 2010 after his staff was quoted in Rolling Stone magazine making disparaging remarks about politicians, including Vice President Biden.
It was in Afghanistan that Broadwell, an Army intelligence officer, met and traveled with Petraeus several times for research on her book, All In, the Education of David Petraeus. They maintain that their affair began after Petraeus left the military. In 2011 Obama named Petraeus to lead the CIA.
Petraeus, who holds a doctorate from Princeton, has been teaching and advising a venture capital firm in New York.
He retains supporters in Washington, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
"With the Department of Justice investigation now complete, Gen. Petraeus has pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor," McCain said in a statement. "He has apologized and expressed deep regret for this situation, and I believe it is time to consider this matter closed. At a time of grave security challenges around the world, I hope that Gen. Petraeus will continue to provide his outstanding service and leadership to our nation, as he has throughout his distinguished career."
d-usa wrote: Does this have any effect on his military retirement?
I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that federal benefits are pretty hard to lose once you have retired. Google says it's only for stuff like treason, espionage, etc; and even then he pleaded out to a misdemeanor, not a felony.
I imagine any conviction could lose him his security clearance though, which would have pretty hard consequences for someone who now consults in a very specific field the way he does.
d-usa wrote: Does this have any effect on his military retirement?
I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that federal benefits are pretty hard to lose once you have retired. Google says it's only for stuff like treason, espionage, etc; and even then he pleaded out to a misdemeanor, not a felony.
I imagine any conviction could lose him his security clearance though, which would have pretty hard consequences for someone who now consults in a very specific field the way he does.
If this was just about anyone else, he would lose his clearance. Stuff at his level, has a pretty high chance of being swept under a rug, due to his status though. It happens all the time, sadly.
Ouze wrote: 2 months of probation and a fine do seem a little light.
RHIP
Honestly, the cost of a trial if it only would have gotten him a few months prison time would have been a waste. And who knows what embarrassing stuff (not just for Petraeus) would have come out.
If this was just about anyone else, he would lose his clearance. Stuff at his level, has a pretty high chance of being swept under a rug, due to his status though. It happens all the time, sadly.
I doubt he holds anything close to the clearance he had when he was still a gov't employee.
Ouze wrote: 2 months of probation and a fine do seem a little light.
RHIP
Honestly, the cost of a trial if it only would have gotten him a few months prison time would have been a waste. And who knows what embarrassing stuff (not just for Petraeus) would have come out.
If this was just about anyone else, he would lose his clearance. Stuff at his level, has a pretty high chance of being swept under a rug, due to his status though. It happens all the time, sadly.
I doubt he holds anything close to the clearance he had when he was still a gov't employee.
Depending on what he has been doing for the White House, it's still possible he still holds the same level of clearance. However, he would of course not have the same ability to pretty much have carte blanch access to any information he wants like would have at those former positions.
One hammered by UCMJ and behind bars in a Federal pen to undergo sex change therapy or something paid for by the American tax payers (was removed from military confinement)
One in Russia courtesy of Putin and more likely employed by the KGB..eerrr GRU(?)
Maybe that explains Petraeus's light sentence? If he thought they would give him more, he would have defected to Russia like Snowden, who knew he'd never get a sweet deal like the General.
Manchu wrote: Maybe that explains Petraeus's light sentence? If he thought they would give him more, he would have defected to Russia like Snowden, who knew he'd never get a sweet deal like the General.
Could a Judge have ordered him put on a "No Fly List" or some such thing because he would be a flight risk?
Easy E wrote: I guess Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden didn't have the right political connections.
I don't think the crimes are comparable.
For these types of charges, intent has a lot to do with it.
Releasing info to someone/some agency you KNOW will allow the bad guys to have access to it, and when you state your intent is to hurt the government, and stealing the info with the intent to do so is a lot different from showing personal notes to a biographer who had a clearance but no 'need to know' who was not going to further disseminate the info.
Damage done to security interests also comes into play during sentencing. And again, the TONS of stuff Snowden and Manning stole and passed on are far more damaging that what Petraeus did, his crap never went further than his mistress.
But if you REALLY want to go with 'political connections' being the defining difference, feel free.
Different Spanks for Different Ranks. Anyone claiming he didn't get off light because he was a 4-star general and director of the CIA who knew where skeletons were buried is deluding themselves. This is a travesty. How am I supposed to tell a PFC/SPC to straighten up and fly right when Generals McChrystal, Petraeus, and Sinclair all get off with slaps on the wrist? It's disgraceful and I'm surprised at some of the people defending this sentence.
I get that Petraeus's leaks didn't lead to a far reaching and damaging security breach, but just for once the generals who lecture me and other soldiers/sailors/marines constantly on UCMJ and "zero-tolerance" and honor and integrity should be made to pay when they are shown to possess none of those things.
CptJake wrote: Just out of curiosity, what crime did McCrystal commit?
Arguably, Article 88 - Contempt towards Officials. Granted, I think his alleged transgressions are the least of the three I named and thus he was allowed to retire. However, tell me that someone accused of Sinclair's or Petraeus's crimes but in the rank of E4/5 instead of O7/9 wouldn't be spending time making big rocks into small rocks.
Orlanth wrote: Actually the mistress receiving secrets from a high ranking official via the bedroom is a classic move of a professional intelligence organisation. With many many examples.
I would be 0% surprised if the mistress was actively working for the KGB, Chinese Intelligence or Mossad at first guess. Or perhaps for one of the European nations.
I think it is important that you respond more than three months after the initial posting when I have no idea what was originally talked about. Much good. So wow.
Ahtman wrote: I think it is important that you respond more than three months after the initial posting when I have no idea what was originally talked about. Much good. So wow.
Easy E wrote: I guess Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden didn't have the right political connections.
Agreed. This has been a total whitewash.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: Different Spanks for Different Ranks. Anyone claiming he didn't get off light because he was a 4-star general and director of the CIA who knew where skeletons were buried is deluding themselves. This is a travesty. How am I supposed to tell a PFC/SPC to straighten up and fly right when Generals McChrystal, Petraeus, and Sinclair all get off with slaps on the wrist? It's disgraceful and I'm surprised at some of the people defending this sentence.
I get that Petraeus's leaks didn't lead to a far reaching and damaging security breach, but just for once the generals who lecture me and other soldiers/sailors/marines constantly on UCMJ and "zero-tolerance" and honor and integrity should be made to pay when they are shown to possess none of those things.
You can bet your last dollar that Private Joe from Alabama would have been looking at 20-30 if he had done something similar to Petraeus.
Personally, I don't have a lot of faith in US military justice. Wipe out a village in Vietnam, you get a Presidential pardon, mistreat prisoners in Iraq, you get a slap off the wrist.
They should have made an example of him, because it sends out the wrong message to the lower ranks.
Easy E wrote: I guess Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden didn't have the right political connections.
Agreed. This has been a total whitewash.
I would love to see something (besides emotion) comparing each. From what they did, why they did it, and the damage.
I think if you could remain even the tiniest bit objective, you would be forced to admit what Petraeus did in no way resembles the other cases.
I'm not asking for him to be treated like a murderer, but it's a high profile case, and in my view, every time the US has dealt with these types of high profile cases in recent years, politics seems to trump justice. Just my view.
Easy E wrote: I guess Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden didn't have the right political connections.
Agreed. This has been a total whitewash.
I would love to see something (besides emotion) comparing each. From what they did, why they did it, and the damage.
I think if you could remain even the tiniest bit objective, you would be forced to admit what Petraeus did in no way resembles the other cases.
I'm not asking for him to be treated like a murderer, but it's a high profile case, and in my view, every time the US has dealt with these types of high profile cases in recent years, politics seems to trump justice. Just my view.
Great, so explain what you know about his crime, to include what he was charged with, and the severity of the damage and why you don't think the sentence fits.
Because all I'm seeing is hyperbole about 'Political Connections' and 'Rank' and comparing the case to Manning and Snowden but without ACTUALLY comparing them. But no actual facts of the case.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In one case you have a competent systems admin guy who decides to steal a ton of info and take it to our enemies. In fact, he applied for the position he was in with intent to steal classified info.
In another you have a kid who was a gakky soldier (leadership failed him, he should have been kicked out way before he did what he did) who again steals a ton of classified data and passes it on to an organization he knows will publish it in such a way that the bad guys will see it. All because he 'had issues'.
In the other case you have a guy who has several decades of good service to his country who cheats on his wife, and lets the hoe is cheating with (who happens to also be his biographer and does have a clearance) see his personal notes (which are indeed classified). The info goes nowhere else.
Do you really think these cases SHOULD be treated the same?
If you do, I think the political views you hold are blinding you.
Easy E wrote: I guess Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden didn't have the right political connections.
Agreed. This has been a total whitewash.
I would love to see something (besides emotion) comparing each. From what they did, why they did it, and the damage.
I think if you could remain even the tiniest bit objective, you would be forced to admit what Petraeus did in no way resembles the other cases.
I'm not asking for him to be treated like a murderer, but it's a high profile case, and in my view, every time the US has dealt with these types of high profile cases in recent years, politics seems to trump justice. Just my view.
Great, so explain what you know about his crime, to include what he was charged with, and the severity of the damage and why you don't think the sentence fits.
Because all I'm seeing is hyperbole about 'Political Connections' and 'Rank' and comparing the case to Manning and Snowden but without ACTUALLY comparing them. But no actual facts of the case.
With all due respect CptJake, you cannot be so naïve to think that a former CIA director and 4 star general, will receive the same treatment as Private Joe from Alabama for similar crimes.
He's walking away because a man in his position knows where the bodies are buried, and knows stuff that will embarrass the Obama administration.
Obama does not need this headache and it's the easiest thing in the world for POTUS to give him a slap off the wrist, and sweep it under the carpet.
I would argue that Snowden and Manning were not trying to hurt anyone, instead they were trying to educate the public about what is being done in their name under a shadow of secrecy.
If you are so set on intent CPTJake, then I think you need to rethink your own argument. The Iintent was to help the public and the electorate by Manning and Snowden. In that regard, they succeeded, but at the cost of the military and troops potentially.
The General's intent was even less noble. He wanted to get his biography written. Possibly to share it with the electorate and public to help them make better decisions. However, I'm sur ethe moeny we would make helped too.
So, I would avoid adding intent into the discussion because it only undermines your argument. Besides, intent is never really known as Manning, Snowden, and Petraeaus are the only sources of truth on the subject, and they clearly have a bias.
Sure the ACLU is terrible at protecting civil liberties and is a lobbying group, but it is the best lobbying group we've got for protecting civil liberties.
As for the intent piece, I don't think we can argue about intent as that can not clearly be seen. That is like arguing about opinions.
Once you remove intent, the question is, did Petraeaus, Manning, and Snowden all share classified intelligence? The answer is yes. Then, why the vastly different reactions from the government to the same "crime"?
Easy E wrote: Sure the ACLU is terrible at protecting civil liberties and is a lobbying group, but it is the best lobbying group we've got for protecting civil liberties.
As for the intent piece, I don't think we can argue about intent as that can not clearly be seen. That is like arguing about opinions.
Once you remove intent, the question is, did Petraeaus, Manning, and Snowden all share classified intelligence? The answer is yes. Then, why the vastly different reactions from the government to the same "crime"?
It's not the same "crime", neither in what was shared or who it was shared with. There's a reason why different levels of classification exist. To use an analogy, Snowden and Manning saw what they thought was an infected finger and chopped off the entire arm without anethesia and some people are cheering them on because they agree the finger was infected. Its unbelievable.
On the other hand Petraeus isn't being punished for giving Broadwell access but for taking his classified notes home to a location not approved for classified storage.
Try an understand the difference and stop making inaccurate comparisons.
Jerram wrote: On the other hand Petraeus isn't being punished for giving Broadwell access but for taking his classified notes home to a location not approved for classified storage.
This straddles the line between embellishment and flat out dishonesty, since the "location not approved for classified storage" was her fething laptop. I mean, claiming that's not giving her access is a bit of a stretch.
I thought she got her intel from a black binder note pad/Leadership Pad those of us carry around in the military. She did not have CAC access to his Outlookyadayda.
Manning got nailed by UCMJ
Snowden going to get nailed (eventually/maybe not) by Federal Law
Jerram wrote: On the other hand Petraeus isn't being punished for giving Broadwell access but for taking his classified notes home to a location not approved for classified storage.
This straddles the line between embellishment and flat out dishonesty, since the "location not approved for classified storage" was her fething laptop. I mean, claiming that's not giving her access is a bit of a stretch.
I never claimed he did or did not give her access. I claimed that he is being punished for where he stored them not for giving her access. From the article 2 pages back that you posted, "The criminal information filed in federal court in North Carolina states that from August 2011 to April 5, 2013, Petraeus did "unlawfully and knowingly'' remove classified materials and retained them at "unauthorized'' locations. Petraeus agreed to plead guilty to one criminal count of mishandling classified information. " And since none of us here know either the various classification of items in the notes or the various tickets Broadwell had punched none of us know how much of a grey area her access was, but claiming it's the same level as the damage done by Manning/Snowden is either ignorance or dishonesty.
Sure, but as far as the latter, I have not done so, so I guess it's not me that's ignorant and/or dishonest
I don't seriously expect repercussions for politically connected people who leak or mishandle classified information; after all I remember the Sandy Berger fiasco.
It sort of feels like he got the right verdict for what he did. He shouldn't have done it in the first place, obviously, but no real damage seems to have come out of it. So the problem was officially acknowledged at least, the fine was maximum but still probably just a token fine in the grand scheme of things. Are there likely to be any repercussions for him, or will it just return to business as usual?
In theory, he is now a convict, and that may effect future jobs.
He is still a Big Name and because of his participation is some major world events he will still be sought out on the lecture circuit and as a consultant.
Torga_DW wrote: It sort of feels like he got the right verdict for what he did. He shouldn't have done it in the first place, obviously, but no real damage seems to have come out of it. So the problem was officially acknowledged at least, the fine was maximum but still probably just a token fine in the grand scheme of things. Are there likely to be any repercussions for him, or will it just return to business as usual?
No real damage came out of the Snowden or Manning leaks, either, except to the image of the US on an international stage... which was, frankly, a well-earned embarrassment.
I can't speak for manning, but i don't believe snowden should be charged with anything at all. He was a whistleblower. But then, there's a good reason most people don't blow the whistle.
Snowden was not a whistle blower, unless the Chinese and Russians are the legitimate recipients of info from legitimate whistle blowers. Had he taken his stolen info to congress he may have fit the definition.
And as for the belief there was no damage done by Manning and Snowden, we'll have to disagree.
