31
   

CIA Chief Petraeus resigns as result of extra-marital affair

 
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 07:44 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I think it's makes a difference whether she had clearance for that class of documents


Are you assume that the documents have high level classifications as I think it is far more likely that they are all or most all are on the lower end of the scale.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 07:50 am
@firefly,
Quote:
From the info I have read elsewhere, the main reason appears related to how she stored the classified information in her possession. There are rules related to that which she may not have followed
.



Sorry but as far a low level classification documents they tend to fall into the hands of people with no security clearance such as reporters with ins with the military so if that is the materials we are talking about making a big deal over her having it on her computer and canceling her security clearance instead of issuing a warning seems overkill that is motivated by the situation not the level of the misdeed.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 08:37 am
@spendius,
Quote:
They were using their exalted positions to influence a judge in favour of one of their friends. Their letters were expected to carry a great deal more weight than that of "anyone else in this society".


People do not lose the right to address the court due to their positions in society and of course all such letters from whoever are design to aid one party or the other.

A few months ago my wife wrote a similar letter to the court in support of a family member custody case and she used the fact that she did hold the position of deputy director for child welfare and have a number of degrees including a PhD in fields relating to child welfare.

So what as she have every right to express her opinions to the courts and the courts then need to decide how must weight to grant the letter or not.
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 08:49 am
@BillRM,
It sounds as if your wife has some experience in domestic matters. I think, as things have turned out, that the generals were the last people to give advice in family affairs. .

Letters to the judge are insulting to the judiciary anyway. They imply that the judge is not fully competent to judge the case before him and the letters are not subject to oaths or cross-examination.

I think I read that the judge decided against the advice of the generals. If so, good for him. Or her.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 09:04 am
@spendius,
Expressing opinions to a court is hardly insulting the courts at least not in my opinion and of course military officers are not train in the child welfare field and I would assume that a judge would be aware of that fact as well as both of us happen to be.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 09:18 am
David Petraeus arrives on Hill to testify

0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 11:27 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
People do not lose the right to address the court due to their positions in society and of course all such letters from whoever are design to aid one party or the other.

Right, and Patraeus and Allen used their influence to try help a friend who had already lost custody of her child because she was such an unfit parent--a decision the judge had already rendered, along with a scathing opinion of the woman's character, before they wrote letters in support of her re-gaining custody. So it wasn't that they didn't know the rather negative things about this woman's character, and behavior, which had already been revealed in court.

Just the sort of person that the CIA director and a 4 star General should be vouching for, right?

Among other things this woman had done, in her custody suit, was to falsely accuse her husband of all sorts of physical domestic abuse. I'd think you would be the last person not to question the wisdom of prominent men using their influence to support a person who lies and makes false allegations of that sort.

How would you have felt if the CIA director and a 4 star General supported your first wife's character to a judge when she made allegedly false allegations of domestic abuse against you?

The right to address the court has nothing to do with the wisdom of these two men doing so in this particular domestic dispute. Their judgment in doing so was quite questionable, and their participation in the matter seems quite inappropriate.




BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 12:03 pm
@firefly,
So Firefly you would punish people for expressing their opinions to a court if those opinions do not agree with the court past rulings?????!!!!!!??????

What a strange and unconstitutional mind set to say the least.

Whether you or I agree with their opinions is beside the point they was exercising the very freedoms that their whole careers had been design to protect.

Poor judgment hell no just two Americans exercising their rights and that does not reflect badly on either of them or their judgments for that matter.

ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 12:09 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

So Firefly you would punish people for expressing their opinions to a court


I'm curious where you're getting the idea that Firefly is advocating punishment in these cases.

We can think they're kind of dumb for getting involved in the case and expressing opinions that turned out to be (to be nice about it) wrong, but punishment?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 12:13 pm
@ehBeth,
She is trying to reduce their public standings for daring to address the courts over an issue they have ever right to do so, due to those opinions not being in agreement with the court and more important with Firefly opinions.

Maybe you wish to live in a world where people need to fear addressing the courts but I do not.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 12:16 pm
@BillRM,
It has nothing to do with punishing people for expressing their opinions. I've never said they should be punished.

And it's legal experts who have said their participation in this matter was inappropriate.

It has everything to do with wondering about the integrity, and judgment, of these men, in lending their support, and influence, to a person of such highly questionable character. The woman seems to be a highly untrustworthy liar, in all of her dealings, both personal and business, in addition to being found an unfit custodial parent.

You don't think personal integrity and judgment are important attributes for a CIA director and a 4 star General? They put their own reputations on the line when they act as character references for a woman like that. And one has to wonder why they did that in this particular case.

Nice to know that you think women who make false allgations of abuse against men deserve the support of such high level and powerful men.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 12:17 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Maybe you wish to live in a world where people need to fear addressing the courts but I do not.


I didn't say anything like that.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 12:17 pm
@BillRM,
If you wish to indulge the conceit, Bill, that the Director of the CIA and the general I/C forces in Afghanistan and the likely boss of NATO are "just two Americans" you are quite free to do so.

So far, it was much the most foolish action they had undertaken because we all have a pretty good idea of what the favour was in aid of inducing in the party of the second part.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 12:18 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

She is trying to reduce their public standings for daring to address the courts


really? that's what you think she's said? and if you think she said that, you think that's punishment?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 12:32 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
Nice to know that you think women who make false allgations of abuse against men deserve the support of such high level and powerful men.


that is a weird angle for BillRM to take
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 12:32 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
If you wish to indulge the conceit, Bill, that the Director of the CIA and the general I/C forces in Afghanistan and the likely boss of NATO are "just two Americans" you are quite free to do so.


We do not have military rule and as far as the courts are concern that what the hell they happen to be.

Now if either of them had been addressing a military court then the question of judgment in doing so might be far more valid.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 12:43 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Now if either of them had been addressing a military court then the question of judgment in doing so might be far more valid.

Neither military, nor legal, nor intelligence experts, appear to agree with you.
Quote:
the letters were unwise and inappropriate, according to military and intelligence analysts who say the expressions of support for Khawam have become symbols of questionable behavior by two of the nation's top warriors...

The letters from Petraeus and Allen - written as the FBI was uncovering the scandal - suggest they did not follow military and intelligence guidelines that warn senior officers to avoid linking their official work with personal activities in their civilian lives.

"I am shocked that they wrote those letters, and I am shocked that no one on their staff said to them, 'We need to find out more about these people,' " said Rosa Brooks, a law professor at Georgetown University and a former adviser to the Defense Department.

Military lawyers would have told Petraeus and Allen that "the intervention of someone of your level in a pending litigation is going to be a big deal and get you into hot water," Brooks said. "... Other people's marriages are really complicated. Just the words ‘custody battle' in court should have been enough."

Retired Colonel Chuck Allen, professor of leadership and cultural studies at the U.S. Army War College in Pennsylvania, said senior officers are told to avoid such situations because "it might look as though you are trying to impress or pull rank on somebody who really isn't under your purview. What you don't want is to imply an endorsement by the institution."

Petraeus commanded U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan before retiring from the Army in 2011 to take over at the CIA; Allen is the current commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Their letters gave glowing accounts of Khawam, 37, who befriended Petraeus and Allen when they served at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/16/us-usa-generals-tampa-idUSBRE8AF03K20121116

cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 12:50 pm
@firefly,
I agree; if there was no harm in any way to national security, people are making a mountain out of a mole hill. People like Petraeus is too valuable to lose for any minor infraction that has nothing to do with security. That's the reason the SC didn't charge Bill Clinton for his sexual indiscretion.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 01:00 pm
@firefly,
Guess what Firefly I do not give a **** who agree with me or does not agree with me they both have a right to address the courts and I do not wish to live in a nation where people no matter want their positions happen to be need to fear to do so.

If one of them was sitting on the supreme court or some such that would be the only valid reason to question them expressing an opinion to a court.

Hell Obama rightly feel free to express his opinion on a supreme court ruling during a state of the union with the court sitting in front of him.



ehBeth
 
  4  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 01:04 pm
@BillRM,
They have a right to address the court and other people have the right to say 'hey, that was stupid of you'.
 

Related Topics

General David Petraeus - Question by gollum
well that's a thought - Discussion by dyslexia
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/01/2022 at 01:14:30