Morality and Public Service

[smb]

You really want to excuse this behavior, why? Again, the betrayal of the number one committment in his life does indeed cast doubts on his ability to remain faithful to his other committments.

It is not place to excuse, forgive, condone or otherwise take a position on this behavior. I have absolutely no idea what led to this affair or why it happened. What I do know is that Patraeus is a very competent leader that has shown an ability to navigate very tricky territory in both politics and foreign affairs. He seemed to me to be the perfect choice to lead the CIA at this time. A sexual affair does not change any of those facts and is quite frankly none of my effin business. If it was shown that through this liaison he compromised classified information, was violent, the affair was not consentual etc. etc. then that would be a different matter. None of that was revealed in the investigation. Why would I possibly have an opinion on a personal matter between him and his family and the woman with whom he had the affair with.

 

[smb]

"Petraeus and Broadwell exchanged hundreds, if not a few thousand, emails and messages over a number of years. Some of the information they traded was not actually emailed, but written and left in draft files which they each could read by accessing a common private email account. Draft emails, because there is no electronic transfer record, are not easily found by cyber investigators."

"While the emails did not openly name Petraeus, some of them contained information about his travel schedule -- details the public wouldn't usually have access to.

This raised concerns at the FBI that someone may have breached Petraeus' computer or email files. In the end investigators determined Broadwell got that sensitive travel information from Petraeus himself, and without his knowledge. She incorporated the information into the emails sent to Kelley. It took investigators quite a while to determine this was not the result of a breach."

Above quotes taken from: FBI role in Petraeus investigation questioned - CBS News

OK what is your point. This tells me that Patraeus did NOT compromise any classified information. The fact that he revealed his travel schedule to his biographer is not that concerning. The fact that she shared it with other people is but that has absolutely nothing to do with Patraeus.

 

[Risky Thicket]

In the position he was in, with the security nature of his job, I think this was probably seen as the most appropriate course of action. If it were you or me, or someone whose job did not entail top secret security clearance and resposibility, it wouldn't matter. He made himself vulnerable, and possibly others as well. This isn't what we need in that type of position.

Indeed, it happens. At certain levels even the actions of your family can threaten your clearance.

Strauss-Kahn, Eliot Spitzer, Petraeus? All possibly set up for reasons we can't begin to guess. It happens all the time. The one thing that made Clinton impervious to blackmail was the fact that he always walked around with his dick out. It wasn't really a secret.

 

[DiAnna]

I feel great empathy for Patreaus (and his family, of course). From what I have read, after Patreaus retired from the military he was kind of a lost soul. The military had been his life. He was vulnerable to a predatory woman who had her own ambitions, which is clear from the book(s) she planned to write and the fact that she managed to hack into his private computer files without his knowledge, thereby collecting sensitive information that could have jeopardized national security.

This isn't a question of a president or a senator getting a blow-job on the side. This is the director of the CIA, head of the department housing the most sensitive, classified global intelligence network on the planet. That he was careless enough to allow this woman or anyone else to gain unauthorized access to those files was his undoing.

The man is a brilliant strategist, and was by all accounts doing an outstanding job in his relatively new position, a job he absolutely loved. But I would have accepted his resignation too, even though I might have held back tears while doing it. It was a lapse in judgment that cannot be forgiven based on the position he held, where such lapses have the potential to collapse nations.

 

[smb]

I feel great empathy for Patreaus (and his family, of course). From what I have read, after Patreaus retired from the military he was kind of a lost soul. The military had been his life. He was vulnerable to a predatory woman who had her own ambitions, which is clear from the book(s) she planned to write and the fact that she managed to hack into his private computer files without his knowledge, thereby collecting sensitive information that could have jeopardized national security.

This isn't a question of a president or a senator getting a blow-job on the side. This is the director of the CIA, head of the department housing the most sensitive, classified global intelligence network on the planet. That he was careless enough to allow this woman or anyone else to gain unauthorized access to those files was his undoing.

The man is a brilliant strategist, and was by all accounts doing an outstanding job in his relatively new position, a job he absolutely loved. But I would have accepted his resignation too, even though I might have held back tears while doing it. It was a lapse in judgment that cannot be forgiven based on the position he held, where such lapses have the potential to collapse nations.

Why? Why accept his resignation. I have heard many people suggest that this affair was a lapse in judgement. I ask why? Why was it a lapse in judgement. I don't know that. I know a lot of people think it is but I don't know that. I and nobody on here knows the reasons behind the affair. That being said why does a lapse in judgement in his personal life mean he is unfit to serve? A "lapse of judgement" involving sex does not equate to lapses in judgement in other arenas. There is no indication that he was psychological compromised, no evidence of coersion, no evidence of violence. There was nothing to indicate that this was not just two people who were working closely together that took their relationship further. I don't see any "lapse in judgement."

 

[lizzie]

Why? Why accept his resignation. I have heard many people suggest that this affair was a lapse in judgement. I ask why? Why was it a lapse in judgement. I don't know that.

An affair is always a lapse in judgement. It requires deception on the part of the person having the affair. I don't give a damn about his personal life, and who he's sleeping with, but I do give a damn about national security, and the fitness of those who are placed in positions of power within our security agencies.

 

[smb]

An affair is always a lapse in judgement. It requires deception on the part of the person having the affair. I don't give a damn about his personal life, and who he's sleeping with, but I do give a damn about national security, and the fitness of those who are placed in positions of power within our security agencies.

This is assuming facts not in evidence. I don't know that he decieved his wife do you? Maybe his wife new about the affair? I don't know. What I do know is that you say you don't give a damn abot his personal life or who is sleeping with but apparantly you do. Again there is absolutely no evidence that this affair in any way compromised national security or classified information. Please tell me why a private sexual relationship makes a person unfit to serve?

 

[Risky Thicket]

Why? Why accept his resignation. I have heard many people suggest that this affair was a lapse in judgement. I ask why? Why was it a lapse in judgement. I don't know that. I know a lot of people think it is but I don't know that. I and nobody on here knows the reasons behind the affair. That being said why does a lapse in judgement in his personal life mean he is unfit to serve? A "lapse of judgement" involving sex does not equate to lapses in judgement in other arenas. There is no indication that he was psychological compromised, no evidence of coersion, no evidence of violence. There was nothing to indicate that this was not just two people who were working closely together that took their relationship further. I don't see any "lapse in judgement."

It isn't what Petraeus did sexually, but the fact that his sexual adventures may have compromised the security of highly classified information. It doesn't matter to me if Petraeus got blow jobs from 10 different women everyday before breakfast. What matters is the fact that such behavior is risky on many levels. Did Petraeus share information or access to information that he should not have shared? Did someone or some foreign government approach Petraeus and threaten to blackmail him? Here is what we do know, a person who does not participate in irresponsible behavior (unnecessarily large debts, sex or drugs, etc.) it is most unlikely that they can be blackmailed or that there may be a momentary laps of judgement. That is the issue.

Why did the fit hit the shan when it was discovered that the Secret Service was banging hookers in their rooms in Cartagena?

 

[smb]

It isn't what Petraeus did sexually, but the fact that his sexual adventures may have compromised the security of highly classified information. It doesn't matter to me if Petraeus got blow jobs from 10 different women everyday before breakfast. What matters is the fact that such behavior is risky on many levels. Did Petraeus share information or access to information that he should not have shared? Did someone or some foreign government approach Petraeus and threaten to blackmail him? Here is what we do know, a person who does not participate in irresponsible behavior (unnecessarily large debts, sex or drugs, etc.) it is most unlikely that they can be blackmailed or that there may be a momentary laps of judgement. That is the issue.

Why did the fit hit the shan when it was discovered that the Secret Service was banging hookers in their rooms in Cartagena?

Again...there is 0, none, nada, zip, zero, absolutely no evidence of any kind that any classified information was compromised by Patraeus. There is no evidence that the affair he had any way compromised his job or status. The FBI has closed the investigation into Patraeus and found no criminal or security issues. As to why the hookers incident caused such an uproar had nothing to do with sex but everything to do with law enforcement officers engaging in illegal activity and then covering it up or at least attempting to. If you remember the military personell that were involved with the incident were largely cleared of any wrongdoing. This is because they did not participate in the cover up. There was no evidence they were involved with the non-payment for services that wound up with the cops being called. The two scenarios are not even close to comparable.

 

[Risky Thicket]

An affair is always a lapse in judgement. It requires deception on the part of the person having the affair. I don't give a damn about his personal life, and who he's sleeping with, but I do give a damn about national security, and the fitness of those who are placed in positions of power within our security agencies.

Personally, I know of people who have lost their clearances for far less than shagging a camp follower. It depends on the position and the offense. Positions come with privileges and responsibilities.

 

[lizzie]

This is assuming facts not in evidence. I don't know that he decieved his wife do you? Maybe his wife new about the affair? I don't know. What I do know is that you say you don't give a damn abot his personal life or who is sleeping with but apparantly you do. Again there is absolutely no evidence that this affair in any way compromised national security or classified information. Please tell me why a private sexual relationship makes a person unfit to serve?

From ABC news:

Meanwhile, Fury is an inadequate description for the former-CIA director's wife, Holly Petraeus' reaction after she learned that her husband had an affair with Broadwell, a former spokesman for David Petraeus told ABC News.

"Well, as you can imagine, she's not exactly pleased right now," retired U.S. Army Col. Steve Boylan said. "In a conversation with David Petraeus this weekend, he said that, 'Furious would be an understatement.' And I think anyone that's been put in that situation would probably agree. He deeply hurt the family."

As for Petraeus, the retired Army general who resigned as CIA director last week after admitting the extramarital relationship, he, "first of all, deeply regrets and knows how much pain this has caused his family," Boylan added.

A woman who is aware of an affair, or doesn't mind that her husband has an affair, does not get furious over it. The reason it matters in this case, is because of his security position at the top of the organization. You may not take his deception as anything serious, but I do, when it comes to national security issues. He was compromised, and he needed to lie about it.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Again...there is 0, none, nada, zip, zero, absolutely no evidence of any kind that any classified information was compromised by Patraeus.

You don't know that. You/we would likely never know that. Whether classified information was compromised or not is almost inconsequential.

There is no evidence that the affair he had any way compromised his job or status.

His affair compromised his clearance and his thus his job. Period. His irresponsible behavior put him in a position of compromise. That is also fact.

The FBI has closed the investigation into Patraeus and found no criminal or security issues.

You seem to be misinformed. National security remains an issue and thus the investigation continues. Why did the FBI raid Broadwell's house yesterday? Broadwell is reported to have had access to classified information. What did she have, when did she have it and who gave her access? What was her need to know? I don't believe she had a need to know. What was her purpose in obtaining classified information and what did she intend, or what did she do with it? Was Petraeus aware of Broadwell's access to classified information?

As to why the hookers incident caused such an uproar had nothing to do with sex but everything to do with law enforcement officers engaging in illegal activity and then covering it up or at least attempting to. If you remember the military personell that were involved with the incident were largely cleared of any wrongdoing. This is because they did not participate in the cover up. There was no evidence they were involved with the non-payment for services that wound up with the cops being called. The two scenarios are not even close to comparable.

Prostitution is legal in Columbia. But, you are missing the point. National security was the overarching issue regarding the hookers and the Secret Service in Cartagena.

You seem to be saying that there are no wrongs matters of nation security unless actual harm has been done. It doesn't work that way.

 

[DiAnna]

Why? Why accept his resignation. I have heard many people suggest that this affair was a lapse in judgement. I ask why? Why was it a lapse in judgement. I don't know that. I know a lot of people think it is but I don't know that. I and nobody on here knows the reasons behind the affair. That being said why does a lapse in judgement in his personal life mean he is unfit to serve? A "lapse of judgement" involving sex does not equate to lapses in judgement in other arenas. There is no indication that he was psychological compromised, no evidence of coersion, no evidence of violence. There was nothing to indicate that this was not just two people who were working closely together that took their relationship further. I don't see any "lapse in judgement."

Basically, you're not really interested in the opinions of others on this matter. You have carved out your position, and will defend it to the death. :shrug: I and others have specified why we believe that (A) it was a lapse in judgment, and (B) that it jeopardized national and global security matters. His indescretion allowed his highly-classified computer files to be compromised, for heaven sake. You don't want to hear it? Fine with me. That doesn't change reality.

 

[X Factor]

My point is there is not betrayal of trust with me or the public. His betrayal of trust was between himself and his wife. I have been in a position in my life to have access to some extremely sensitive material. There was no amount of money or no personal revelations that could have forced me to compromise that information. It has been my experience that almost everyone in those positions of trust have the same feelings I did on the matter. If you look at those who have committed breaches of classified information they have done so because they are 1. adrenaline junkies 2. they idealogues 3. they are mentally unstable. To suggest that someone would betray their country because they don't want their wife to find out about an affair is a bit rediculous in my opinion.

I don't think it's ridiculous at all. Trust is an issue. What's that saying? Character is what you do when nobody (or you think nobody) is looking.

 

[jambalaya]

He just resigned a couple of days ago, and there has already been an investigation? If that is the case, and there was no compromise, then he is being pressured to leave for other reasons, and I would suspect it is due to information that the administration doesn't want made public.

I think one reason people resign in circumstances like this is because it is simply a distraction for him and everyone around him. The media circus and political wrangling just creates a negative atmosphere around the administration. Nobody wants to weather the storm. Get it off the front page and move on as quickly as possible. Tolerance and patience no longer exists.

 

[smb]

From ABC news:


A woman who is aware of an affair, or doesn't mind that her husband has an affair, does not get furious over it. The reason it matters in this case, is because of his security position at the top of the organization. You may not take his deception as anything serious, but I do, when it comes to national security issues. He was compromised, and he needed to lie about it.

Again these are assuming facts not in evidence. There is clear indication that Hillary Clinton would get furious at Bill for one of his numerous liaisons. She did not get furious because she didn't know that he was having them she would get furious because he made a mistake that allowed it to become public. The same could be true in this case. Regardless, whether or not his wife knew about the affair is irrelevent. The only relevent fact that I see is did it compromise in any way classified information? Did affect the job he was doing? All evidence points to no on both questions. Then why force him to resign?

 

[smb]

You don't know that. You/we would likely never know that. Whether classified information was compromised or not is almost inconsequential.



His affair compromised his clearance and his thus his job. Period. His irresponsible behavior put him in a position of compromise. That is also fact.



You seem to be misinformed. National security remains an issue and thus the investigation continues. Why did the FBI raid Broadwell's house yesterday? Broadwell is reported to have had access to classified information. What did she have, when did she have it and who gave her access? What was her need to know? I don't believe she had a need to know. What was her purpose in obtaining classified information and what did she intend, or what did she do with it? Was Petraeus aware of Broadwell's access to classified information?



Prostitution is legal in Columbia. But, you are missing the point. National security was the overarching issue regarding the hookers and the Secret Service in Cartagena.

You seem to be saying that there are no wrongs matters of nation security unless actual harm has been done. It doesn't work that way.

According to the FBI's investigation they reported that there is NO evidence that any classified information was compromised. Why is this inconsequential? To me it is the most important question.

I don't know that his behavior was irresponsible. I do know that it was human. It may have been irresponsible and may not have been. All evidence in the investigation that was concluded indicates that it was a consensual relationship with no reports of any wrongdoing by either party.

You seem to be the one that is misinformed. The FBI has CLOSED the investigation in Patraeus. They did not raid Broadwell's home. They conducted a voluntary, by Broadwell, search of her computers because in the course of the investigation they found some classified information on one of her computers that was unauthorized. Not that it was unauthorized for her to have that information but that it was unauthorized for her to have it on that computer. There is an ongoing investigation into Broadwell to see if she violated any cyber bullying laws or cyber stalking laws. They also want to make sure that the unauthorized classified information contained on her computer did not result in any breach. The source of that information was PROVEN NOT to be Patraeus therefore the FBI has CLOSED the investigation into Patraeus.

Prostitution is legal in Columbia but not paying for services render is not legal in Columbia. Again if it wasn't for the fact that the Secret Service agents did not want to pay for the hookers, presumably because they were Secret Service agents, and then cover the whole thing up, or at least try to there would not have been a big issue made about it. Even though prostitution is legal in Columbia it still, by policy, against the regulations for Secret Service agents to engage prostitutes regardless of the individual laws of the country they are in. They not only broke those regulations and tried to cover it up but they also tried to use their official positions as Secret Service agents to not pay the prostitutes. The issue was not necessarily the prositution but the cover up and the abuse of authority. There is no indication of that in the Patraeus case.

 

[smb]

Basically, you're not really interested in the opinions of others on this matter. You have carved out your position, and will defend it to the death. :shrug: I and others have specified why we believe that (A) it was a lapse in judgment, and (B) that it jeopardized national and global security matters. His indescretion allowed his highly-classified computer files to be compromised, for heaven sake. You don't want to hear it? Fine with me. That doesn't change reality.

So the FBI is lying when they state that no breach of security can be traced to Patraeus? I have repeatedly asked why it assumed this is a "lapse in judgement." I have yet to here an explanation other than it is a lapse judgement. My question is why is that and should it be that way?

 

[smb]

I don't think it's ridiculous at all. Trust is an issue. What's that saying? Character is what you do when nobody (or you think nobody) is looking.

Again you are assuming that he purposefully kept this affair private. I don't know that he did. How many of his freinds and family knew of the affair before we did??? I don't know. Second is why is being human a character flaw? I don't know what his marriage was like. I don't know what forces were at play in his life. What I am saying is that what he did was human. Was he fault? I don't know that. What I do know is that he was really good at his job and because of human frailty we are going to be deprived of his services as country. I am thinking that is too high a price to pay.

 

[rathi]

If the head of the CIA gets caught doing anything wrong, they aren't fit to serve. Petraeus took completely inadequate precautions to conceal his affair. Sockpuppets here on DP have done a better job of hiding their identity. His behavior wasn't simply immoral, it demonstrated an utter lack of judgement. If the USSR was still around, the KGB would have had a field day with men like him.

 

[Risky Thicket]

According to the FBI's investigation they reported that there is NO evidence that any classified information was compromised. Why is this inconsequential? To me it is the most important question.

I don't know that his behavior was irresponsible. I do know that it was human. It may have been irresponsible and may not have been. All evidence in the investigation that was concluded indicates that it was a consensual relationship with no reports of any wrongdoing by either party.

You seem to be the one that is misinformed. The FBI has CLOSED the investigation in Patraeus. They did not raid Broadwell's home. They conducted a voluntary, by Broadwell, search of her computers because in the course of the investigation they found some classified information on one of her computers that was unauthorized. Not that it was unauthorized for her to have that information but that it was unauthorized for her to have it on that computer. There is an ongoing investigation into Broadwell to see if she violated any cyber bullying laws or cyber stalking laws. They also want to make sure that the unauthorized classified information contained on her computer did not result in any breach. The source of that information was PROVEN NOT to be Patraeus therefore the FBI has CLOSED the investigation into Patraeus.

Prostitution is legal in Columbia but not paying for services render is not legal in Columbia. Again if it wasn't for the fact that the Secret Service agents did not want to pay for the hookers, presumably because they were Secret Service agents, and then cover the whole thing up, or at least try to there would not have been a big issue made about it. Even though prostitution is legal in Columbia it still, by policy, against the regulations for Secret Service agents to engage prostitutes regardless of the individual laws of the country they are in. They not only broke those regulations and tried to cover it up but they also tried to use their official positions as Secret Service agents to not pay the prostitutes. The issue was not necessarily the prositution but the cover up and the abuse of authority. There is no indication of that in the Patraeus case.

You are either incredibly naive or purposely obtuse.

Several of us here have tried to explain to you that morality isn't the issue you. Petraeus willfully put himself in a position to be compromised. His behavior is a in and of itself a breach of security. Game, set, match. He manned up and resigned. Broadwell was been found to have been in possession of classified information. What is the information? Why was she in possession of it? Who gave her access? Does she have a need to know? There are many questions that have yet to be answered. The FBI hauled away boxes of information from Broadwell's house on Monday. They don't know or have not yet released a statement regarding the classified material nor have they addressed any of the questions just above. If the FBI hasn't and in some cases may not release that or related information you damn sure don't know it. It is NOT conclusive. If they find the access came from Petraeus his investigation will certainly not be over.

Read this article. You may find it informative. Then again you may not. The article pretty much states what most of us have been telling you. Petraeus compromised himself and his nation by his behavior. His behavior is considered by the government to have been a breach of security. At his level it is no small issue. Petraeus resigned. He had no choice.

 

[smb]

You are either incredibly naive or purposely obtuse.

Several of us here have tried to explain to you that morality isn't the issue you. Petraeus willfully put himself in a position to be compromised. His behavior is a in and of itself a breach of security. Game, set, match. He manned up and resigned. Broadwell was been found to have been in possession of classified information. What is the information? Why was she in possession of it? Who gave her access? Does she have a need to know? There are many questions that have yet to be answered. The FBI hauled away boxes of information from Broadwell's house on Monday. They don't know or have not yet released a statement regarding the classified material nor have they addressed any of the questions just above. If the FBI hasn't and in some cases may not release that or related information you damn sure don't know it. It is NOT conclusive. If they find the access came from Petraeus his investigation will certainly not be over.

Read this article. You may find it informative. Then again you may not. The article pretty much states what most of us have been telling you. Petraeus compromised himself and his nation by his behavior. His behavior is considered by the government to have been a breach of security. At his level it is no small issue. Petraeus resigned. He had no choice.

Why/how did he compromise himself. You keep saying that morality isn't the issue but do not offer any other reason why you think Patraeus compromised himself. I am not naive nor am I being obtuse. I am raising the question of why is it we, as a society, believe this to be a "lapse of judgement" or "compromising himself." If it is not public opinion on the morality or more aptly the amorality of the act then what is it. You still don't answer that basic question.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Why/how did he compromise himself. You keep saying that morality isn't the issue but do not offer any other reason why you think Patraeus compromised himself. I am not naive nor am I being obtuse. I am raising the question of why is it we, as a society, believe this to be a "lapse of judgement" or "compromising himself." If it is not public opinion on the morality or more aptly the amorality of the act then what is it. You still don't answer that basic question.

This is the last time.

If you have a high clearance and you work with classified information that I want, I will look for your greatest vulnerabilities. A time old method used to gain information via a spy is to send a credible paramour. It may take months or years to get the person in place and established, known and maybe even vetted. The lady I send to become involved with you, to become the woman of your dreams, to become your best friend and eventually your confidant is probably not going to look like Whoopie Goldberg or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz with Ramen noodle hair. I'll find an agent who looks and acts like your dreams and ****s like a rabbit. Whatever it takes. Once you take the bait she will become what you want her to become and she will slowly groom you. Once she has your arrogant and horny ass in the rack, she'll set the hook. She'll prove that you can trust her and she will become the woman you will never want to let go. At that point, not necessarily a one night stand, a hit and run, but rather at the moment you begin to make plans to see her, when you deceive people about your whereabouts and about your affair, you have become compromised. The conditions for you to provide information or access, at this point are most favorable, and they are due to your actions. At that point you have been compromised because now I have the ability to exploit you, through her.If she works for me and you compromise yourself you pose a threat to national security.

All that crap about Petraus being a great guy and a human who made a mistake is pure caca. It won't hold. Petraeus KNEW that long, long, long ago. Tell Petraeus wife and family that "heh-heh-heh, you know he was just being a man, heh-heh." How do you think that's working out for him? Are you telling us that Petraeus' wife is cool with this?

Let's look at Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Here we have a powerful person who could possibly be blackmailed into providing information and access to someone who wants power and monetary gain. Strauss-Kahn is European, French. In France affairs are probably no more common than they are in the U.S., but they are more "accepted", if you like. Strauss-Kahn has a reputation of being a slut puppy. It would be difficult to set him up for having a bit of strange on the side. I mean, that's what the man apparently does as often as he can. No secret there. But it is certainly a huge weakness to be exploited.

People wanted SK out of the IMF or wanted someone else in. It would be difficult to destroy Strauss-Kahn's image as a dedicated, wife loving homebody. LOL! "They" then decided to use Strauss-Kahn's slut puppy reputation to remove him from the IMF. SK was set up in New York while doing what they knew he would do. They waived house maid snatch in his face and SK jumped at it. The maid, however, claimed rape, after an extortion attempt or as part of the entire trap. SK was forced into a highly publicized media trial and was forced to resign. Mission accomplished.

As part of USAF security at Strategic Air Command HQ, they constantly reminded us that we were closer to going to jail than anyone over security breaches. Because of our duty it was impossible for us not to hear things and see things that we didn't have a need to know. We were never in doubt that if we breached security and shared information we would be in a world of hurt. We didn't even talk to each other about things we had seen or heard. On occasion an event would happen where you were required to sign a form saying that you would not disclose any information under threat of imprisonment and a huge fine.

Access to information comes with huge responsibilities. We were constantly reminded of that. I knew a guy from Hawaii who lost his clearance because they discovered that his father had been born in Japan! And you think the head of the CIA should be given pass for schtupping the hired help. :lamo

The OSI and God knows who else had people in bars, airports, restaurants and wherever who eavesdropped to make certain no one was talking about anything classified. We didn't talk to each other about anything we had not experienced together. You simply didn't do it. When someone said something they shouldn't we'd give him a warning and then we'd put some distance between him and ourselves. The point is security around highly classified information is not taken lightly. It is not something you misunderstand. It is made very clear to you what will get you into deep trouble. No one I ever knew who worked in a high security environment didn't understand clearly what they could and could not do. It was spelled out. Petraeus knew damned well his behavior was beyond the pale.

Petraeus was 10,000 times more vulnerable because of his position and the information he had access to. He well knew the risks and the responsibilities. He fecked up. To his credit, he manned up and admitted it.

 

[smb]

This is the last time.

If you have a high clearance and you work with classified information that I want, I will look for your greatest vulnerabilities. A time old method used to gain information via a spy is to send a credible paramour. It may take months or years to get the person in place and established, known and maybe even vetted. The lady I send to become involved with you, to become the woman of your dreams, to become your best friend and eventually your confidant is probably not going to look like Whoopie Goldberg or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz with Ramen noodle hair. I'll find an agent who looks and acts like your dreams and ****s like a rabbit. Whatever it takes. Once you take the bait she will become what you want her to become and she will slowly groom you. Once she has your arrogant and horny ass in the rack, she'll set the hook. She'll prove that you can trust her and she will become the woman you will never want to let go. At that point, not necessarily a one night stand, a hit and run, but rather at the moment you begin to make plans to see her, when you deceive people about your whereabouts and about your affair, you have become compromised. The conditions for you to provide information or access, at this point are most favorable, and they are due to your actions. At that point you have been compromised because now I have the ability to exploit you, through her.If she works for me and you compromise yourself you pose a threat to national security.

All that crap about Petraus being a great guy and a human who made a mistake is pure caca. It won't hold. Petraeus KNEW that long, long, long ago. Tell Petraeus wife and family that "heh-heh-heh, you know he was just being a man, heh-heh." How do you think that's working out for him? Are you telling us that Petraeus' wife is cool with this?

Let's look at Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Here we have a powerful person who could possibly be blackmailed into providing information and access to someone who wants power and monetary gain. Strauss-Kahn is European, French. In France affairs are probably no more common than they are in the U.S., but they are more "accepted", if you like. Strauss-Kahn has a reputation of being a slut puppy. It would be difficult to set him up for having a bit of strange on the side. I mean, that's what the man apparently does as often as he can. No secret there. But it is certainly a huge weakness to be exploited.

People wanted SK out of the IMF or wanted someone else in. It would be difficult to destroy Strauss-Kahn's image as a dedicated, wife loving homebody. LOL! "They" then decided to use Strauss-Kahn's slut puppy reputation to remove him from the IMF. SK was set up in New York while doing what they knew he would do. They waived house maid snatch in his face and SK jumped at it. The maid, however, claimed rape, after an extortion attempt or as part of the entire trap. SK was forced into a highly publicized media trial and was forced to resign. Mission accomplished.

As part of USAF security at Strategic Air Command HQ, they constantly reminded us that we were closer to going to jail than anyone over security breaches. Because of our duty it was impossible for us not to hear things and see things that we didn't have a need to know. We were never in doubt that if we breached security and shared information we would be in a world of hurt. We didn't even talk to each other about things we had seen or heard. On occasion an event would happen where you were required to sign a form saying that you would not disclose any information under threat of imprisonment and a huge fine.

Access to information comes with huge responsibilities. We were constantly reminded of that. I knew a guy from Hawaii who lost his clearance because they discovered that his father had been born in Japan! And you think the head of the CIA should be given pass for schtupping the hired help. :lamo

The OSI and God knows who else had people in bars, airports, restaurants and wherever who eavesdropped to make certain no one was talking about anything classified. We didn't talk to each other about anything we had not experienced together. You simply didn't do it. When someone said something they shouldn't we'd give him a warning and then we'd put some distance between him and ourselves. The point is security around highly classified information is not taken lightly. It is not something you misunderstand. It is made very clear to you what will get you into deep trouble. No one I ever knew who worked in a high security environment didn't understand clearly what they could and could not do. It was spelled out. Petraeus knew damned well his behavior was beyond the pale.

Petraeus was 10,000 times more vulnerable because of his position and the information he had access to. He well knew the risks and the responsibilities. He fecked up. To his credit, he manned up and admitted it.

Again this does not answer the core question. That being said are you really naive enough to believe that people with extremely high clearences are not engaged in sexual affairs illicit or otherwise? Do you really believe that everyone involved in an ilicit affair has lost their clearence when it is discovered or become known? I suggest you don't live in the real world. You live in make believe perfect land. I have held an extremely high clearence and of course worked with others that held extremely high clearences and all but a few of those people were at one time involved with either a. a prostitute b. a spouse of fellow worker c. a spouse of someone else d. a coworker e. their boss f. their subordinate g. people they didn't even know nor want to know h. any combination previously mentioned. You are kidding yourselves if you don't think this goes on ALL THE EFFIN TIME with no loss of clearence, no court-martial and very seldom any other ill effects other than an uncomfortable work environment and hurt feelings.