Run away!
In no particular order:
- In a tack that is being duplicated by other commentators on the left, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow essentially pronounced the scandal as much ado about nothing (Columnist E.J. Dionne dismissively referred to Petraeus’s affair as his “little secret”). See, as long as an incident involves sex, the Left’s default position is that it can’t be that bad. Maddow mocked the actions of Jill Kelley, the woman who Broadwell threatened and who alerted the FBI, saying, “Who contacts the FBI because of threatening e-mails? If I did that, they would have to set up a special division just for me.” Ha ha. How many of your threatening e-mails credibly suggested that the head of an intelligence agency was having an illicit affair with an unstable wacko, Rachel? Kelley did the responsible, intelligent thing given the possible national security implications. But it’s certainly good to know that you wouldn’t…because it’s only sex, of course.
- Other pundits are complaining that the FBI became involved when what Petraeus did “wasn’t a crime.” Yes, it’s the “It’s legal” rationalization. Why people who can’t comprehend that dangerous, destructive, serious misconduct can occur without breaking any laws are allowed to write newspaper columns, I’ll never understand. Petraeus’s affair was a violation of the ethics rules, in an intelligence agency with major responsibilities in national security. That is serious, inherently dangerous, and easily could have led to security breaches that were illegal. If a leader materially, knowingly and publicly violates an ethics rule, he cannot lead. This is why Petraeus, who understands this, resigned, despite the certainty that the Rachel Maddows of the media would have been happy to shrug off his actions as “no big deal.” …because it’s only sex, and “it’s legal.”
- Kelley still boarded the ethics train wreck, not because of her actions in response to Broadwell’s threat, but in light of the revelation that she was maintaining a hot e-mail relationship with Gen. John R. Allen, the commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan. The FBI has uncovered between 20,000 and 30,000 pages of primarily e-mails containing “potentially inappropriate” communication between Allen and Kelley. Wait, what? Between 20,000 and 30,000 pages? What the hell is going on with our generals? This is obsessive, unhealthy behavior, even if he’s just writing her limericks and recipes. Something is serious amiss in the ethical culture of the U.S. military leadership
- Meanwhile, the same day Petraeus resigned, Lockheed Martin learned that Christopher Kubasik, its CEO designate, had an affair with a subordinate employee in violation of that company’s ethics code. Kubasik, current vice chairman, president and chief operating officer, was to have become CEO on Jan. 1. Lockheed fired him. He didn’t do anything illegal either. As a military contractor that, along with its rival Boeing, Lockheed has been burned by ethics scandals and white collar crime. Also like Boeing, it has learned the lessons of exemplary leadership the hard way (Boeing also had to fire a successful CEO, Harry Stonecipher, for an office affair.) As you hear various pundits claim that Petraeus shouldn’t have had to step down, understand that this opinion proves that they have no idea what they are talking about.
- Consider this: when Gen Petraeus learned the details of the John Edwards scandal, isn’t it likely that he thought, “What a degenerate fool! A man running for President, with a terminally ill wife, trusted by so many, falling for an ambitious younger woman whose job is to flatter him with fawning videos? I would never behave so disgracefully.” Yet an ambitious, attractive, female journalist enters his world, seeking to write a fawning biography, presents a stunning contrast to the general’s matronly wife, and he falls for it, just like Edwards. How could this happen? It is Restraint Bias, the dangerous tendency we all have to believe that we are less corruptible and vulnerable to temptation than everyone else. If Petraeus could have thought clearly about the strong temptations that might be created by a hardbodied beauty 20 years his junior, to a man feeling his age at 60 and perhaps yearning for one last romantic adventure, he might not have allowed a woman like Broadwell to get so close. In this respect, it is a cautionary tale.
- Speaking of Edwards, did you know that the North Carolina Bar has not seen bit to relieve him of his law license (or levy any discipline at all) despite many formal complaints ? This means that cheating on your cancer-riddled wife while running for President on a platform of moral responsibility, having a love child with your mistress who was a paid consultant in your organization, lying to the press and public about it, conspiring to have your married aide publicly accept the child as his, and allowing your campaign chairman to pay for your mistress to go into hiding, does not qualify as conduct that calls into question a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness and fitness to practice law in North Carolina.
- Finally, heere is a minor but memorable passenger on this latest Ethics Train Wreck: KMGH, the ABC affiliate in Denver, inadvertently ran a photoshopped ( and funny, and obscene) version of Broadwell’s bookjacket on the air.
______________________________________
Sources:
Graphic: Bossip
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
I’m all for searching for any small glimmer of ethical behavior in this trainwreck. I’ll give Petraeus his propers about resigning, but it’s pretty difficult to find anything else to mention.
I think it might get harder in the unfolding to find ethical behavior to commend, but on the bright side (as far as finding things to write about) there’ll be a LOT of unethical behavior to mention.
Is this a generational thing?
Petraeus
Allen
Sandusky
Lockheed
Edwards
Lance Armstrong
Paterno
Clinton
…
…
Or is this a modern technology has revealed peoples private lives more readily thing?
I know that people in positions of leadership in the past have behaved improperly, but lately, it seems like a weekly revelation, that some trusted leader from our current leading generation is corrupt
While I don’t disagree with anything Jack wrote, tex, I do believe that technology makes it a LOT easier to be caught. And shenanigans that were once the province of bar room whispers are now trending topics on Twitter.
Don’t forget Spitzer, Sanford, Schwarzenegger and Weiner.
Although this is another top article — I’d like to glean a bit more information about the 20,000 – 30,000 pages. Why such a lenient variation between the amount of pages — 10,000 pages is equivalent to approximately 15-20 Stephen King novels! I don’t think the entire Shakespearean library comprises of that much typed information. And given 20,000 pages as the base – what is that comprised of ? Surveys and forwarded Viagra ad’s ? Over how long ? Is that including the pages of PDF and word documents that are marked “secret” ? How much “blank” space is this (eg. Is there only one line of text in each “page”)
Either this is obsession beyond comprehension and normal human capabilities, or something is definitely amiss with either the media again portraying the details as much more sinister to garner a general public hate using their “Kings Pass”.
I do not know about the woman in questions reputation as this is the first time I have heard about either party, so I can not attest one way or the other and as a result, I am looking at this from a non-bias position.
If this woman is known to disclose trade secrets or is a known national threat, then this is something that should be tried in Military tribunal while both wait for sentencing in Guantanamo bay (or similar) — both because the director of intelligence would have already known this.
If the woman is not a real threat, then I don’t quite understand where one persons sexual life is the concern of so many — unless this is affecting his ability to perform his duties. I am thinking this is more of an issue given his position of power which makes him a celebrity of some sort, and thus vulnerable to being highlighted in the media negatively which seems all too common as of late. Yet another persons life has been thrown to the dogs because of what happens in the bedroom.
The only way I can agree with condemning of this person (or any other) is if any of the following are true:
1. National secrets were revealed – or intent to reveal was present.
2. There is in fact another real threat that can not allow these two to be together.
3. If the director is married, and this person is a side “fling”
4. If anything non-consensual or illegal transpired.
Aside from that, I would have to say, keep the bedroom out of the news. This next statement may seem like a rationalization, however I feel it must be said — any sex before marriage is unethical, so if that is the presence for this witch-hunt, then I would imagine newspapers should be back in full swing producing 20,000 page prints daily given the amount of transgressions going on — and that’s just the White House !
Oh, I know! I just got aggravated writing that short list!
Could you weigh in on my question?
Is this a generational thing (knowing that all generations have their scandals, but this one seems to produce them at a regular rate)?
or is this just a consequence of technology making private lives much less private and more easy to discover just how corrupt every generation may have been?
If I had to take an educated guess, I would have to say it is brew fermenting of both technology and current mindset. What we are seeing is essentially only what we are supposed to see (most likely), technology being a probably excuse for the method of discovery. The fact is this technology has been available much longer than John Q public is aware, and thus this information exposure is usually sinister at it’s roots.
Consider, do you think the Director of Intelligence — responsible for keeping some of the Nations most top level secrets, a secret, would allow for this knowledge to become public information without any say in the matter ? You would have to wonder, if he can’t keep his “e-mails” in confidence, how secret all the top level information could really be. This has the stink of a diversion to keep public attention from something else — perhaps another SOPA type law trying to be passed under our noses again ?
When I initially responded, I was thinking in kind to the article itself, however upon further inspection — this doesn’t even make any sense. How could the person responsible for guarding the countries heaviest secrets be so careless as to let someone sniff in the backdoor and glean access to his e-mail — his SECURE messaging system. And if he was under “investigation” … what was the original reason ? Or were they just out, to oust him anyway and were just looking for something they could use.
I dunno, but something sinister is lurking in the shadows here, as there most definitely a lot more than meets the eye.
No, I agree that the timeliness of the revelation of the Petraeus affair is thoroughly suspect. But that still doesn’t deny the seeming volume of scandals the current generation in charge produces.
Here’s how I think the conversation went, in summary:
Petraeus: I’m going to testify on Benghazi.
Cover-artists: No, you aren’t.
Petraeus: Yes, I am. It’s the right thing to do.
Cover-artist: You wouldn’t want us to ruin you about your whole Broadwell affair would you?
Petraeus: …..
Cover-artist: Good, we have an understanding then.
Petraeus: Actually, yes, I am going to testify, it’s the right thing to do.
Cover-artist: OK, we’ve come out with the affair, you’ll be forced out in disgrace, no one will believe your testimony.
Petraeus: Ok, you can’t fire me if I resign. I’m still testifying.
Cover-artist: Fine, we’ll drag you down thoroughly, no one one will care about you.
Any evidence of this?
Of course not, why I predicated with “Here’s how I *think* the conversation went”
So, it’s worthless BS. Got it.
A bit unfair, don’t you think? All hypotheses are “BS” by that formula.
This isn’t a hypothesis as nothing is being tested. This is a statement about what someone believes occurred. If they don’t have valid reasons for their statement, it’s BS. He might as well have said he thinks it went like this:
Petraeus: I am the most awesome person in existence
Flying unicorn: No you’re not
Petraeus: *cry*
In investigation, a hypothesis is followed by investigation, and I assume this one is indeed being investigated—aka “tested.”. You can’t look for something unless you know you are looking for it. I have no idea why the Hammer stated it as fact. He’s usually more careful than that.
I hypothesize that Harry Reid is a pederast. If someone investigates it, does that mean my comment that I think Harry Reid is a pederast isn’t worthless? Unless there’s some reason to believe this, it should be rejected as an unfair attack.
No, but that’s not right, tgt. The Harry Reid smear was intentionally false; nobody believed it. It was put out there specifically to harm Reid. I assume that Krauthammer does have a reason for believing this, as a way to explain the weird time line in all this, which does need an explanation. Until the real explanation is established, any speculation within the facts is a valid hypothesis.
If someone believes a smear is true, then it’s okay? The smears that Obama was a Manchurian candidate were fair at one time? It shouldn’t matter what people believe…just what’s reasonable to believe. texagg04 says he doesn’t have ANY evidence to suggest that’s how things went, so it’s not reasonable to suggest that’s how things went.
When a situation is not definitely decided, some speculation is fine, but not all speculation is fair or even sane. For example, if you stop blogging for a week, we could speculate that you’re sick or travelling, but speculation that you’re a serial killer on the lamb would be unethical and worthless. People get sick all the time and we can see from your previous comments that you travel regularly and sometimes have connection issues when doing so. We don’t have reason to suggest you’re a serial killer…or, at least, I don’t.
If Krauthammer can show that his speculation is reasonable, then he’d be fine. For texagg04’s statements though, he has already said he can’t justify them. As such, his statements are worthless, and since they are serious accusations, I’d say they are also unethical.
Yes, I agree that saying “I think X is true, and that’s just my opinion” without more is unethical. That was the approach of the idiot blogger who was upset that I called out her on her “what about Caylee?” lament about the Casey Anthony verdict.
Given the government’s past of wagging the dog on occasion, it isn’t worthless BS and is a plausible option for what could have occurred.
I have a feeling (note I’ve predicated this one also) that your vitriol is likely derived from my comment not passing your narrow world-view of “Does this comment really piss me off?” or “Does this comment potentially make allegations that could tarnish my view of an infallible leader of my nation?” litmus test.
I do like your sign out “As such, his statements are worthless, and since they are serious accusations, I’d say they are also unethical.”
almost like a quiet “Dear Controller of this Blog, please declare texagg04 unethical to assuage my anguish”
Given the government’s past of wagging the dog on occasion, it isn’t worthless BS and is a plausible option for what could have occurred.
The same standard puts 9/11 trutherism as fair game. Fail.
I have a feeling (note I’ve predicated this one also) that your vitriol is likely derived from my comment not passing your narrow world-view of “Does this comment really piss me off?” or “Does this comment potentially make allegations that could tarnish my view of an infallible leader of my nation?” litmus test.
I don’t think Obama is infallible in the least. His failure to prosecute torturers and his general civil rights record are horrible. I’ve been quite clear on that. If you’d done a little homework, you’d see that what upsets me are invalid arguments of all stripes.
I do like your sign out “As such, his statements are worthless, and since they are serious accusations, I’d say they are also unethical.”
almost like a quiet “Dear Controller of this Blog, please declare texagg04 unethical to assuage my anguish”
Well that settles that, you clearly haven’t read any of my other comments. Your suppositions about me seem to be just as fair as your suppositions about this situation.
“The same standard puts 9/11 trutherism as fair game. Fail.”
Except, the assertions of 9/11 truthers, depending on which one you ask, require a great more implausible assumptions to be made than does the hypothetical that I described. So the failure is yours. You have a penchant for flawed analogies, I’ll remember this in the future and adapt for you.
“If you’d done a little homework, you’d see that what upsets me are invalid arguments of all stripes.”
Sorry, I don’t have the tgt textbook and certainly am not going to scour the internet seeking posts by you. I can merely interpret the vitriol with which you respond to me.
“Well that settles that, you clearly haven’t read any of my other comments. Your suppositions about me seem to be just as fair as your suppositions about this situation.”
Mmmkay.
Post 9/11, the Truthers had just as much evidence as you have now. Our government leaders have been known to lie and do bad things, and this situation is beneficial to the government in power. They were still insane.
I stand by my latter statements as well. It seems that every now and then a new poster accuses me of sucking up to Jack and being a party line arguer. It’s ridiculous each time.
Your comparison is still flawed. The assumptions made by Truthers are so implausible by comparison to the assumptions of my hypothetical. You are the King of flawed analogies.
“I stand by my latter statements as well. It seems that every now and then a new poster accuses me of sucking up to Jack and being a party line arguer. It’s ridiculous each time.”
So others before me have observed your behavior, analyzed it, and come to the same conclusions independtly of each other? Interesting. Don’t scientists do that when substantiating or proving theories?
For clarification, I never accused you of sucking up, only subtle invocation.
Your comparison is still flawed. The assumptions made by Truthers are so implausible by comparison to the assumptions of my hypothetical. You are the King of flawed analogies.
Along with the general belief in government shenanigans, the assumptions made were: Bush wanted a war and it’s unlikely such a coordinated attack wouldn’t be spotted.
Well, we know that Bush did want a war, and the second part is directly akin to the argument being made now.
So others before me have observed your behavior, analyzed it, and come to the same conclusions independtly of each other? Interesting. Don’t scientists do that when substantiating or proving theories?
Others have read posts on one topic and wildly generalized what that means about me…just like you did.
If 100 scientists each do a separate test where we know X leads to Y 10% of the time, it’s not right for the roughly 10 scientists who see Y to claim X leads to Y. For each post where I agree wholeheartedly with Jack, there are 2 or 3 where we go into death match mode and another dozen where we’re in partial agreement. The speculation that I’m trying to call in Jack’s approval to cover my anguish is ridiculous.
My point was that your suppositions about me were unfair. They’re huge leaps that are not supported by the evidence. The same goes for your statements about a coverup in this situation. Yes, it could conceivably occur (just like it’s conceivable that a poster is just butthurt and scared), but conceivability is not valid basis for damaging speculation.
I hope you appreciate that when I read your posts, Scott Joplin’s “Maple Leaf Rag” runs through my mind.
This is what Charles Krauthammer has stated. It’s an interesting theory, but I see no reason to assume it’s true.
Previous generations also had the same behavior, it just wasn’t brought out into the open. I’d say it’s a combination of technology and changing view points. If Clinton had been president when JFK was, the Tripp phone recordings wouldn’t have been so easy, but the press also wouldn’t have made a big deal out of it. They didn’t talk about womanizers as a negative quality.
I agree with your general point, but while the press protected JFK, if it had come out before the public that he was sleeping around and cheating on Jackie, he would have been crucified, and quite probably impeached.
I knew you knew. I was hyper-sensitive because USA Today yesterday, in its Petraeus features, had a gallery of “leaders brought down by sex scandals.” Those included: Spitzer (good), Gov. Sanford (good), Sen. Ensign (right). But also Weiner, who was really brought down by his lies and who didn’t engage in any illicit sex, and Ahnold, who wasn’t “brought down”—his scandal broke after he was already on the way out. Funny that USA Today didn’t think the two most egregious examples, one a President and one who ran for Vice President, warranted a mention: Edwards and Clinton.
And General Ward, too. The Inspector General’s redacted report is online. Panetta reduced his rank to 3 stars (which will cost him a million dollars in retirement pay over his expected lifetime) and he has to pay the Government over $87.000 he owes for improper use of travel entitlements. Except for those indiscretions, this was a valuable leader in our Country. In his case, I seriously wonder if he has a mental illness affecting his judgement, as no improprieties were found prior to the 4th star. While General Allen was busy writing those 20-30,000 pages of emails to someone with whom he was “flirting”, he was executing our Country’s war and had very little “down” time. What a prolific writer he was, indeed. My daughter said, “Why didn’t he write 20-30,000 pages to his wife?” Smart young lady. (Just an aside, during that same time frame his wife was busy nursing and then burying his dear mother). Seriously, has the stress of 11 years of wars worn their moral and ethical fibers thin? Was their emotional development arrested during puberty when their hormones reigned supreme?
This scandal certainly paints a picture of a sick culture, but I don’t think it is just the military. As you point out, the ‘liberal elite’ have pronounced this much ado about nothing, but they aren’t being hypocrites, I think they really believe it. They have spent so much time denouncing and flouting traditional morality, that they really don’t see what the big deal is. They probably behave the same way in their private lives and if all the people involved in these scandals are wrong, then so are they.
20,000 and 30,000 pages does not mean there were that many emails as so many are interpreting those numbers to mean. I have emails on projects where every time I or someone else responds it copies everything previously written. I right now numerous emails that are over a hundred pages long each.
Either way Gen. Allen’s career is done. He should retire and let this blow over.
I will say that as a Marine who was raised by a Marine flag officer and grew up around men who went on to wear numerous stars this behavior does not surprise me at all. The fact that they were dumb enough to get caught does.
” The fact that they were dumb enough to get caught “…
Unless that was part of a larger plan. Again, we are talking about the Director of Intelligence — holder of the nations secrets !
There is no “larger plan” concerning this and anyone who thinks so is an idiot.
I wouldn’t say that they’re an idiot…just that their thoughts here are idiotic.
Simply seeking a better understanding into how someone who is chartered with guarding the nations deepest darkest secrets can’t keep their email private from public scrutiny ? — this makes no sense on a colossal scale — specifics are open for speculation, logic, and deduction. I simply can not see how someones life who’s regular routine is sworn utmost secrecy can let something as simple as e-mail leak to the public.
Please advise logically how this is even possible, unless it was intentional because I am having a lot of trouble in believing that this was a “slip” or that someone of lower caliber managed to get the drop on him.
Also, your remak ‘There is no “larger plan” concerning this and anyone who thinks so is an idiot.’, it is much more likely that this event was staged than someone in this position in charge of and responsible for so much information to let something as easy to keep secure such as e-mail loose in the wild. I will refrain from catering to your level by withholding personal insult as you clearly can not see the larger picture. Please zoom out.
Your post is so full of inaccuracte statements concerning what actually happened you have proven my point about being an idiot.
Offical governmental email accounts can be accessed and monitored by the government. This is necessary for multiple reasons, including threats of espionage and general misuse of resources. This is clearly written on equipment.
I would see it as a problem if the defense department could not gain access to a General’s communications record, and that’s before we get to FOIA.
(Ignoring “Bill” and his failure at life)
tgt : JWICS, being the known system in use for communication with SIPRNet and NIPRNet being used mostly by the DoD. JWICS is the very same system that is claimed to have been the source of Wikileaks information.
The holder of DNI must have an active status in the military (usually seems to be 4 star general or admiral), but this does not mean the military has full oversight. Investigation into someones e-mail needs to go through specific channels including the approval of the Attorney General.
However, in recent light, (unconfirmed), the information was released due to the director having business relations with another female, of which the female having relations with the director “got jealous” and released their relationship to the public in a damning fashion.
That being said, it only further shows her as having serious stability issues. No matter, the directors term was almost up as the security clearance to maintain that position expires soon, and historically, I can find no evidence that anyone has ever had it renewed. Stepping down a couple months early to re-establish faith in the agency was the ethical thing to do — even if it is only a couple months premature. I am pretty sure that the SSBI required for “Special Access Clearance” (which is above “Top Secret”) or SCI would have uncovered anything suspect prior to the director taking the position.
There are numerous incorrect statements in your comment. From JWICs to the mention of the DNI position to SSBI clearances, you can’t seem to get anything right.
SSBI is “Single Scope Backround Information” — it is not a “clearance” as you have incorrectly stated “SSBI clearances”. SCI is “Special Access Clearance” and is granted only for a specific amount of time. An SSBI is one of the requirements prior to obtaining SCI.
JWICS (aka. “Joint Wordlwide Intelligence Communications System”) is the “secure” network in place for transmission of (among other things) e-mail. A simple Wikipedia search would enlighten you on any terms you may be confused with — or you can confer directly with the CIA and/or DoD
So please, inform me on where I am incorrect.
SSBI clearance is common slang in the intel community.
Petraeus was never the DNI. That was out of left field.
Clearances are routinely renewed. Hell, in the last 6 months I’ve been interviewed by 2 different investigators during standard reinvestigations of people I know. Do you think that nobody works in the CIA for more than 5 years? You live in a suburb of Baltimore and this isn’t odd.
Clearance decisions are based on the risk someone would unintentionally or intentionally fail to protect classified information. An affair isn’t predictive of that.
Background investigations are subject to all kinds of privacy restrictions and usage restrictions in furtherence of their goal: determining if someone is likely to fail to protect classified information. If people thought the intimate details of their life would be fair game for everyone they work with, that would be a large disincentive to tell the truth, or even apply for a position.
There’s more wrong, but that’s all stuff I could find quickly on the internet, so that’s all I’m willing to write.
Correction:
You live in a suburb of Baltimore and this isn’t odd.
=>
If you live in a suburb of Baltimore or Washington, contact with investigators and reinvestigations is commonplace.
However, you still fail to mention SSBI is not a clearance level. It is a common investigative routine that is one of the pre-requisites. DNI (i guess I will break that acronym down as well) — we are talking about the “Director of National Intelligence” ? — if not, then I digress, and my responses have been based on that pre-cursor. If this is the DNI, my statements do apply, and I am not incorrect of my usage of the terms and acronyms.
If this was not about the DNI, please accept this as my correction.
I never said that SSBI was a clearance level, I used the common shorthand of SSBI clearance.
DNI is Director of National Intelligence. As noted, Petraeus was not the DNI, so discussion about the DNI was irrelevant. It was a non sequitur.
Had to reply here as the site is not showing the button on tgt’s last comment.
SSBI is a type of an investigation utilized to provide decision makers information on a individual to help them determine that persons suitability to have access to classified material and at what level.
SCI is a subcategory of classified information that I won’t go into detail on as it really is not germane to this conversation.
If you have a clearence for TS or SCI access then you go through an SSBI every 5 years or as directed.
As for the affair and other scandalous issues it must be reviewed and investigated as it has an impact on the trustworthiness of a person that has access to the nation’s secrets. It is not solely a blackmail able issue but one of true trust, if that individual cannot honor their promise of fidelity to their wives can they really be expected to honor their pledge to protect the information they have access to? Beyond that telling bit of one’s character there is the process that takes in account an individual’s change of desire but it requires you to notify the access granter so that they are informed thus maintaining the good faith and trust that they have in your ability to guard the nations secrets. Any changes in status; financial, relationship or association must be reported. Not doing so is a violation in itself and can lead to loss of access, regardless if what was not reported had any bearing on trustworthiness.
Details up top are right. Below that, though, you’re in lala land.
It is not solely a blackmail able issue but one of true trust, if that individual cannot honor their promise of fidelity to their wives can they really be expected to honor their pledge to protect the information they have access to?
While this makes sense in the abstract, it’s unworkable in practice. Our intelligence agencies would be stripped bare if cheating was a disqualification. They also wouldn’t have forthright employees if they thought their indiscretions would be used against them.
Beyond that telling bit of one’s character there is the process that takes in account an individual’s change of desire but it requires you to notify the access granter so that they are informed thus maintaining the good faith and trust that they have in your ability to guard the nations secrets.
Change of desire in what sense? I don’t get it.
Any changes in status; financial, relationship or association must be reported. Not doing so is a violation in itself and can lead to loss of access, regardless if what was not reported had any bearing on trustworthiness.
Marital status changes have to be reported, not general relationship statuses and associations.
“Details up top are right. Below that, though, you’re in lala land.”
Support your “lala land”
It is not solely a blackmail able issue but one of true trust, if that individual cannot honor their promise of fidelity to their wives can they really be expected to honor their pledge to protect the information they have access to?
“While this makes sense in the abstract, it’s unworkable in practice. Our intelligence agencies would be stripped bare if cheating was a disqualification.”
Despite your skewed world view not that many people who qualify for a clearance cheat, if you have evidence that the majority of intelligence agency personnel cheat you should present it.
“They also wouldn’t have forthright employees if they thought their indiscretions would be used against them.”
Being forthright IS how you insure it is not used against you.
Beyond that telling bit of one’s character there is the process that takes in account an individual’s change of desire but it requires you to notify the access granter so that they are informed thus maintaining the good faith and trust that they have in your ability to guard the nations secrets.
“Change of desire in what sense? I don’t get it.”
If you chose to leave your wife, pick up a mistress or have an in office fling then that would qualify as a change of desire. If you make a decision in which could be exploited, bring discredit on your organization or likely lead to legal action against you then it must be reported.
“Any changes in status; financial, relationship or association must be reported. Not doing so is a violation in itself and can lead to loss of access, regardless if what was not reported had any bearing on trustworthiness.”
“Marital status changes have to be reported, not general relationship statuses and associations.”
See above
Support your “lala land”
Gladly.
My ex was an investigator for an intelligence agency. I helped her study for all her exams and she left most of her training material behind when we split up. I can firmly say that they don’t care about infidelity. That comes both from the training materials and from the fact that her unfaithfulness didn’t impact her job in the slightest.
Despite your skewed world view not that many people who qualify for a clearance cheat, if you have evidence that the majority of intelligence agency personnel cheat you should present it.
I can’t show the majority of the intel community have cheated on a significant other, but I can say that the general rate of cheating is estimated to be between 20% and 40% and is pretty stable across classes and groups. I see no reason why it wouldn’t apply to the intel community as well.
Being forthright IS how you insure it is not used against you.
That can not be reconciled with your previous statement: “As for the affair and other scandalous issues it must be reviewed and investigated as it has an impact on the trustworthiness of a person that has access to the nation’s secrets. It is not solely a blackmail able issue but one of true trust, if that individual cannot honor their promise of fidelity to their wives can they really be expected to honor their pledge to protect the information they have access to?”
If X will be used against you, then telling them about X won’t keep it from being used against you.
If you chose to leave your wife, pick up a mistress or have an in office fling then that would qualify as a change of desire.
Basic mistresses aren’t reportable. Office flings are reportable, but only for the same reason other employers require office romances to be reported. How a marriage breaks up is not reportable.
If you make a decision in which could be exploited, bring discredit on your organization or likely lead to legal action against you then it must be reported.
The first is entertainingly vague. Blackmailable is reportable, but if you’d fess instead of giving up classified information, then it’s not Blackmailable. Discreditable activities are not reportable (you don’t have to report when you’re an ass). Criminal legal activities are reportable, but we’ve strayed far from infidelity there.
See above
Yes, I can see your incorrect information. Sounds to me like you went through a briefing that generalizes the hell out of everything.
My ex was an investigator for an intelligence agency. I helped her study for all her exams and she left most of her training material behind when we split up. I can firmly say that they don’t care about infidelity. That comes both from the training materials and from the fact that her unfaithfulness didn’t impact her job in the slightest.”
What kind of investigator? For SSBIs? The training materials say that infidelity is not reportable or is not a character indicator? You can firmly say they don’t care all day long but you would be incorrect all day long as well. I also don’t think you understand the difference between an investigation and being granted a clearance, that there are different levels of clearances and access nor that the individual granting access has a great deal of leeway when it comes to granting or revoking a clearance/access, that to many it is based largely on character.
“Despite your skewed world view not that many people who qualify for a clearance cheat, if you have evidence that the majority of intelligence agency personnel cheat you should present it.
I can’t show the majority of the intel community have cheated on a significant other, but I can say that the general rate of cheating is estimated to be between 20% and 40% and is pretty stable across classes and groups. I see no reason why it wouldn’t apply to the intel community as well.”
1) Citation needed 2) The folks who are in the positions, investigated and continue to hold their clearances may be representative of every class/group but that does not mean that their infidelity or other dishonest behavior is of the same rate as the general public.
The fact is you can’t show it and your lack of understanding why it wouldn’t be the same rate for those granted clearances shows that you have no understanding of this topic.
“Being forthright IS how you insure it is not used against you.
That can not be reconciled with your previous statement: “As for the affair and other scandalous issues it must be reviewed and investigated as it has an impact on the trustworthiness of a person that has access to the nation’s secrets. It is not solely a blackmail able issue but one of true trust, if that individual cannot honor their promise of fidelity to their wives can they really be expected to honor their pledge to protect the information they have access to?”
Why can’t it? What is so difficult for you to understand? This is not a difficult premise; well maybe it is if you have no idea of what you’re talking about or how the process works.
“If X will be used against you, then telling them about X won’t keep it from being used against you.”
It may and often does, that is why self reporting is always the correct answer, not only is it the right thing to do but it also may help to insure that you keep your clearance. Your choice maybe to lie about it or hide it, you may even get away with it but if anything more comes out of it, such as a bankruptcy or public scandal and you did not report it your chance of retaining your clearance is next to nil.
“If you chose to leave your wife, pick up a mistress or have an in office fling then that would qualify as a change of desire.
Basic mistresses aren’t reportable. Office flings are reportable, but only for the same reason other employers require office romances to be reported. How a marriage breaks up is not reportable.
If you make a decision in which could be exploited, bring discredit on your organization or likely lead to legal action against you then it must be reported.
The first is entertainingly vague. Blackmailable is reportable, but if you’d fess instead of giving up classified information, then it’s not Blackmailable. Discreditable activities are not reportable (you don’t have to report when you’re an ass). Criminal legal activities are reportable, but we’ve strayed far from infidelity there. ”
You should just stop, your reading comprehension and/or logic has fled you. Your lack of knowledge on the specifics of this topic is very evident, which would be fine except you have stated that you are knowledgeable despite demonstrating you are not.
“See above
Yes, I can see your incorrect information. Sounds to me like you went through a briefing that generalizes the hell out of everything.”
You have no idea what you are talking about despite your assertion that you do. You can attack my knowledge of the subject and state it is incorrect but in reality you have shown yourself to be a liar, incapable of comprehending “training material” or a troll. Whichever it may be has diminished the esteem I held for you as an honest and forthright debater.
Steven,
Honestly, I’m getting uncomfortable with the this discussion in this context. If you want to go into nitty gritty of the first part, email Jack to pass you my email.
What I’m still good on responding to here:
1) Citations for stats: http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/03/27/how-common-are-cheating-spouses, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidelity
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/200910/marital-infidelity-how-common-is-it
etc…
2) Cheating rates in IC:
The onus is on you to show why it would be different. I can come up with fantastical reasons about people in the IC are more dedicated to doing good and the like, but the same can be said for environmentalists, and they cheat just like everyone else. Also, I didn’t say that the group of cleared people is representative of different classes and groups, just that class and group don’t seem to matter when it comes to cheating in general. You’d have to be pretty persuasive to argue that the IC community is special in this regard. General morality isn’t exactly a necessary (or desirable) IC trait.
3) It’s impossible to reconcile “They will use X against you” and “If you tell them about X, they will not use it against you.” Your attempted explanation changed the first X to “hiding X”, which is a completely different statement, and something that I thought was already implied. You stated that infidelity will be used against a prospective individual because it shows things about character. You didn’t say that lying about an affair will be used against you. It was the affair itself that you said. I agree that lying about an affair is a strike against you, but it’s because of the lying, not the affair. They don’t care if you stole a candy bar when you were 12, but if you lie about the candy bar theft? That’s troublesome.
4) You complain about my reading comprehension, but don’t ever say what I interpreted wrong. That’s SMP territory. You’re better than that.
—
Again, the details are getting to close for comfort. I suspect you understand that.
tgt,
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you had a bad day yesterday and were not up to meeting your normal standards. Here is an excerpt from the DOS adjudication guidelines; they are a quite a bit more forgiving then any of the others.
Guideline D: Sexual Behavior
12. The Concern. Sexual behavior that involves a criminal offense, indicates a personality or emotional disorder, reflects lack of judgment or discretion, or which may subject the individual to undue influence or coercion, exploitation, or duress can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. No adverse inference concerning the standards in the Guideline may be raised solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual.
13. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:
(a) sexual behavior of a criminal nature, whether or not the individual has been prosecuted;
(b) a pattern of compulsive, self-destructive, or high-risk sexual behavior that the person is unable to stop or that may be symptomatic of a personality disorder;
(c) sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress;
(d) sexual behavior of a public nature and/or that which reflects lack of discretion or judgment.
14. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:
(a) the behavior occurred prior to or during adolescence and there is no evidence of subsequent conduct of a similar nature;
(b) the sexual behavior happened so long ago, so infrequently, or under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(c) the behavior no longer serves as a basis for coercion, exploitation, or duress;
(d) the sexual behavior is strictly private, consensual, and discreet.
Guideline E: Personal Conduct
15. The Concern. Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
The following will normally result in an unfavorable clearance action or administrative termination of further processing for clearance eligibility:
(a) refusal, or failure without reasonable cause, to undergo or cooperate with security processing, including but not limited to meeting with a security investigator for subject interview, completing security forms or releases, and cooperation with medical or psychological evaluation;
(b) refusal to provide full, frank and truthful answers to lawful questions of investigators, security officials, or other official representatives in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination.
16. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying also include:
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities;
(b) deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent medical authority, or other official government representative;
(c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information;
(d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available information supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information. This includes but is not limited to consideration of:
(1) untrustworthy or unreliable behavior to include breach of client confidentiality, release of proprietary information, unauthorized release of sensitive corporate or other government protected information;
(2) disruptive, violent, or other inappropriate behavior in the workplace;
(3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations;
(4) evidence of significant misuse of Government or other employer’s time or resources;
(e) personal conduct or concealment of information about one’s conduct, that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such as (1) engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person’s personal, professional, or community standing, or (2) while in another country, engaging in any activity that is illegal in that country or that is legal in that country but illegal in the United States and may serve as a basis for exploitation or pressure by the foreign security or intelligence service or other group;
(f) violation of a written or recorded commitment made by the individual to the employer as a condition of employment;
(g) association with persons involved in criminal activity.
17. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts;
(b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or significantly contributed to by improper or inadequate advice of authorized personnel or legal counsel advising or instructing the individual specifically concerning the security clearance process. Upon being made aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the individual cooperated fully and truthfully;
(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur;
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress;
(f) association with persons involved in criminal activities has ceased or occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and regulations.
Steven,
See 14(c) and 14(d).
Also note that 13(a) fails (affairs are legal), 13(b) fails (We’re talking about affairs, not sex addiction), 13(c) fails (being honest about it disqualifies this section), and 13(d) fails (we’re not talking about public sex).
Since Section D calls out sexual behavior by name, it’s reasonable to think that Secion E is not talking about Sexual behavior. Not sure why you added that stuff in. It pretty much says that lying and hiding information from the government and failing to follow government rules can be disqualifying. The closest in that section to applying would be 16(e)(1), but that would require secondary assumptions. There are times when an affair could be a negative (with a foreign government official, with a journalist covering your work(!), with a known criminal, etc…) but affairs, in general, are not worthy of consideration under the guidelines. It’s not the affair that’s the issue there, it’s the other party.
—
Should I assume that your lack of response to 1 means that the information was sufficient for you?
Should I assume that your lack of response to 2 and 3 means that you can’t contradict my arguments?
Should I assume that your lack of response to 4 means that You can’t point to any of your words that I misinterpretted?
When you asked for evidence, I made a clear, good faith effort to provide it. That I see no equivalent response from you makes me think that you can’t back up your statements.
Been busy when I get a couple minutes I will reply.
My apologies for the delay in responding, it has been a hectic few days. If my formatting fails my apologies.
“Steven,
Honestly, I’m getting uncomfortable with the this discussion in this context. If you want to go into nitty gritty of the first part, email Jack to pass you my email.
What I’m still good on responding to here:
1) Citations for stats: http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/03/27/how-common-are-cheating-spouses, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidelity
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/200910/marital-infidelity-how-common-is-it
etc…”
I checked them out gleaned anywhere from 10-30 percent of the general public cheat. Jack can pass you my email or yours to me but I understand you not wanting to expose too much personal information online. I will just say that being an investigator is not the same as holding a position requiring special access and adjudication. Additionally there are many aspects considered and it comes down to the granter on what conduct, suitability and mitigation they are willing look past for a given position.
“2) Cheating rates in IC:
The onus is on you to show why it would be different. I can come up with fantastical reasons about people in the IC are more dedicated to doing good and the like, but the same can be said for environmentalists, and they cheat just like everyone else. Also, I didn’t say that the group of cleared people is representative of different classes and groups, just that class and group don’t seem to matter when it comes to cheating in general. You’d have to be pretty persuasive to argue that the IC community is special in this regard. General morality isn’t exactly a necessary (or desirable) IC trait.”
I cannot demonstrate it is lower for those who have undergone an SSBI and have been adjudicated. I believe it is because 1) I have vast experience with those in these positions. 2) Those in these positions have been vetted not only for access but for suitability several times before and after being given jobs. 3) Individuals generally seeking out these positions are aware personal conduct is important, scum rarely apply. 4) Your pay check is tied to your personal conduct. 5) You can have your clearance suspended by a supervisor and revoked based on input of your supervisor, any violation and suitability, this is not a very high bar and does not require “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.
I can go on and on but based on my above personal observances and reasoning thus far you will either concede some or wont. The only other thing I will point out is that even in your citations the people interviewed and the anonymous surveys were at odds with each other demonstrating that deception surrounds the subject of adultery, so even though the adultery by itself may not be sufficient enough cause in some instances the deception is, more on this later.
You can chock the above up as fantastical reasons but these folks as a whole live to a higher standard than the rest of the general public.
“3) It’s impossible to reconcile “They will use X against you” and “If you tell them about X, they will not use it against you.” Your attempted explanation changed the first X to “hiding X”, which is a completely different statement, and something that I thought was already implied. You stated that infidelity will be used against a prospective individual because it shows things about character. You didn’t say that lying about an affair will be used against you. It was the affair itself that you said. I agree that lying about an affair is a strike against you, but it’s because of the lying, not the affair. They don’t care if you stole a candy bar when you were 12, but if you lie about the candy bar theft? That’s troublesome.
I will concede that the lying is the primary importance, but not the whole issue, I will try to clarify. Understand my point is, and I have seen this time and again that individuals make a poor decision such as in this case sleep with someone other than their wife, which does impugn their character and makes them vulnerable to blackmail and the like. It also can lead to financial instability from divorce, child custody battles and substance abuse, all of which can be factors in suspension or revocation of a clearance. If you report it, as is required of any issue that could be utilized against you, then you have removed this as an issue in addition to demonstrating that you understand the vulnerability and your responsibility. Self reporting in itself is generally a mitigating factor because it shows the individual is not deceitful when it comes to the protection of classified material. To go further into your reply if infidelity is found that was not reported then it is a thread to be evaluated, it may not lead to the individual not being adjudicated but if it is found to be more than a onetime indiscretion, that it is consistent behavior on the part of the individual then yes, that can and likely will be used against the individual. Being forthright and honest far outweighs an occasional indiscretion or character flaw that is why “They will use X against you” and “If you tell them about X, they will not use it against you.” It is their job to test and probe to insure and individual is worthy of being trusted with the nations secrets.
4) You complain about my reading comprehension, but don’t ever say what I interpreted wrong. That’s SMP territory. You’re better than that.
Just to give you an idea, I won’t go at length as I want to continuing answering your other points.
1) Your inability to grasp that self reporting demonstrates that the individual is living up to expectations to safeguard classified material. That although the individual may have opened themselves up to exploitation that they reported the vulnerability thus removing much of its power to be exploited. This is not a case that must be proven in a court of law, the individual must demonstrate that they are worthy of being entrusted with national secrets and have the trust of the person granting access, this is first and foremost. You seem to be unable to grasp that when deception is occurring, include failure to report vulnerabilities; it is not just the initial activity that is the problem but the power, or appearance, of it to be potentially utilized against you. It is fine to say that “well if anyone ever tried to use it against me I would report it” but it is only when it actually happens OR if you self report it that the granter truly knows the event can’t be exploited.
“Being forthright IS how you insure it is not used against you.
That can not be reconciled with your previous statement: “As for the affair and other scandalous issues it must be reviewed and investigated as it has an impact on the trustworthiness of a person that has access to the nation’s secrets. It is not solely a blackmail able issue but one of true trust, if that individual cannot honor their promise of fidelity to their wives can they really be expected to honor their pledge to protect the information they have access to?”
2) “Bring discredit on your organization” is not “Discreditable activities are not reportable (you don’t have to report when you’re an ass)”. If your conduct can bring discredit to the organization you serve, such as to shake public trust or otherwise hinder the organizations ability to do its job then poor judgment was used along the way, it is reportable.
Again, the details are getting to close for comfort. I suspect you understand that.
Steven,
See 14(c) and 14(d).
Also note that 13(a) fails (affairs are legal), 13(b) fails (We’re talking about affairs, not sex addiction), 13(c) fails (being honest about it disqualifies this section), and 13(d) fails (we’re not talking about public sex).
The issue is that once identified is it must be evaluated to see if a-d applies but you must note that the title of the section is “Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:” , this is not all inclusive as “The Concern. Sexual behavior that involves a criminal offense, indicates a personality or emotional disorder, reflects lack of judgment or discretion, or which may subject the individual to undue influence or coercion, exploitation, or duress can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information.” This requires evaluation to see if any is the case and you need to understand much of this is subjective to the adjudicator, “reflects lack of judgment or discretion” is not a very high bar to meet.
Of note is you’re identifying that 13(c) fails as being honest about it disqualifies, you properly identify that by being honest you nullify this concern, to a degree, but you fail to understand that you must self report so it does not appear to be vulnerability. For you not to see how “reflects lack of judgment or discretion, or which may subject the individual to undue influence or coercion, exploitation, or duress can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information.” doesn’t apply to this case specifically is stunning.
As for “See 14(c) and 14(d).” “Conditions that COULD mitigate security concerns include:”
“(c) the behavior no longer serves as a basis for coercion, exploitation, or duress;
Your assumption is that since this scandal is now public that it removes the basis for coercion, exploitation, or duress. But you fail to acknowledge the vulnerability was their prior to the media reporting it. As a matter of fact do you think that during the investigation that these factors were not being evaluated? Even now with it out I don’t think you can fairly state that in this case he is not susceptible to coercion or exploitation, maybe not by a foreign intelligence agency, but certainly by politicians.
(d) the sexual behavior is strictly private, consensual, and discreet.
The problem with being a public figure, especially a high level “rock star” is that private and discreet is not really possible. If this was truly “strictly private, consensual, and discreet do you think after the investigation this would have come to light such as it did?
Think some poor judgment was used? Maybe some vulnerability may have been identified during the investigation?
You looked at Guideline D and apparently didn’t see any problems and I thought you might do that; I will address your comment about Guideline E.
“Since Section D calls out sexual behavior by name, it’s reasonable to think that Secion E is not talking about Sexual behavior. Not sure why you added that stuff in. It pretty much says that lying and hiding information from the government and failing to follow government rules can be disqualifying. The closest in that section to applying would be 16(e)(1), but that would require secondary assumptions. There are times when an affair could be a negative (with a foreign government official, with a journalist covering your work(!), with a known criminal, etc…) but affairs, in general, are not worthy of consideration under the guidelines. It’s not the affair that’s the issue there, it’s the other party.”
Guideline E is more or less a catch all. Guideline E can and does apply to incidents of a sexual nature that may be better addressed by E or by both D&E. Included in it is any breach of employment agreement or regulation, general conduct and the like. It was additionally included as it specifically speaks to self reporting and its mitigating effect; I see you didn’t even note it. You did note, which you could have noted a lot more that applied, “engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person’s personal, professional, or community standing,” , yet you qualify that with “but that would require secondary assumptions” , this is nuts, the vulnerability was there, it requires no qualification.
You also state that it isn’t the affair that is of issue but who it is with, you skip the process which it is identified, evaluated and a determination is made. I am not saying having an affair will cause you to lose your clearance, everything needs to be evaluated, but I can tell you it is not going to increase your chance of getting or keeping one.
Your way of talking about how this process works still makes me to believe you don’t know as much as you think you do. You talk about being granted/denied access to classified information as if it is all black and white, this is far from the case, and it is a very subjective process. Two incidents of the exact same nature can have completely different results for two different individuals. Things like clearance level, Personnel Reliability Program, special programs, suitability, special access requirements, past history, associations, financial status, individual character and more all play a part in the process. The program is designed to make it easier to deny rather than grant access, it is not a court of law, there are limits on individual rights, it is expected you hold yourself to a higher standard than the general public and it requires you to be proactive when problem come up.
Steven,
Thanks for the full response.
Percentage of population that cheats:
I found 20% – 40%. You found 10% – 30%. Even if I stipulate to your numbers, that’s still pretty signficant.
I will just say that being an investigator is not the same as holding a position requiring special access and adjudication.
I never claimed such, though the investigator position I referenced requires special access and adjudication.
Percentage of IC that cheats:
1) I have vast experience with those in these positions.
Our brains are bad at this. Not a good reason.
2) Those in these positions have been vetted not only for access but for suitability several times before and after being given jobs.
Circular reasoning.
3) Individuals generally seeking out these positions are aware personal conduct is important, scum rarely apply.
True, but, as previously noted, non scum cheat on their significant others, and, more importantly, people can cheat on their significant others without thinking they are scum.
4) Your pay check is tied to your personal conduct.
This is a combination of 2 and 3.
)5)You can have your clearance suspended by a supervisor and revoked based on input of your supervisor, any violation and suitability, this is not a very high bar and does not require “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.
Which depends on cheating being a violation, so it’s circular.
The only other thing I will point out is that even in your citations the people interviewed and the anonymous surveys were at odds with each other demonstrating that deception surrounds the subject of adultery, so even though the adultery by itself may not be sufficient enough cause in some instances the deception is, more on this later.
I already stipulated that the deception against the government is bad, but that’s clearly a completely different thing than the cheating itself.
Giant self reporting chunk:
It’s all circular. It depends on the assumption that cheating is a negative in this situation, but that’s what you’re arguing for. If the cheating could be used against you, it must be reported, but if it can’t, then it’s not reportable.
Reading comprehension:
There is no problem with my reading comprehension listed here. Instead, you simply say that my not agreeing with your invalid circular argument is evidence that I have a problem with reading comprehension. That’s a fail. I understand what you’re saying. I understand the point you’re trying to make. It just isn’t the way the system works.
—-
Section D
The first thing that stands out is your comment that evaluation is necessary to see if it’s an issue. I agree, but the evaluation is not necessarily on the side of the government. The details of someone’s sex life are not reportable unless they meet one of the given criteria. That takes us back to the circular argument.
13c:
“[R]eflects lack of judgment or discretion” is not a very high bar to meet.
The general policy is vague, but the directions to investigators (and, I assume, adjudicators) of what that means are better. Heck, I could say that being a Christian “reflects a lack of judgment”, but that’s just ridiculous. You might as well be arguing right now that evolution is “just a theory”.
This is followed by a reading comprehension failure on your part:
Of note is you’re identifying that 13(c) fails as being honest about it disqualifies, you properly identify that by being honest you nullify this concern, to a degree, but you fail to understand that you must self report so it does not appear to be vulnerability.
and
Your assumption is that since this scandal is now public that it removes the basis for coercion, exploitation, or duress.
My most recent statement, on it’s own, may have been ambiguous, but in the previous context, it should have been clear. The willingness to be open about the affair when called out showed that there was no basis for coercion, exploitation, or duress.
Then we get to bad logic:
Even now with it out I don’t think you can fairly state that in this case he is not susceptible to coercion or exploitation, maybe not by a foreign intelligence agency, but certainly by politicians.
How is Petraeus coercible now? I don’t see it. As for exploitable, sure, his plight is exploitable, but it involves equivocation on the term to make it work.
13d
PUblic figures can have private behavior. That something became public means it is no longer private, but while it was private, it was private. That the affair went on as long as it did with noone the wiser is evidence that is WAS private.
Section E
I see you didn’t even note it.
I wrote a paragraph on Section E. Did you skip a sentence somewhere?
You did note, which you could have noted a lot more that applied, “engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person’s personal, professional, or community standing,” , yet you qualify that with “but that would require secondary assumptions” , this is nuts, the vulnerability was there, it requires no qualification.
A general affair does not in any way change someone’s personal or professional standing, and the community standing only applies if it’s clear the person cares about community standing. That’s an assumption. You also seem to be arguing circularly again. You argue that the affair was a vulnerability because it was a vulnerability.
You also state that it isn’t the affair that is of issue but who it is with, you skip the process which it is identified, evaluated and a determination is made. I am not saying having an affair will cause you to lose your clearance, everything needs to be evaluated, but I can tell you it is not going to increase your chance of getting or keeping one.
You start this piece by begging the question again, and then cede my original point (That Petraeus has a clearance doesn’t imply anything about the affair), before stating something that has little meaning. Sure, the affair isn’t a point in favor of someone, but it’s not much of a strike against them. Same goes for being an atheist, having tattoos, belonging to clubs the adjudicator doesn’t like, etc..
Conclusion:
Other than in your comments about me, I agree with your conclusion fully and don’t see any place where my comments disagree with such.
General comments:
I think that we’ve both dug into our positions a bit and not much more can be gleaned in this situation. I think your positions are generally reasonable. I actually agree with them generally. But they just don’t match policy, and don’t match for a reasonable reason: Cheating is profligate for even generally honest, dedicated citizens… which has led to the conclusion that the risk associated with making cheating a strike is more severe than the risk posed by cheaters. This is the same reason that traffic infractions are not reportable. Sure, I think that people who fail to use turn signals show a complete carelessness and recklessness that should disqualify them from handling classified material, but putting such a rule in place would seriously skew the incentives.
If you want to go into general policy, again, I’m perfectly open to you getting my email from Jack and we can go from there.
Just following up. Jealousy is confirmed as reported at the following:
http://www.fijilive.com/news/2012/11/lovers-jealous-emails-led-to-cia-chiefs-downfall/48908.Fijilive
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/121113/petraeus-emails-revealed-jealous-paula-broadwell
Whew! Thanks for clearing THAT up.
Okay; help me on trying to see if I’m missing something here. 1. I was going to ask something about the lack of news about Broadwell keeping classified materials at her home, but just saw an article online. So I won’t comment on that at this time and just hope she had at least a GSA approved security container at her house in which to store them. 2. If the Petraeus/Broadwell affair is being considered as “just sex”, how is the Secret Service agents/prostitutes in Cartenga not? Granted, one involved the D/CIA giving his mistress boatloads of classified materials which could compromise our national security whereas the other involved worker bee special agents getting crucified for paying for sex before their mission (POTUS) got into country.
Yes, there is something seriously wrong with THESE Generals, but not ALL Generals. There are almost a thousand of them that have served their Country honorably AND would never compromise all they have stood for and literally fought for over the last 20 plus years.
Was it ever decided that TGT’s speculation as to Harry Reid’s pederasty was valid? Inquiring minds want to know!