"He also admitted misleading federal investigators."
Just this (lying to feds) is a felony and one year in jail for you and me. I guess if Obama likes you you're fine.
The US Department of Justice has reached a settlement with General David Petraeus allowing the former military leader and ex-head of the CIA to avoid prison for handing over classified information to his lover. Petraeus has agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge: one count of unauthorized removal and retention of …
Just as a best practices note - you might want to be a bit more subtle to get your wisdom out there.
While not condoning any behavior outside of the proscribed (military officer, senior gov't official), I think that he should be shown the same compassion as other leakers of intelligence.
Unless you were born just a couple of years ago (and I can believe it based on your brilliant post), this type of shit has been going on well before this and prior administrations. Please post your past brilliance re Judith Miller or Libby the Scooter.
Personally, having been around more than your limited time, I can pull up hundreds of cases where leaks were made from within and without the administration. The only time they are prosecuted is when it serves the political purposes.
Well said @elDog
The court document referenced in the article is required reading if anyone wants a better sense of how this tragedy (and it does have all the attributes of a Greek tragedy) occurred.
Unarguably the general showed abysmally poor judgment, professionally and, one strongly suspects, personally. In agreeing to this settlement, however, the General took the only honorable option. And, while it is out of character for me so say so, it appears that the government not have behaved so badly.
The court documents lay out the criteria for what generically constitutes classified information. Information that is potentially seriously damaging to the nation's security frequently appears in unclassified articles. It may well be that only a handful of cleared individuals within the government have the knowledge to understand the significance of the information. But it occurs.
The inverse also applies: Information copied verbatim from unclassified literature very frequently winds up being marked as highly classified in government documents.
Good security practice demands, then, that speculation regarding the potential classification of information be neither confirmed nor denied.
The court documents imply that the General's personal notes did not carry any formal classification markings, and thus, were not subject to formal document control. What the plea agreement concedes is that the government could, beyond any reasonable doubt, prove that information in the General's notebooks revealed information that has been deemed classified and properly marked in the formal sense.
Several things stand out about this case. The government is not claiming that an actual compromise of the information to persons or entities hostile to the US occurred. The general is conceding that his actions did, in fact, constitute violations of security procedures. And there is absolutely nothing to be gained, and much to be lost by pursuing confirmation or denial of the actual classification of the General's personal notes.
@eldog
I agree with most of your post, however, do you not think motivation should play a part in the decision. Also just because people in the past 'got away with it' doesn't mean it's correct. This isn't a case like Manning, he wasn't whistle blowing to try and highlight a wrong, he was leaking classified information (of unclear importance) in return for sex, for no other reason than for boom boom. There was no greater cause, he was just trying to impress a younger lady and score some honey. That an officer in his position can be so easily conned when he has access to such privileged information is worrying. That he lied about it is probably the greater crime given the suggestion that the information wasn't top secret but rather personal notes.
I don't think an example should be made of him purely because of his rank, but nor should he be let off lightly because others in the past have used their political connections to secure a lighter sentence. Continuing an injustice does not make it any less unjust.
As to his sentence, honestly without knowing exactly how much potential trouble it may have caused it is hard to say where on the scale the punishment should fall. He has no doubt been disgraced and this will affect his personal life as well as future earnings. The man is a disgrace and betrayed the men and women he was sworn to serve and when caught brought further disgrace by attempting to lie about it.
Not clear at all. The issue is muddied by the fact that she is also legitimately his biographer. Thus the Black Books are precisely the sorts of papers biographers seek.
He still should be prosecuted for failure to protect classified information.
I'm not sure the sentence is adequate. Even with that, I can't help having the feeling it was a politically motivated prosecution. He was an obstacle to implementing policies The Big 0 wanted.
Not quite.
The docs were leaked to a person that at least at some point held some level of security clearance and were not released into the public domain.
So the rule applied is actually slightly different and should be slightly different because the person who received the leaks personally benefitted from them financially (she wrote books on the subject after all). So this falls under a different set of sections of the penal code.
@Tom13
Fair enough.
However, I'd opine (if asked) that Snowden was more responsible in his disclosure, both because it was purposeful, and also because it was thoughtful. Snowden segregated the duties such that others were responsible for sifting through the data, interpreting it, and deciding what and what to release it.
Petraeus was simply sloppy. He was irresponsible in handing over his notes that contained classified materials, which he would not have done if he'd been thinking about it (at least, God, I hope he was not thinking about it!).
Which deserves the harsher punishment? And what exactly is being punished?
I was always under the impression that we granted leniency for spur of the moment not premeditation. That would imply sloppy get a lesser punishment than careful planning.
And I'm not aware that releasing classified information to the enemy is ever responsible. If as you say my analysis is "fair enough", you must concede that Snowden DID release classified data to the enemies of the US. I do understand that you are of the opinion that the data either should not have been classified, or should never have been gathered in the first place. But as things stand, the data were gathered under the law, and the law protects the data.
I seem to recall that the CIA hacked into the computers of the White House computers of the investigors who were looking into the CIA torture.
Now we have their boss admitting that he mislead federal investigators - I wonder where the troops got it from.
If any other country had agencies and law enforcement behaving the way that they do in the US, it would be labelled as a rogue country or a mafia state.
Oh good grief. I knew there must be some kind of law that meant we had to provide cosy sinecures for our own establishment apparatchiks, but now we have to make provision for americans too? Mind you, Save the Children US think Blair is a humanitarian, so maybe it goes both ways for once... https://charitywatchuk.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/save-the-children-blair/
"now you understand why the Chinese (and others) used eunuchs to run their civil service."
The eunuchs were used to serve the Empress (and other court ladies). However some eunuchs did manage to use their influence to meddle in politics.
"If any other country had agencies and law enforcement behaving the way that they do in the US, it would be labelled as a rogue country or a mafia state."
Even rogue countries such as Colombia has certain standards:
"The former head of Colombia's secret police, Maria del Pilar Hurtado, has been found guilty of spying on politicians, judges and journalists."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-31668851