Plan B Forum

A plea deal for General Betrayus?

Former CIA director David Petraeus faces probation and a fine if a plea deal is approved. The general pleaded guilty to sharing classified information with his biographer and mistress Paula Broadwell.

The guilty plea was intended to spare Petraeus any jail time, but it still has to be approved by a judge and the sentencing hearing has not yet been scheduled, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin.

Petraeus admitted giving his biographer and lover several notebooks he knew contained highly classified information -- and then lying about it to the FBI.

"Perhaps my experience can be instructive to others who stumble, or indeed fall as far as I did," he said.

ETA: In case anyone is unfamiliar with the acronym with which I titled this thread: R.H.I.P.

Yeah, maybe they can put him in a cell right next to Sandy Berger...

Oh wait, I forgot...

They can't:

Berger Will Plead Guilty To Taking Classified Paper

By John F. Harris and Allan Lengel
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 1, 2005;

Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism.

Berger's plea agreement, which was described yesterday by his advisers and was confirmed by Justice Department officials, will have one of former president Bill Clinton's most influential advisers and one of the Democratic Party's leading foreign policy advisers in a federal court this afternoon.

The deal's terms make clear that Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them.

He described the episode last summer as "an honest mistake." Yesterday, a Berger associate who declined to be identified by name but was speaking with Berger's permission said: "He recognizes what he did was wrong. . . . It was not inadvertent."

Under terms negotiated by Berger's attorneys and the Justice Department, he has agreed to pay a $10,000 fine and accept a three-year suspension of his national security clearance. [well, at least they came down hard on him] These terms must be accepted by a judge before they are final, but Berger's associates said yesterday he believes that closure is near on what has been an embarrassing episode during which he repeatedly misled people about what happened during two visits to the National Archives in September and October 2003.

Lanny Breuer, Berger's attorney, said in a statement: "Mr. Berger has cooperated fully with the Department of Justice and is pleased that a resolution appears very near. He accepts complete responsibility for his actions, and regrets the mistakes he made lies he told during his review of documents at the National Archives."

The terms of Berger's agreement required him to acknowledge to the Justice Department the circumstances of the episode. Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business.

The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Mar31.html

David Petraeus is a truly tragic figure...

He was unquestionably the most brilliant military mind of his generation; both as a strategist, and as a tactician...

He single handedly rescued victory from the jaws of defeat in Iraq...(He was the one who understood the need to look at the problem conceptually; and brought the Sunni tribal leadership into cooperation with the government; if he had been put in charge two years earlier, many more American and Iraqi lives would have been saved..It's certainly not his fault we walked away and Al-Maliki undid all the good he accomplished....

His strategy put "Al Qaeda In Iraq" (the forerunner of ISIS) to rout; his effectiveness is why they had to re-group in Syria...

He was brought back to his country as a universally respected "Conquering Hero" and made Director of The CIA, with a Presidential run clearly in his future...

But he fell into a Shakespearean or Greek tragedy...

He gave his notebooks to his girlfriend, full of highly classified material, (even though there's no evidence whatsoever that she ever publicized that material, or gave it to an enemy...)

Even the smartest of men in the world hit the "stupid button" when it comes to "love"...

I've said this before...

And I'll say it again...

"Love" ought to categorized by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental illness...

Because that's what it is....

"A standing cock has no conscience"

What Petraeus did was stupid, and a violation of both proper military procedures and criminal law. And then on top of that, he lied about it.

But since none of the classified information was ever made public, or passed along to any third party no actual damage was done. (Paula Broadwell actually had a security clearance at the time, though apparently it's unclear if it was at a level sufficient to cover the information in Petraeus' notebooks. The reason he gave her the notebooks to read was because she was writing his biography. No classified material was in the book; and there's no accusation that she ever leaked the information to the media or gave it to anyone else.)

In light of the fact that there was no actual damage, and in consideration of his outstanding prior service to his country, I don't see any real need for him to do prison time. He's lost his career, been criminally convicted and publicly disgraced. The probation and fine seem like enough to me.

While I agree with you about focusing on the damage done (or lack of it) when deciding on the appropriate punishment, I would extend that to many you refer to as traitors--unless embarrassing the president is sufficient damage in your eyes. Face it, a lot of this information he provided to her was much more sensitive than anything released by others, and the potential for damage to US interests was much higher.

I was wondering if someone would try to make that comparison...

Big RR, it's pretty much impossible to debate with you about the damage done by traitors like Snowden and Manning, because any time I point to statements by individuals and committees clearly in a position to know, you just say you think they're lying. (Apparently unless they are prepared to compound the damage by revealing to our enemies every detail of the damage done, you will simply not believe anything they say.)

On top of what has been said by people of both parties in a position to know, a lot of the damage is self-evident and intuitive. It can't possibly be anything but damaging for our enemies to know the nature of our intelligence gathering capabilities or the names of individuals who have assisted our efforts. That's just common sense.

On the other hand, we can know for a fact that no damage was done in the Petraeus case because none of the classified information was ever made public, and thus never became known to the enemy. And not only can we know for a fact that no damage was done, we also know for a fact that clearly there was never even any intent to do damage to the interests of the US. (An intent that was obviously present in the actions of the traitors Manning and Snowden.)

The other criteria I mentioned in considering Petraeus sufficiently punished was the out standing record of prior service that he had given to the US. The score for Manning and Snowden on that is zero.

Not even apples and oranges; apples and lawn chairs....

And a cheap, ratty lawn chair at that.

Well Jim, while I disagree with your conclusion, as I understand your argument, the mere fact of making any classified information available public will automatically result in damage, while leaking it to a small number of individuals (or a single one) will not and a further showing of the damage to enhance penalties.

The other argument about her security clearance and her level is immaterial, because at the level of secret information Petraeus would have had access to, just having a security clearance is not enough to enable you to have access to it; she would have to demonstrate a need to have access to that information before it would have been released to her, and writing a biography (if that is indeed what she would have had access to) would not have entitled her to receive it. It is a major breach of security regulations.

Now I have no problem with treating all breaches of security the same way and to do away with an automatic presumption of harm on its release to any person not entitled to have access to it and requiring testimony to satisfy the courts that actual harm was done (more than just some government persons saying the harm was catastrophic, trust us on that), and I can even believe that showing such harm would be much more difficult in situations (like this) where access was restricted to a single person, but I just don't see the distinction you're trying to draw.

Lord Jim wrote:Yeah, maybe they can put him in a cell right next to Sandy Berger...

Well, I'm sure that Chelsea Manning would welcome a hot, handsome, horny four-star hunk as a neighbor...

Lord Jim wrote:In light of the fact that there was no actual damage, and in consideration of his outstanding prior service to his country, I don't see any real need for him to do prison time. He's lost his career, been criminally convicted and publicly disgraced. The probation and fine seem like enough to me.

My first inclination would be to agree with you...“No harm, no foul”...“Ven der putz shteht, ligt der sechel in drerd”...BUT...apparently the military has this thing called the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, 64 Stat. 109, 10 U.S.C. §§ 801–946) and I'm pretty sure that they consider the word "uniform" an ordinary adjective with the normal Merriam-Webster meaning rather than a reference to the kind of clothes military people wear.

Here's the view of a retired U.S. Navy officer:

Rank does indeed have its privileges.

It wasn't enough for him to fuck around on his wife with a contractor in direct violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Yes that's right, Article 134, Adultery, which is a crime in the military and for which hypocrital flag officers have no problem whatsoever using against their subordinates (along with, oh, you know, sodomy and whatever other antiquated bullshit charge they can dream up). Not to mention Article 133, Conduct Unbecoming an Officer - and not only an officer, but THE officer, the Four Star General who is required by law and regulation to lead by example, yeah, that guy. No,he had to willingly violate 18 US Code, Article 798 and give the same bimbo he was sleeping with classified information too.

Oh, hey, so long as I've given you (wink wink) "exclusive access" (wink wink) to (wink wink) "the General" (wink wink) so you can write my awesome heroic biography where I'm all honorable and moral and forthright and heroic (and honest, don't forget honest), might as well just hand over this classified information in direct violation of the SAME GODDAMNED LAWS AND REGULATIONS I'M CHARGED WITH UPHOLDING AND FOR VIOLATION OF WHICH I'VE SENT OTHER MEN TO JAIL.

Oh, and hey, don't forget that part where I publicly disrespected my Commander in Chief in front of my subordinate officers - yet another UCMJ violation, because yeah, that's how honorable soldiers set the example.

And then he lied to the FBI - which is yet another felony, but by that point what the fuck, right?

And there's nothing alleged about any of it. They got him. And he admitted it.

Anybody else in uniform, ANYBODY, would be sitting in a prison cell right next to Chelsea Manning, but when you're General David Goddamned Petraeus, well, you get probation and a fine - which you can pay off with the royalties from your fucking book tour.
Son of bitch this kind of thing pisses me off.

As a Chief and an Officer, listen to me: when you refuse to hold your military leaders to higher standards, when the privilege of rank becomes a get out of jail free card, then you have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to demand any better behavior from the subordinate ranks. If we, as a nation, don't hold this dishonorable bastard to account for his criminal actions, then you have no right to expect any better from any other member of the military - oh, but we will. Won't we? We'll jail the hell out of junior officers and enlisted folks for exactly the same crimes. THEY don't get deals.

We lead by example, good or bad, and Petraeus is a disgrace to the uniform.

He belongs in jail and he deserves nothing but contempt.

No comment? Perhaps Chief Wright's comments were a bit too subtle, eh?

Here's another commentary on the double standard:

https://wickershamsconscience.wordpress ... standards/

In American culture, at least, there are consequences when the government adopts and is exposed as using a double standard.

Those who don’t get the better deal are understandably and properly bitter. Those who got the sweet deal are defensive and their credibility suffers still more damages. And Americans as a group lose just a little more confidence in the fundamental fairness of government.

Those consequences are perfectly illustrated in the case of the disgraced General David Petraeus.

As WC has written earlier, General Petraeus got a sweetheart deal. A misdemeanor charge, no jail time and a modest fine, while Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, leaking highly classified information to his mistress-biographer as a part of a vanity biography project. And then lying to the FBI about it afterwards.

Jeffrey Sterling, is a former CIA official who was convicted earlier this year of leaking classified information to a New York Times reporter. In January, Sterling was convicted by a jury on nine criminal counts, including violations of the Espionage Act, for leaking classified information to Times reporter James Risen about a CIA effort to undermine Iran’s nuclear program. Sterling is scheduled to be sentenced in April. He faces a maximum sentence of decades in jail. In a statement after the verdict was announced, Attorney General Eric Holder called the guilty verdict a “just and appropriate outcome.”

Sterling’s lawyers have requested a reconsideration of his conviction because two former generals, David Petraeus and James Cartwright, have received far more lenient treatment for similar offenses. They argued,

The principal difference between Mr. Sterling and Generals Petraeus and Cartwright are their respective races and rank. Like General Cartwright, General Petraeus is a white, high ranking official … The government must explain why the justice meted out to white generals is so different from what Mr. Sterling faced.

Stephen Kim’s lawyer has asked for relief his client. Kim, an Asian-American expert on rogue nations, was sentenced to thirteen months in jail for talking to a Fox News reporter about a classified document. He was charged with felony violations of the Espionage Act, too. Now, his life has unravelled: a broken marriage, the young son who lived far away, the life savings that were now depleted, and the profound struggles with depression and thoughts of suicide. Kim changed his plea when he couldn’t afford to fight any longer. His lawyer would like the U.S. Attorney to let him out for time served. Like Sterling’s lawyer, the request is based on the shockingly different treatment of General Petraeus.

The only differences you can find between General Petraeus, Sterling and Kim is that Petraeus is a general, white and has very powerful friends. Sterling is African-American, Kim is Asian-American and neither is a general or has powerful friends.1 Senator Diane Feinstein (D, Allegedly California) famously announced that General Petraeus had “suffered enough.” So far as WC can tell, she hasn’t issued her opinion on Jeffrey Sterling or Stephen Kim.

So the first bad consequence is over-charging, over-convicting and over-sentencing victims, perhaps to “make and example out of them.”

The second bad consequences is a further diminution of the public’s trust and confidence of the justice system. Every time the U.S. government acts like this the “All men created equal” that is one of the cornerstones of our government is revealed to be a lie. Each time the lie is exposed, the cornerstone cracks just a little bit more. Our law, our ethos, pretends to hold our leaders to a higher standard. General Petraeus’s case demonstrates that’s not only untrue; it’s an inversion of reality.

Do you wonder that Edwin Snowden ran?

Nor are these the only instances of a double standard. Just the most recent.

In his inaugural address, President Obama announced his would be the most transparent administration in history. What it turns out he meant was that despite his best efforts to foster the least transparent administration, Chelsea Manning and Edwin Snowden have made it transparent. Maybe Sterling and Kim were punished out of frustration at Snowden’s escape. That would make it thrice wrong.

When the criminal justice system is seen as loaded against the average citizen, when income inequality is reaching record levels, when billionaires can buy elections; well, a thoughtful person worries. . .

I haven't commented because you have posted nothing that has successfully challenged my fundamental point that these situations are in no way analogous, for the reasons I already outlined...there's no "double standard" involved.

Posting other people's opinions that they are some how analogous when the facts of the cases clearly indicate otherwise, doesn't really do anything to change that...You know what opinions are like...everybody's got one...

In order to demonstrate the existence of an actual "double standard" you'd have to have analogous situations...

You'd need to find someone who could make a persuasive case that giving notebooks with classified material in them to one person who never published it or gave that information to anyone else, is somehow the same thing as stealing thousands of pages of classified material and releasing it for all our enemies to see...

Good luck with that...

ETA:

Let me provide a theoretical case that could have been analogous:

Let's say that The Traitor Snowden, rather than stealing thousands of classified documents, taking off to an enemy country and releasing the information in the documents in a way timed to do maximum damage to US interests, had instead:

Downloaded a few classified documents which he then shared with his girlfriend; (maybe just to kind of show off what an "important" job he had.) And then neither he nor the girlfriend ever shared them with anyone else.

In that case, you'd have a genuinely analogous situation, and I'd be good with him losing his job and receiving probation and a fine as punishment.

I'm pretty sure it's called the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the Analogous Code of Military Justice. Let me check on that and get back to you.

Jim--you're ignoring the effect of his lying in obstructing the investigation to see what was released and how far the leak went; Snowden never went that far and was quite open with what he leaked and to whom.

I'm pretty sure it's called the Uniform Code of Military Justice

Which presumably means that the same actions should be punished uniformly, without regard to rank...

If Petraeus had in fact done what either the Traitor Snowden or The Traitor Manning did:

Stolen thousands of classified documents including recent high level diplomatic and military communications, information about sources and methods for intelligence gathering, information about on going military operations, and active intelligence assets, etc, and then took that information and made it available to every enemy of this country on the planet, I would view him with even greater revulsion then I view those two dirtbags...

That any American citizen would do such a thing is utterly reprehensible; that a four star General commanding troops in the field would do it would be beyond the pale...

Nothing short of the death penalty could ever be appropriate in such a case. If he was able to flee the country, I'd have no problem with having him taken out with a drone strike or a commando raid.

If Petraeus had done that, he wouldn't just be a traitor; he'd be the worst traitor of modern times...

Lord Jim wrote:If Petraeus had in fact done what either the Traitor Snowden or The Traitor Manning did

And how about Jeffrey Sterling and Stephen Kim (and numerous other low-ranking defendants)?

BTW, I agree with you about Manning. My feelings about Snowden are a lot more complicated (let's just say that I had some sympathy before he went to Russia). But neither one is similar to Petraeus, who publicly admitted to violations which would have gotten anyone else jail time, and then managed to weasel out of ever being prosecuted for them.