PDA

View Full Version : Swinging general slipped past security screeners



Bos Mutus
08-30-2016, 01:30 PM
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon’s failure to detect the extramarital affair and “swinger lifestyle” of a top general despite background checks that likely included polygraph tests exposes flaws in vetting those entrusted with the nation’s most sensitive national security secrets, according to experts and a top senator.

The Army fired Maj. Gen. David Haight from his job overseeing operations at European Command earlier this year after investigators uncovered his double life. Haight’s post required him to have access to the military’s classified capabilities to thwart Russian aggression, and his double life would have put him at risk of being blackmailed, several senior officials have said.


But Haight’s dark secret came to light only after the military received anonymous tips about his 11-year extramarital affair and other sexual escapades and began investigating in December. Officials entrusted with the most sensitive information undergo background checks and lie-detector tests every five years, meaning Haight passed at least two while he was having an affair.



http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/swinging-general-slipped-past-security-screeners


I'm not sure I buy the great security risk if a General has kinky sex...

sandsjames
08-30-2016, 01:59 PM
I'm not sure I buy the great security risk if a General has kinky sex...

Anything that has a possibility of creating a blackmail/extortion type scenario is a security risk, especially for someone with those clearances.

Mjölnir
08-30-2016, 02:41 PM
Anything that has a possibility of creating a blackmail/extortion type scenario is a security risk, especially for someone with those clearances.

This. Especially since his swinging partner wasn't his wife (I got the impression his wife was unaware) ... he susceptible to blackmail.

BT BT

So the mistress met him when he was a LTC, thought he was cute and emailed everyone in the global directory with his name to find him ...

C.R.A.Z.Y.

Bos Mutus
08-30-2016, 02:50 PM
Anything that has a possibility of creating a blackmail/extortion type scenario is a security risk, especially for someone with those clearances.

Circular logic.

Q. Why does kinky sex pose a security risk?

A. Because the member may be blackmailed

Q. Why could the member be blackmailed?

A. Because if found out, he could lose his career, job, etc.

Q. Why would he lose his career, job, etc?

A. Because it's a security risk.

Repeat.

sandsjames
08-30-2016, 02:55 PM
Circular logic.

Q. Why does kinky sex pose a security risk?

A. Because the member may be blackmailed

Q. Why could the member be blackmailed?

A. Because if found out, he could lose his career, job, etc.

Q. Why would he lose his career, job, etc?

A. Because it's a security risk.

Repeat.

It may be circular, but it's very clear logic. And it's only circular if, as you did, one assumes his primary fear is losing his job and NOT his wife finding out.

It's really no different then having gambling debts, etc, and that denying you a clearance.

Bos Mutus
08-30-2016, 03:03 PM
It may be circular, but it's very clear logic.

It's really no different then having gambling debts, etc, and that denying you a clearance.

It's a little different. Not sure how the General managed to keep this a secret from his wife for 11 years...but, let's say it wasn't that big of a secret. Let's say, on a personal level, the General wasn't at all ashamed or embarrassed by his lifestyle...say he was an open swinger.

Then what's the risk other than the fact that he could lose his job?

Is the risk that he was a swinger or that he had a secret from his wife? If it's the latter...then there are probably a lot more people that pose grave security risks...if we fired them all there wouldn't be many left to do the job. If it is the former, then the only risk is that his employer thinks it's a risk.

Debts I think are a little different...but, on the other hand, anyone who "likes money" could then be theoretically as big a security risk...whether it's to get out of debt or to store stockpiles of money...the love of money is the root of all evil! Do we now say anyone who would like a nicer car is a security risk?

We could go on and on...but, I think my point is his security risk is theoretical at best...and unless there is any evidence that he would actually be blackmailed, or succumb to the blackmail, then I think this is a stretch. Everyone can potentially be extorted.

Rainmaker
08-30-2016, 03:14 PM
We could go on and on...but, I think my point is his security risk is theoretical at best

If this scumbag would be willing to cheat on his wife and lie about it for 11 years, what do you think he'd be willing to do to you?

sandsjames
08-30-2016, 03:15 PM
It's a little different. Not sure how the General managed to keep this a secret from his wife for 11 years...but, let's say it wasn't that big of a secret. Let's say, on a personal level, the General wasn't at all ashamed or embarrassed by his lifestyle...say he was an open swinger.

Then what's the risk other than the fact that he could lose his job? This is a lot of hypotheticals, and the policy needs to be a blanket policy. There can't be gray areas with someone who deals with the stuff a General deals with.


Is the risk that he was a swinger or that he had a secret from his wife? The risk is the secret, the threat of embarrassment.


If it's the latter...then there are probably a lot more people that pose grave security risks...if we fired them all there wouldn't be many left to do the job. If it is the former, then the only risk is that his employer thinks it's a risk. Yes, his employer does think it's a risk. That same "employer" does a background check on my 80 year old mother-in-law because she's on my Facebook page and she's Canadian. Is she a risk?


Debts I think are a little different...but, on the other hand, anyone who "likes money" could then be theoretically as big a security risk...whether it's to get out of debt or to store stockpiles of money...the love of money is the root of all evil! Do we now say anyone who would like a nicer car is a security risk? We are all potential risks.

I don't think that a situation with adultery is any different than a situation with debts. Since you want to ask "what if", what if the General's real fear was his wife finding out, divorcing him, and taking half of his retirement? We know that the "employer" finding out isn't going to hurt him, other than forcing him to retire a few months before he planned on, so I think that the loss of career threat is gone. That just leaves the wife finding out. That's a lot of money...50% of a General's retirement isn't chump change...and that would definitely leave him open to blackmail.

We could go on and on...but, I think my point is his security risk is theoretical at best...and unless there is any evidence that he would actually be blackmailed, or succumb to the blackmail, then I think this is a stretch. Everyone can potentially be extorted.[/QUOTE]

Bos Mutus
08-30-2016, 03:23 PM
Yes, his employer does think it's a risk. That same "employer" does a background check on my 80 year old mother-in-law because she's on my Facebook page and she's Canadian. Is she a risk?

We are all potential risks.

Yes...that's the point, we are all potential risks. I would think being an online racist troll is a security risk, too....maybe moreso.


I don't think that a situation with adultery is any different than a situation with debts. Since you want to ask "what if", what if the General's real fear was his wife finding out, divorcing him, and taking half of his retirement?

...there are many many people that would fall into that...again, this is my point. The swinger thing is super-salacious so easy to single out...but, when it comes down to it...there are a lot of secrets out there that most people would prefer do not see the light of day.


We know that the "employer" finding out isn't going to hurt him, other than forcing him to retire a few months before he planned on, so I think that the loss of career threat is gone. That just leaves the wife finding out. That's a lot of money...50% of a General's retirement isn't chump change...and that would definitely leave him open to blackmail.

So...just about every married person is a security risk.

Bos Mutus
08-30-2016, 03:24 PM
If this scumbag would be willing to cheat on his wife and lie about it for 11 years, what do you think he'd be willing to do to you?

If one spends 6+ hours a day positing racist slurs online...who knows what else they would do?

Rainmaker
08-30-2016, 03:27 PM
If one spends 6+ hours a day positing racist slurs online...who knows what else they would do?

Define "racist slurs".

sandsjames
08-30-2016, 03:29 PM
Yes...that's the point, we are all potential risks. I would think being an online racist troll is a security risk, too....maybe moreso. Limiting the risks is the key. Not opening yourself up to additional, abnormal risks is necessary.




...there are many many people that would fall into that...again, this is my point. The swinger thing is super-salacious so easy to single out...but, when it comes down to it...there are a lot of secrets out there that most people would prefer do not see the light of day. So where do you draw the line? Who should and shouldn't receive a TS/SCI? What requirements are there? Just give it to everyone?




So...just about every married person is a security risk.Only if someone has secrets from their spouse that they think could lead to blackmail.

Honestly, I don't understand why you're being so weird about this one. If there's ever a cut and dry situation, it's the one with this General. I'm hoping you're just playing devil's advocate.

sandsjames
08-30-2016, 03:30 PM
Define racist slurs.

Calling the President an "Oreo"?

Rainmaker
08-30-2016, 03:35 PM
Calling the President an "Oreo"?

I'd say it's no more "racist" than calling people this...


which means that the white trash racist trailer park crowd

sandsjames
08-30-2016, 03:38 PM
No more "racist" than this...

Don't act like you don't recognize that there's a clear distinction with comments about one's own race and comments about a different race. Even you are smarter than that.

However, it is technically racist and I'm glad that you are finally admitting that your comment was as well.

Bos Mutus
08-30-2016, 03:40 PM
Limiting the risks is the key. Not opening yourself up to additional, abnormal risks is necessary.

So where do you draw the line? Who should and shouldn't receive a TS/SCI? What requirements are there? Just give it to everyone?

Only if someone has secrets from their spouse that they think could lead to blackmail.

Honestly, I don't understand why you're being so weird about this one. If there's ever a cut and dry situation, it's the one with this General. I'm hoping you're just playing devil's advocate.

A little Devil's Advocate, maybe...but I see a bit of an issue that there is no actual evidence that the General would be subject to blackmail...other than maybe some OSI or whoever determines this saying, "Wow, that would embarrass me"...but, there's no indication that the General was particularly embarrassed by it or would sell the nation away to keep it a secret.

Yet..there are others who could maybe be blackmailed for far far less...it's how the person would respond to the blackmail, not the substance of the secret. He's pulled it off for 11 years...

Perhaps our enemies really have spies out there trying to find sex secrets of our Generals...but, seems kinda like a movie more than real life, to me. Could happen in theory...just not convinced its a real threat to this level.

I'm figuring the Army is going to say he hasn't served honorably in 11 years and retire him at Lt. Col...with nothing actually showing he was any real risk to security or that he would succumb to blackmail at all.

Bottom line is I think the security risk scenario is kind of trumped up for an excuse because they find his bedroom habits icky.

Rainmaker
08-30-2016, 03:44 PM
Don't act like you don't recognize that there's a clear distinction with comments about one's own race and comments about a different race. Even you are smarter than that.


Go Tell it to the families of the murdered cops you demonize. Punk

sandsjames
08-30-2016, 03:46 PM
A little Devil's Advocate, maybe...but I see a bit of an issue that there is no actual evidence that the General would be subject to blackmail...other than maybe some OSI or whoever determines this saying, "Wow, that would embarrass me"...but, there's no indication that the General was particularly embarrassed by it or would sell the nation away to keep it a secret.

Yet..there are others who could maybe be blackmailed for far far less...it's how the person would respond to the blackmail, not the substance of the secret. He's pulled it off for 11 years...

Perhaps our enemies really have spies out there trying to find sex secrets of our Generals...but, seems kinda like a movie more than real life, to me. Could happen in theory...just not convinced its a real threat to this level.

I'm figuring the Army is going to say he hasn't served honorably in 11 years and retire him at Lt. Col...with nothing actually showing he was any real risk to security or that he would succumb to blackmail at all.

Bottom line is I think the security risk scenario is kind of trumped up for an excuse because they find his bedroom habits icky.

I hate to invoke this phrase, but we are required to teach "Risk Management" to our students on a daily basis. As I'm sure you're aware, there are always a certain amount of risks associated with our job, simply by definition. We accept the "normal" risks and have to determine what risks are outside of the norm.

Oh...and this guy will retire as a General. No doubt.

sandsjames
08-30-2016, 03:48 PM
Go Tell it to the families of the murdered cops you demonize. PunkWhat? I've never demonized anyone. But "punk" is a great term. It makes me think of Clint Eastwood, who was the lead actor in "Gran Torino". He was a bigoted old white guy who constantly shouted racist slurs. Coincidence? I think not.

Bos Mutus
08-30-2016, 03:50 PM
I hate to invoke this phrase, but we are required to teach "Risk Management" to our students on a daily basis. As I'm sure you're aware, there are always a certain amount of risks associated with our job, simply by definition. We accept the "normal" risks and have to determine what risks are outside of the norm.

Oh...and this guy will retire as a General. No doubt.

One man's risk is another rman's opportunity.

Rainmaker
08-30-2016, 04:44 PM
BT BT

So the mistress met him when he was a LTC, thought he was cute and emailed everyone in the global directory with his name to find him ...

C.R.A.Z.Y.




hate to invoke this phrase, but we are required to teach "Risk Management" to our students on a daily basis.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwbKYcBdVyk

Rainmaker
08-30-2016, 05:06 PM
"punk" is a great term. It makes me think of Clint Eastwood, who was the lead actor in "Gran Torino". He was a bigoted old white guy who constantly shouted racist slurs. Coincidence? I think not.

As you may recall, that was the Original Rainmaker Avatar. We switched it up for the election cycle.

sandsjames
08-30-2016, 05:10 PM
As you may recall, that was the Original Rainmaker Avatar. We switched it up for the election cycle.

I don't recall. I'm not that interested in what you do to pay attention.

garhkal
08-30-2016, 05:21 PM
Circular logic.

Q. Why does kinky sex pose a security risk?

A. Because the member may be blackmailed

Q. Why could the member be blackmailed?

A. Because if found out, he could lose his career, job, etc.

Q. Why would he lose his career, job, etc?

A. Because it's a security risk.

Repeat.

No different than
Why does having a gambling debt pose a security risk?
Cause someone could be bribed or blackmailed into doing wrong stuff
Why could said member be blackmailed or bribed?
Cause if his debts got out his career is in jeopardy
Why could his career be in jeopardy?
Because its against the rules and is a security risk..

Rainmaker
08-30-2016, 05:28 PM
I don't recall. I'm not that interested in what you do to pay attention.

Well , You don't exactly have a keen eye for the obvious. Do you?

sandsjames
08-30-2016, 05:37 PM
Well , You don't exactly have a keen eye for the obvious. Do you?What was my prior avatar?

Bos Mutus
08-30-2016, 05:40 PM
No different than
Why does having a gambling debt pose a security risk?
Cause someone could be bribed or blackmailed into doing wrong stuff
Why could said member be blackmailed or bribed?
Cause if his debts got out his career is in jeopardy
Why could his career be in jeopardy?
Because its against the rules and is a security risk..

Being in debt over your head has repercussions in and of itself...could lose your house, your car, etc. It's not that it's against the rules to be in debt...it's that the member may be losing control of it and there be a financial incentive. Of course, having some debt that is manageable does not pose the degree of risk.... The risk is not so much blackmail or extortion, but simple financial payment. It's not "Hey, we'll expose that in debt if you don't give us secrets...and you might lose your clearance once the Army finds out you have debt", as it is "Hey, we'll take care of that debt if you give us secrets."

Enjoying kinky sex in and of itself does not have those kinds of repercussion...now, if it's secretive and spiraling out of control...maybe, but no indication of that in this article...just the fact that the Gen. did some swinging with a girlfriend. I'm finding it likely his wife knew about it after 11 years...who knows. So, in the people calling this a risk of blackmail are also the ones who are creating the risk of blackmail.

This is similar to the pre-DADT thing, I suppose. One of reasons for banning gays was that they could be blackmailed or risk lose everything...but, if you're the one threatening them with losing everything, you're creating the incentive to blackmail.

sandsjames
08-30-2016, 05:47 PM
Being in debt over your head has repercussions in and of itself...could lose your house, your car, etc. It's not that it's against the rules to be in debt...it's that the member may be losing control of it and there be a financial incentive. Of course, having some debt that is manageable does not pose the degree of risk.... The risk is not so much blackmail or extortion, but simple financial payment. It's not "Hey, we'll expose that in debt if you don't give us secrets...and you might lose your clearance once the Army finds out you have debt", as it is "Hey, we'll take care of that debt if you give us secrets."

Enjoying kinky sex in and of itself does not have those kinds of repercussion...now, if it's secretive and spiraling out of control...maybe, but no indication of that in this article...just the fact that the Gen. did some swinging with a girlfriend. I'm finding it likely his wife knew about it after 11 years...who knows. So, in the people calling this a risk of blackmail are also the ones who are creating the risk of blackmail.

This is similar to the pre-DADT thing, I suppose. One of reasons for banning gays was that they could be blackmailed or risk lose everything...but, if you're the one threatening them with losing everything, you're creating the incentive to blackmail.

It wasn't the "kinky sex", as you keep saying, that is the issue; at least that's not what I'm getting from it. It's the affair itself which, by the way, still violates policy, doesn't it?

Bos Mutus
08-30-2016, 05:59 PM
It wasn't the "kinky sex", as you keep saying, that is the issue; at least that's not what I'm getting from it. It's the affair itself which, by the way, still violates policy, doesn't it?

Yes, it violates policy, I suppose...I'm saying I'm not convinced it should necessarily violate policy.

sandsjames
08-30-2016, 06:07 PM
Yes, it violates policy, I suppose...I'm saying I'm not convinced it should necessarily violate policy.

That what shouldn't? Having an affair? It goes a long way towards detriment to good order and discipline. What happens when a guy hooks up with his coworkers wife, etc? It's not good for business, so there is a blanket policy. I'm really surprised that this view is coming from you. I'm sure, in the positions you've held, you've seen things become a serious pain in the ass and have an impact on the work center/unit.

Bos Mutus
08-30-2016, 06:12 PM
That what shouldn't? Having an affair? It goes a long way towards detriment to good order and discipline. What happens when a guy hooks up with his coworkers wife, etc?

If that's the fear, then the policy should be against hooking up with a coworkers wife...I mean, look, this General did this stuff for 11 years...all indications he was performing well on the job and it did not impact the job.


It's not good for business, so there is a blanket policy. I'm really surprised that this view is coming from you. I'm sure, in the positions you've held, you've seen things become a serious pain in the ass and have an impact on the work center/unit.

Yes...I've also seen a lot that did not. I've seen a shit-ton of guys fool around on TDY...a few with the wife's at least tacit approval.

Rainmaker
08-30-2016, 06:15 PM
Yes, it violates policy, I suppose...I'm saying I'm not convinced it should necessarily violate policy.

Now that everything goes from the gay deviant lifestyle to chicks with dix, why not?

Or maybe instead of all this drama. He could've just gotten a divorce?

sandsjames
08-30-2016, 06:18 PM
If that's the fear, then the policy should be against hooking up with a coworkers wife...I mean, look, this General did this stuff for 11 years...all indications he was performing well on the job and it did not impact the job. Sure, and Johnny smoked pot for 11 years of his career and it never once affected the job. Jimmy drove drunk every weekend for the last 11 years, never had an accident, and it didn't hurt his work. No need for a blanket policy about drinking and driving.




Yes...I've also seen a lot that did not. I've seen a shit-ton of guys fool around on TDY...a few with the wife's at least tacit approval.Well, you can't account for a person's lack of self respect.

Bos Mutus
08-30-2016, 06:19 PM
Now that everything goes from the gay deviant lifestyle to chicks with dix, why not?

There is actually a point there.

This stuff is all based on the idea that if someone is having sex other than missionary position with their legally betrothed, that it is shameful and subject to blackmail...but, that is not the world we live in anymore.


Or maybe instead of all this drama. He could've just gotten a divorce?

Maybe they are just fine as a couple with the way things are.

Bos Mutus
08-30-2016, 06:20 PM
Sure, and Johnny smoked pot for 11 years of his career and it never once affected the job. Jimmy drove drunk every weekend for the last 11 years, never had an accident, and it didn't hurt his work. No need for a blanket policy about drinking and driving.



Well, you can't account for a person's lack of self respect.

Okay...I'm done here. I have nothing more to add.

sandsjames
08-30-2016, 06:21 PM
Or maybe instead of all this drama. He could've just gotten a divorce?
BINGO! If he's such a juvenile that he can't keep his dick in his pants then he should get out of the marriage. And he definitely shouldn't remain a "high ranking General" who is supposed to be setting the example.

sandsjames
08-30-2016, 06:24 PM
Okay...I'm done here.

Really? Because your morals and my morals are different?

Tell you what. I'd rather work with a guy who has a few beers and drives or smokes a joint now and again then a person who cheats on his/her spouse.

But since that isn't where your moral compass lies, you're "done here"? That's pretty weak.

sandsjames
08-30-2016, 06:25 PM
Maybe they are just fine as a couple with the way things are.

And maybe they aren't.

Rusty Jones
08-30-2016, 06:28 PM
BINGO! If he's such a juvenile that he can't keep his dick in his pants then he should get out of the marriage. And he definitely shouldn't remain a "high ranking General" who is supposed to be setting the example.

Okay, so I didn't read the article (sue me), but if he's a swinger... then he's engaging in something that both he and his wife agreed to; so it's not like someone can threaten to tell his wife, because his wife already knows and even agreed to it.

sandsjames
08-30-2016, 06:35 PM
Okay, so I didn't read the article (sue me), but if he's a swinger... then he's engaging in something that both he and his wife agreed to; so it's not like someone can threaten to tell his wife, because his wife already knows and even agreed to it.

I'm sure there is much more to the story then we are hearing but, either way, for a General to be engaging in this activity isn't good for perception and, as you know, the military likes to claim it's all about perception.

Bos Mutus
08-30-2016, 07:07 PM
Really? Because your morals and my morals are different?

Tell you what. I'd rather work with a guy who has a few beers and drives or smokes a joint now and again then a person who cheats on his/her spouse.

But since that isn't where your moral compass lies, you're "done here"? That's pretty weak.

Done here cuz I can only state the same point so many times...you disagree with it, fine. I can live with that.

I don't have a problem with someone who smokes marijuana off-duty, so long as they are fit for duty. "Few beers and drive" is debatable.

Bos Mutus
08-30-2016, 07:09 PM
And maybe they aren't.

Right..we don't know. I stated earlier that I'm going off the assumption that this probably wasn't a secret from his wife for 11 years...that could be wrong, but is part of my starting basis for the rest of my comments.

Bos Mutus
08-30-2016, 07:10 PM
Okay, so I didn't read the article (sue me), but if he's a swinger... then he's engaging in something that both he and his wife agreed to; so it's not like someone can threaten to tell his wife, because his wife already knows and even agreed to it.

According to the article he was swinging with his girlfriend of 11 years, not his wife.

Rusty Jones
08-30-2016, 07:12 PM
I'm sure there is much more to the story then we are hearing but, either way, for a General to be engaging in this activity isn't good for perception and, as you know, the military likes to claim it's all about perception.

Yeah, that all went out the window when they allowed transsexuals to serve.

However, I agree with what you're saying. People can say whatever they way want, but EVERY culture in the world ties morality to sex in some way, shape or form. Every. Last. One of them. What's considred immoral will differ from culture to culture; but all cultures consider SOMETHING to immoral - and I'm only including sexual contact between consenting adults when I say this.

Whether we like it or not... violating a sexual taboo is going to affect how people perceive you and the images that immediately come to mind when they think of you.

For example, as a heterosexual male in a monogamous marraige; when someone meets you, they're not going to immediately get the image of you having sex with a woman stuck in their heads.

However, when you meet a lesbian, what's the first thing that pops in your mind? The image of her licking a pussy. When you meet an effeminate gay man - like or not - the image of him taking it in the ass will immediately form in your head.

And it's no different with swingers. Because it's out of the norm. When you think of this General, you're not going to think about the mission or his leadership. No, you're gonna look at the guy and think of him in the middle of a big orgy in his living room.

So yes, I'm in agreement with what you're saying. Not saluting on officer will have absolutely zero impact on anything, but that's not what the UCMJ is about.

Bos Mutus
08-30-2016, 07:19 PM
BINGO! If he's such a juvenile that he can't keep his dick in his pants then he should get out of the marriage. And he definitely shouldn't remain a "high ranking General" who is supposed to be setting the example.


I'm sure there is much more to the story then we are hearing but, either way, for a General to be engaging in this activity isn't good for perception and, as you know, the military likes to claim it's all about perception.

It's a much finer point to debate whether or not this is the proper leadership example to set for a General.

...but, the original point was whether or not he poses a threat to national security. I stand by my point that I have seen nothing to indicate he would be.

And, presumably, any risk of blackmail should be gone now as he's been outted and no longer has a secret to keep.

sandsjames
08-30-2016, 07:26 PM
"Few beers and drive" is debatable.Yep, sure is. It depends whether you want "Minority Report" type laws that prosecute before there has been any actual outcome or whether you want to go after crimes that have actually harmed someone.

I can see both sides but I can't see having it both ways. We either go for deterrence or we go for punishment after the fact, on everything.

sandsjames
08-30-2016, 07:27 PM
It's a much finer point to debate whether or not this is the proper leadership example to set for a General.

...but, the original point was whether or not he poses a threat to national security. I stand by my point that I have seen nothing to indicate he would be.

And, presumably, any risk of blackmail should be gone now as he's been outted and no longer has a secret to keep.

Right...so now they should reinstate him!

Bos Mutus
08-30-2016, 07:35 PM
BINGO! If he's such a juvenile that he can't keep his dick in his pants then he should get out of the marriage. And he definitely shouldn't remain a "high ranking General" who is supposed to be setting the example.


Yep, sure is. It depends whether you want "Minority Report" type laws that prosecute before there has been any actual outcome or whether you want to go after crimes that have actually harmed someone.

I can see both sides but I can't see having it both ways. We either go for deterrence or we go for punishment after the fact, on everything.

I haven't seen Minority Report, so I don't really get the reference.

...but, I think someone could make a reasonable argument that if they can pass the state driving test at .12 BAC, then they should be able to drive at .12 BAC.

Bos Mutus
08-30-2016, 07:38 PM
Right...so now they should reinstate him!

Yepp...

Sort of a Catch 22 again with this whole thing.

The only thing that makes it risky is that it's a secret...once they Army finds out, it's no longer a secret so is no longer risky.

The only way this type of stuff makes sense is if they withdraw clearance from people they don't know about...assume they are hiding some kind of secret...everyone is.

sandsjames
08-30-2016, 07:39 PM
I haven't seen Minority Report, so I don't really get the reference. It's about "precogs" seeing the future and stopping people from committing crimes they haven't committed yet.


...but, I think someone could make a reasonable argument that if they can pass the state driving test at .12 BAC, then they should be able to drive at .12 BAC.So each individual has something on their license that shows what BAC they are same to drive up to...interesting. I wouldn't have to be discrete with my road beer.

Bos Mutus
08-30-2016, 07:50 PM
It's about "precogs" seeing the future and stopping people from committing crimes they haven't committed yet.

So each individual has something on their license that shows what BAC they are same to drive up to...interesting. I wouldn't have to be discrete with my road beer.

Yeah...like you get motorcycle on there, or you need glasses to drive...you get an individual BAC rating instead of the blanket .08.

Not everyone is equally impaired at .08.

garhkal
08-31-2016, 05:43 AM
Being in debt over your head has repercussions in and of itself...could lose your house, your car, etc. It's not that it's against the rules to be in debt...it's that the member may be losing control of it and there be a financial incentive. Of course, having some debt that is manageable does not pose the degree of risk.... The risk is not so much blackmail or extortion, but simple financial payment. It's not "Hey, we'll expose that in debt if you don't give us secrets...and you might lose your clearance once the Army finds out you have debt", as it is "Hey, we'll take care of that debt if you give us secrets."

I have known several people who lost a clearance due to bad debts.. Though admittedly one was cause of his WIFE passing bad checks, not him.


I don't have a problem with someone who smokes marijuana off-duty, so long as they are fit for duty. "Few beers and drive" is debatable.

Where as i do.. Doing drugs, even off duty is still imo a no no, especially if those drugs are illegal..

Mjölnir
08-31-2016, 09:07 AM
I have known several people who lost a clearance due to bad debts.. Though admittedly one was cause of his WIFE passing bad checks, not him.

Likely because they had shared / joint accounts. From the perspective of the CAF (Central Adjudication Facility) he is just as liable / responsible for an issue with an account with his name on it, regardless of if he passed the check or not. I had an issue like this with a senior officer on deployment, he lost his clearance for about 90 days due to his spouse bouncing a few checks while he was deployed.

IRT MG Haight's situation. I kind of wonder if his former mistress was the one who turned him in; after a ten year affair if she realized he wasn't leaving his wife and she got jilted.

There are two different 'adjudicators' of his situation: the military, and the CAF.

The military relieved him for the affair, the association to swinging, using his gov't issued phone and email account to facilitate the affair (unofficial business) etc. The military also is concerned about perception / appearances.

Having been an SSO a couple times, I will say the CAF is surprisingly forgiving, much more than the military on many things as long as you are honest with them. I have seen people with multiple bankruptcies maintain clearances, people with various issues maintain clearances, NJP's etc. and even two people with court martials that I am personally aware of. Prior to the implementation of DADT, the CAF had adjudicated clearances for personnel who were homosexual, and the CAF became aware of the homosexuality. The CAF's biggest theme is 'be honest with us'. In the case of many homosexuals, the CAF required the individual to notify their family (to avoid extortion) but had no issue beyond that. Get caught lying to the CAF ... you will lose your clearance Where I think the MG had a security problem was not in his choice of lifestyle, but that his wife didn't know about his lifestyle, which exposed him to potential extortion to preserve his 20+ year marriage.

Rainmaker
08-31-2016, 05:08 PM
IRT MG Haight's situation. I kind of wonder if his former mistress was the one who turned him in; after a ten year affair if she realized he wasn't leaving his wife and she got jilted.



Well, At least we know he can definitely keep a secret!

Rainmaker
08-31-2016, 05:20 PM
...but, the original point was whether or not he poses a threat to national security. I stand by my point that I have seen nothing to indicate he would be.



And, presumably, any risk of blackmail should be gone now as he's been outted and no longer has a secret to keep.

.

The purpose of a background investigation is to determine whether you're reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and will be loyal to the US.


Now, I'd say A dude in that position, living a double life, cheating on his wife, having orgies with his subordinates & lying to investigators about it is going to be disqualified.

But, to your larger point.....This type of shit is more Unintended consequences of Liberals again...... We all know that he can't be charged (with the felonies) because if he was, then his defense could raise the same issues the queers lawyers did and just say they forced him to lie. It would expose the double standard.

Bos Mutus
08-31-2016, 05:48 PM
I have known several people who lost a clearance due to bad debts.. Though admittedly one was cause of his WIFE passing bad checks, not him.

Although, they both have to do with finances...writing bad checks is not the same as having debt.


Where as i do.. Doing drugs, even off duty is still imo a no no, especially if those drugs are illegal..

The fact that someone is breaking the law...I suppose.

But, the drug itself is not much of a big deal, IMO.

garhkal
08-31-2016, 06:45 PM
Likely because they had shared / joint accounts. From the perspective of the CAF (Central Adjudication Facility) he is just as liable / responsible for an issue with an account with his name on it, regardless of if he passed the check or not.

Exactly. That's one of the bigger irks i have with the whole clearance / bouncing check issue.


.

The purpose of a background investigation is to determine whether you're reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and will be loyal to the US.
Now, I'd say A dude in that position, living a double life, cheating on his wife, having orgies with his subordinates & lying to investigators about it is going to be disqualified.

They SHOULD be disqualified, but seeing how we have seen people in charge do similar stuff and kept their clearance, i can't see his getting yanked.

MikeKerriii
08-31-2016, 10:20 PM
They SHOULD be disqualified, but seeing how we have seen people in charge do similar stuff and kept their clearance, i can't see his getting yanked. A lotof that depends on the level of clearance, if you have a secret or even a plain old Top Secret clearance and access you might be able to keep it, But w once ou get in to the Compartented or multi-compartment level things get a lot tighter. I used to tell the folks working for me That I would recomend pulling the clearance permanently if they were caught DUI, And that meant that they would be processed for discharge, since having the ability to hold a TS level clearance was a requirement to hold a 5-level.

Bos Mutus
09-02-2016, 05:04 PM
According to Terry Gould (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Gould)'s The Lifestyle: a look at the erotic rites of swingers,[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinging_%28sexual_practice%29#cite_note-19) swinging began among American Air Force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Air_Forces) pilots and their wives during World War II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) before pilots left for overseas duty. The mortality rate of pilots was so high, as Gould reports, that a close bond arose between pilot families that implied that pilot husbands would care for all the wives as their own – emotionally and sexually – if the husbands were lost.[20] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinging_%28sexual_practice%29#cite_note-20) Though the origins of swinging are contested, it is assumed American swinging was practiced in some American military communities in the 1950s. By the time the Korean War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War) ended, swinging had spread from the military to the suburbs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb). The media dubbed the phenomenon wife-swapping.[21] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinging_%28sexual_practice%29#cite_note-21)

The military hates military tradition.

sparks82
10-13-2016, 04:42 PM
It's a little different. Not sure how the General managed to keep this a secret from his wife for 11 years...but, let's say it wasn't that big of a secret. Let's say, on a personal level, the General wasn't at all ashamed or embarrassed by his lifestyle...say he was an open swinger.

Then what's the risk other than the fact that he could lose his job?

Is the risk that he was a swinger or that he had a secret from his wife? If it's the latter...then there are probably a lot more people that pose grave security risks...if we fired them all there wouldn't be many left to do the job. If it is the former, then the only risk is that his employer thinks it's a risk.

Debts I think are a little different...but, on the other hand, anyone who "likes money" could then be theoretically as big a security risk...whether it's to get out of debt or to store stockpiles of money...the love of money is the root of all evil! Do we now say anyone who would like a nicer car is a security risk?

We could go on and on...but, I think my point is his security risk is theoretical at best...and unless there is any evidence that he would actually be blackmailed, or succumb to the blackmail, then I think this is a stretch. Everyone can potentially be extorted.

There does not have to be evidence that you would be blackmailed. Have you ever held a security clearance? Go look up the SF86 and see all the questions they ask you on that form.

Yes everyone could be blackmailed but they have to have a reason to blackmail you. If he is leading a secret life, someone could blackmail him for that. Just like if someone has a gambling debt, an adversary could use that to target the person and get information. Or if someone is swimming in debt. If they're having an affair. Anything that could damage that person's reputation would be a risk for blackmail and that's the thing that OPM wants to know when they investigate you. After you do the SF86, they come and interview you, your family, your friends, your co-workers. They will talk to literally anyone even if you didn't list them on your application. That's usually for TS but they can for Secret clearance. When you put a reference, they go to that person's house. Whoever else is in the house they ask them about you.

If you are swimming in debt and you aren't showing the investigator you are actively paying it, they will deny you a clearance. I processed like 150 in my first unit I have seen them deny clearance for a lot of things but primarily debt. If they find out something about you that you withheld, they're going to rip your clearance away.

Let's say an adversary had found out about his swinger lifestyle and then came and blackmailed him. I believe it said this guy was the commander of EUCOM. That's a big deal. This guy is involved in a lot. He gets blackmailed, doesn't report that he had contact with FIS or someone asking about his job, and then gets caught he's in a world of hurt more than he already was when this happened.

No it's a big security risk. Bottomline.

sparks82
10-13-2016, 04:45 PM
A little Devil's Advocate, maybe...but I see a bit of an issue that there is no actual evidence that the General would be subject to blackmail...other than maybe some OSI or whoever determines this saying, "Wow, that would embarrass me"...but, there's no indication that the General was particularly embarrassed by it or would sell the nation away to keep it a secret.

Yet..there are others who could maybe be blackmailed for far far less...it's how the person would respond to the blackmail, not the substance of the secret. He's pulled it off for 11 years...

Perhaps our enemies really have spies out there trying to find sex secrets of our Generals...but, seems kinda like a movie more than real life, to me. Could happen in theory...just not convinced its a real threat to this level.

I'm figuring the Army is going to say he hasn't served honorably in 11 years and retire him at Lt. Col...with nothing actually showing he was any real risk to security or that he would succumb to blackmail at all.

Bottom line is I think the security risk scenario is kind of trumped up for an excuse because they find his bedroom habits icky.

You would be surprised just how many FIS operative are out there and what they look for in a target. Didn't you ever get CI training in the military? They pretty much go over all this and what to do to avoid being a target and what you should report.

Bos Mutus
10-13-2016, 06:02 PM
There does not have to be evidence that you would be blackmailed. Have you ever held a security clearance? Go look up the SF86 and see all the questions they ask you on that form.

Yes everyone could be blackmailed but they have to have a reason to blackmail you. If he is leading a secret life, someone could blackmail him for that. Just like if someone has a gambling debt, an adversary could use that to target the person and get information. Or if someone is swimming in debt. If they're having an affair. Anything that could damage that person's reputation would be a risk for blackmail and that's the thing that OPM wants to know when they investigate you. After you do the SF86, they come and interview you, your family, your friends, your co-workers. They will talk to literally anyone even if you didn't list them on your application. That's usually for TS but they can for Secret clearance. When you put a reference, they go to that person's house. Whoever else is in the house they ask them about you.

If you are swimming in debt and you aren't showing the investigator you are actively paying it, they will deny you a clearance. I processed like 150 in my first unit I have seen them deny clearance for a lot of things but primarily debt. If they find out something about you that you withheld, they're going to rip your clearance away.

Let's say an adversary had found out about his swinger lifestyle and then came and blackmailed him. I believe it said this guy was the commander of EUCOM. That's a big deal. This guy is involved in a lot. He gets blackmailed, doesn't report that he had contact with FIS or someone asking about his job, and then gets caught he's in a world of hurt more than he already was when this happened.

No it's a big security risk. Bottomline.


You would be surprised just how many FIS operative are out there and what they look for in a target. Didn't you ever get CI training in the military? They pretty much go over all this and what to do to avoid being a target and what you should report.

We could do this without the condescension.

Yes...in my 26.5 years of military I've had plenty of training on OPSEC, had and hold a security clearance...have been interviewed and asked questions about others' security clearances.

I've also been trained that walking outside at night without a reflective belt is a safety hazard. The military does sometimes overstate the threat. I mean, do you ever walk at night without a reflective belt? How could you, have to never been trained on the risk??

Just because it's in the training, doesn't mean I have to think it's a realistic threat....just because the questions are asked on the SF 86, does mean I have to believe that all of those questions are realistic threats.

Just because someone has kinky sex, does not mean they can be blackmailed for it. Who says? Maybe if a foreign operative had photos of you having sex with your ex- they could blackmail you with it...does that mean you should lose your clearance and access since; being a mother IIRC clearly proves you had sex. All those sneakly FIS operatives are surely smart enough to have gotten some photos of you at some point. I mean, maybe you wouldn't be blackmailed, but there are cases of women being blackmailed because someone hacked their webcam and got pictures of them changing...so, if you have a webcam, you might be subject to blackmail, too.

Maybe some people can, maybe other's can not. Some people can be blackmailed for a lot of things...doesn't mean that everyone can and therefore we should pull clearances because of it.

sparks82
10-17-2016, 06:17 PM
We could do this without the condescension.

Yes...in my 26.5 years of military I've had plenty of training on OPSEC, had and hold a security clearance...have been interviewed and asked questions about others' security clearances.

I've also been trained that walking outside at night without a reflective belt is a safety hazard. The military does sometimes overstate the threat. I mean, do you ever walk at night without a reflective belt? How could you, have to never been trained on the risk??

Just because it's in the training, doesn't mean I have to think it's a realistic threat....just because the questions are asked on the SF 86, does mean I have to believe that all of those questions are realistic threats.

Just because someone has kinky sex, does not mean they can be blackmailed for it. Who says? Maybe if a foreign operative had photos of you having sex with your ex- they could blackmail you with it...does that mean you should lose your clearance and access since; being a mother IIRC clearly proves you had sex. All those sneakly FIS operatives are surely smart enough to have gotten some photos of you at some point. I mean, maybe you wouldn't be blackmailed, but there are cases of women being blackmailed because someone hacked their webcam and got pictures of them changing...so, if you have a webcam, you might be subject to blackmail, too.

Maybe some people can, maybe other's can not. Some people can be blackmailed for a lot of things...doesn't mean that everyone can and therefore we should pull clearances because of it.

That wasn't condescension. That was a legitimate question. The CI briefings are not overstated. But you can believe what you want.

Why would they be able to blackmail me having sex with my ex husband? There's nothing illegal if I were to have sex with my ex husband at all. Is that a serious hypothetical? If he were to get married for a third time and then I had sex with him THEN they could blackmail me. But he's completely 100% single and IF I was desperate enough to have sex with him it violates no laws or UCMJ. Why would I care if some FIS had pictures of me having sex? That's not illegal. Them somehow infiltrating my home and taking photos of me nude that would be illegal.

Also if someone hacked my webcam on my laptop (which is never in my bedroom) and somehow caught pictures of me changing go ahead and publish them. I don't care. I wasn't doing anything illegal. They were.

Now this general was having sex outside his marriage. It does not matter if his wife approved or not. Adultery is punishable under UCMJ. Big difference.

Also the fact he kept this secret for how many years - what else is he hiding or lying about?

Now if I was having sex with someone else while I was married and someone got proof of it - that would be a different situation. But I have never nor would I ever cheat on someone I was in a relationship with or married to. So I never have to worry about that. I have the most boring life on the planet so any FIS that follow me would move on rather quickly. I work and take care of my daughter. That's it. Hospitals and doctor visits and nursing visits take up my time outside of work. Or I go visit family sometimes. I don't drink alcohol at all even. So go ahead and stalk me FIS.

Even IF I did something blackmail worthy - I would just tell them about it especially if I got approached by FIS agent. Or if someone said "If you don't give me this information I'll publish these photos." I'd go straight to my security manager or CI person. I'm not risking federal prison over some bullshit. I'd take the UCMJ or whatever was applicable.

Bos Mutus
10-17-2016, 06:27 PM
That wasn't condescension. That was a legitimate question. The CI briefings are not overstated. But you can believe what you want.

Why would they be able to blackmail me having sex with my ex husband? There's nothing illegal if I were to have sex with my ex husband at all. Is that a serious hypothetical? If he were to get married for a third time and then I had sex with him THEN they could blackmail me. But he's completely 100% single and IF I was desperate enough to have sex with him it violates no laws or UCMJ. Why would I care if some FIS had pictures of me having sex? That's not illegal. Them somehow infiltrating my home and taking photos of me nude that would be illegal.

Also if someone hacked my webcam on my laptop (which is never in my bedroom) and somehow caught pictures of me changing go ahead and publish them. I don't care. I wasn't doing anything illegal. They were.

While you may be fine with naked pictures posted to your family and friends...many people would not.

Therefore, we can assume that at least some people might be able to be blackmailed with them....maybe not you.

Just like some people might be able to blackmailed if they were having a long-term affair...but, we don't know if the General would be able to or not.

See?


Now this general was having sex outside his marriage. It does not matter if his wife approved or not. Adultery is punishable under UCMJ. Big difference.

It has nothing to do with whether something is illegal or not...it has to do with whether or not someone cares enough about keeping that information a secret from the public to sell out their position of trust.


Also the fact he kept this secret for how many years - what else is he hiding or lying about?

Maybe nothing. If it's the "something else" that is concerning, then find evidence there is some before just assuming there is.


Now if I was having sex with someone else while I was married and someone got proof of it - that would be a different situation. But I have never nor would I ever cheat on someone I was in a relationship with or married to. So I never have to worry about that. I have the most boring life on the planet so any FIS that follow me would move on rather quickly. I work and take care of my daughter. That's it. Hospitals and doctor visits and nursing visits take up my time outside of work. Or I go visit family sometimes. I don't drink alcohol at all even. So go ahead and stalk me FIS.

You are actually kind of making my point...

This has nothing to do with you, really...I was demonstrating that even though some people might be able to be blackmailed with their naked pictures...there is no evidence you would be.


Even IF I did something blackmail worthy - I would just tell them about it especially if I got approached by FIS agent.

Then why do you assume the General with his long and distinguished wouldn't?


Or if someone said "If you don't give me this information I'll publish these photos." I'd go straight to my security manager or CI person. I'm not risking federal prison over some bullshit. I'd take the UCMJ or whatever was applicable.

I like to think the General would, too.

sparks82
10-18-2016, 02:17 PM
While you may be fine with naked pictures posted to your family and friends...many people would not.

Therefore, we can assume that at least some people might be able to be blackmailed with them....maybe not you.

Just like some people might be able to blackmailed if they were having a long-term affair...but, we don't know if the General would be able to or not.

See?



It has nothing to do with whether something is illegal or not...it has to do with whether or not someone cares enough about keeping that information a secret from the public to sell out their position of trust.



Maybe nothing. If it's the "something else" that is concerning, then find evidence there is some before just assuming there is.



You are actually kind of making my point...

This has nothing to do with you, really...I was demonstrating that even though some people might be able to be blackmailed with their naked pictures...there is no evidence you would be.



Then why do you assume the General with his long and distinguished wouldn't?



I like to think the General would, too.

I am not fine with naked pictures of myself on the Internet but if someone illegally obtained them - they can't blackmail me. Especially if I did nothing illegal in the photos.

Agree to disagree.

Bos Mutus
10-18-2016, 02:29 PM
I am not fine with naked pictures of myself on the Internet but if someone illegally obtained them - they can't blackmail me. Especially if I did nothing illegal in the photos.

Right...but you said earlier that there didn't need to be any evidence that you would have been blackmailed (or the General)


Agree to disagree.

I reckon

Mjölnir
10-18-2016, 03:01 PM
I think the general was susceptible to blackmail (hence a security risk) because he was carrying on with his mistress and his spouse was not aware of the swinging or the mistress; an agent of a foreign power could definitely have dangled the ruin of the marriage, half of a pretty good pension etc. However, it looks like the mistress just got tired of waiting in the wings and willingly turned him in to the Army.

sparks82
10-18-2016, 03:21 PM
Right...but you said earlier that there didn't need to be any evidence that you would have been blackmailed (or the General)



I reckon

Army policy is pretty clear on these things. I worked in BN and BDE S2 shops as the security manager. More in my first unit at BN. Any time we got credible derogatory information we had to report it to BDE and post security manager with a 5248-R signed and filled out by the commander. Then I think we began using JPAS in the last few years but I can't remember. I didn't do as much security manager or personnel security stuff there.

AR 380-67 covers Personnel Security for the Army. Paragraph 2-4 lays out what is credible derogatory information that has to be reported.


2–4. Criteria for application of security standards
The ultimate decision in applying either of the security standards set forth in paragraphs 2–2 and 2–3, above, must be an overall common sense determination based upon all available facts. The criteria for determining eligibility for a clearance or assignment to a sensitive position under the security standard shall include, but not be limited to the following:
a. Commission of any act of sabotage, espionage, treason, terrorism, anarchy, sedition, or attempts thereat or preparation therefor, or conspiring with or aiding or abetting another to commit or attempt to commit any such act.
b. Establishing or continuing a sympathetic association with a saboteur, spy, traitor, seditionist, anarchist, terrorist, revolutionist, or with an espionage or other secret agent or similar representative of a foreign nation whose interests
may be inimical to the interests of the United States, or with any person who advocates the use of force or violence to overthrow the Government of the United States or to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.
c. Advocacy or use of force or violence to overthrow the Government of the United States or to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.
d. Knowing membership with the specific intent of furthering the aims of, or adherence to and active participation in any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group or combination of persons (hereafter referred to as organizations) which unlawfully advocates or practices the commission of acts of force or violence to prevent others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State or which seeks to overthrow the Government of the United States, or any State or subdivision thereof by unlawful means.
e. Unauthorized disclosure to any person of classified information, or of other information, disclosure of which is prohibited by statute, Executive order, or regulation.
f. Performing or attempting to perform one’s duties, acceptance and active maintenance of dual citizenship, or other acts conducted in a manner which serves or which could be expected to serve the interests of another government in preference to the interests of the United States.
g. Disregard of public law, statutes, EOs, or regulations, including violation of security regulations or practices.
h. Criminal or dishonest conduct.
i. Acts of omission or commission that indicate poor judgment, unreliability, or untrustworthiness.
j. Any behavior or illness, including any mental condition, which, in the opinion of competent medical authority, may cause a defect in judgment or reliability with due regard to the transient or continuing effect of the illness and the medical findings in such case.
k. Vulnerability to coercion, influence, or pressure that may cause conduct contrary to the national interest. This may be (1) the presence of immediate family members or other persons to whom the applicant is bonded by affection or obligation in a nation (or areas under its domination) whose interests may be inimical to those of the United States, or
(2) any other circumstances that could cause the applicant to be vulnerable.
l. Excessive indebtedness, recurring financial difficulties, or unexplained affluence.
m. Habitual or episodic use of intoxicants to excess.
n. Illegal or improper use, possession, transfer, or sale of or addiction to any controlled or psychoactive substance, narcotic, cannabis, or other dangerous drug.
o. Any knowing and willful falsification, cover up, concealment, misrepresentation, or omission of a material fact from any written or oral statement, document, form or other representation or device used by DOD or any other Federal agency.
p. Failing or refusing to answer or to authorize others to answer questions or provide information required by a congressional committee, court, or agency in the course of an official inquiry whenever such answers or information concern relevant and material matters pertinent to an evaluation of the individual’s trustworthiness, reliability, and judgment. Refusing or intentionally failing to provide a current personal security questionnaire (PSQ) or omitting material facts in a PSQ or other security form. Refusing to submit to a medical or psychological evaluation when information indicates the individual may have a mental or nervous disorder or be addicted to alcohol or any controlled substance. (Bolded in the regulation)
q. Acts of sexual misconduct or perversion indicative of moral turpitude, poor judgment, or lack of regard for the laws of society.

The ones I underlined apply to this MG. Now when I was a security manager I was on the blotter both times. If we got anything that fell under this we did the 5248-R. Most of it was domestic violence and DUIs. But we send those up and then it goes to Army CCF and they decide if that person's clearance (IF they had one) should be revoked or denied if it was in process.

Now you can appeal when you have a clearance denied or revoked. You get like up to 90 days to appeal it I think. I helped someone do an appeal when they're clearance got denied based on an incident before the Army. He got his clearance on appeal. It wasn't easy. It took about a year for it to get done. He had to get a lot of recommendation letters, etc. This MG could appeal the decision if he can prove it would have not had any kind of detrimental effect. I am a little rusty on personnel security stuff at this point.

But when you fall under multiple things in the reg about reportable adverse action that's not good.

You don't have to like the way it works but that's the way it works. I have seen people get denied interim clearances (which is local approval) for stupid shit and then see them get a final clearance. I've seen people get approved for an interim and get denied a final. It's up to your garrison Security Manager for interims and CCF for final.

Bos Mutus
10-18-2016, 05:19 PM
Army policy is pretty clear on these things. I worked in BN and BDE S2 shops as the security manager. More in my first unit at BN. Any time we got credible derogatory information we had to report it to BDE and post security manager with a 5248-R signed and filled out by the commander. Then I think we began using JPAS in the last few years but I can't remember. I didn't do as much security manager or personnel security stuff there.

AR 380-67 covers Personnel Security for the Army. Paragraph 2-4 lays out what is credible derogatory information that has to be reported.


2–4. Criteria for application of security standards
The ultimate decision in applying either of the security standards set forth in paragraphs 2–2 and 2–3, above, must be an overall common sense determination based upon all available facts. The criteria for determining eligibility for a clearance or assignment to a sensitive position under the security standard shall include, but not be limited to the following:
a. Commission of any act of sabotage, espionage, treason, terrorism, anarchy, sedition, or attempts thereat or preparation therefor, or conspiring with or aiding or abetting another to commit or attempt to commit any such act.
b. Establishing or continuing a sympathetic association with a saboteur, spy, traitor, seditionist, anarchist, terrorist, revolutionist, or with an espionage or other secret agent or similar representative of a foreign nation whose interests
may be inimical to the interests of the United States, or with any person who advocates the use of force or violence to overthrow the Government of the United States or to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.
c. Advocacy or use of force or violence to overthrow the Government of the United States or to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.
d. Knowing membership with the specific intent of furthering the aims of, or adherence to and active participation in any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group or combination of persons (hereafter referred to as organizations) which unlawfully advocates or practices the commission of acts of force or violence to prevent others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State or which seeks to overthrow the Government of the United States, or any State or subdivision thereof by unlawful means.
e. Unauthorized disclosure to any person of classified information, or of other information, disclosure of which is prohibited by statute, Executive order, or regulation.
f. Performing or attempting to perform one’s duties, acceptance and active maintenance of dual citizenship, or other acts conducted in a manner which serves or which could be expected to serve the interests of another government in preference to the interests of the United States.
g. Disregard of public law, statutes, EOs, or regulations, including violation of security regulations or practices.
h. Criminal or dishonest conduct.
i. Acts of omission or commission that indicate poor judgment, unreliability, or untrustworthiness.
j. Any behavior or illness, including any mental condition, which, in the opinion of competent medical authority, may cause a defect in judgment or reliability with due regard to the transient or continuing effect of the illness and the medical findings in such case.
k. Vulnerability to coercion, influence, or pressure that may cause conduct contrary to the national interest. This may be (1) the presence of immediate family members or other persons to whom the applicant is bonded by affection or obligation in a nation (or areas under its domination) whose interests may be inimical to those of the United States, or
(2) any other circumstances that could cause the applicant to be vulnerable.
l. Excessive indebtedness, recurring financial difficulties, or unexplained affluence.
m. Habitual or episodic use of intoxicants to excess.
n. Illegal or improper use, possession, transfer, or sale of or addiction to any controlled or psychoactive substance, narcotic, cannabis, or other dangerous drug.
o. Any knowing and willful falsification, cover up, concealment, misrepresentation, or omission of a material fact from any written or oral statement, document, form or other representation or device used by DOD or any other Federal agency.
p. Failing or refusing to answer or to authorize others to answer questions or provide information required by a congressional committee, court, or agency in the course of an official inquiry whenever such answers or information concern relevant and material matters pertinent to an evaluation of the individual’s trustworthiness, reliability, and judgment. Refusing or intentionally failing to provide a current personal security questionnaire (PSQ) or omitting material facts in a PSQ or other security form. Refusing to submit to a medical or psychological evaluation when information indicates the individual may have a mental or nervous disorder or be addicted to alcohol or any controlled substance. (Bolded in the regulation)
q. Acts of sexual misconduct or perversion indicative of moral turpitude, poor judgment, or lack of regard for the laws of society.

The ones I underlined apply to this MG. Now when I was a security manager I was on the blotter both times. If we got anything that fell under this we did the 5248-R. Most of it was domestic violence and DUIs. But we send those up and then it goes to Army CCF and they decide if that person's clearance (IF they had one) should be revoked or denied if it was in process.

Now you can appeal when you have a clearance denied or revoked. You get like up to 90 days to appeal it I think. I helped someone do an appeal when they're clearance got denied based on an incident before the Army. He got his clearance on appeal. It wasn't easy. It took about a year for it to get done. He had to get a lot of recommendation letters, etc. This MG could appeal the decision if he can prove it would have not had any kind of detrimental effect. I am a little rusty on personnel security stuff at this point.

But when you fall under multiple things in the reg about reportable adverse action that's not good.

You don't have to like the way it works but that's the way it works. I have seen people get denied interim clearances (which is local approval) for stupid shit and then see them get a final clearance. I've seen people get approved for an interim and get denied a final. It's up to your garrison Security Manager for interims and CCF for final.


Good grief.

Yes, I know the policy is clear...I was not doubting that it is or that he is in violation of that policy.

I was merely offering my opinion that I don't think the General is necessarily a security risk based on this information and have seen no evidence that he is.

The assumption that he is exploitable because he had a mistress, I do not agree with. Yes, it is my opinion. Yes, it is contrary to the clear Army policy.

Bos Mutus
10-18-2016, 05:43 PM
I think the general was susceptible to blackmail (hence a security risk) because he was carrying on with his mistress and his spouse was not aware of the swinging or the mistress; an agent of a foreign power could definitely have dangled the ruin of the marriage, half of a pretty good pension etc.

So, now that it's been in the paper, there is nothing to blackmail him with...


However, it looks like the mistress just got tired of waiting in the wings and willingly turned him in to the Army.

...I wonder if she tried to blackmail him. "Leave her or I'm turning you in" and he refused to be blackmailed.

Rainmaker
10-18-2016, 06:59 PM
So, now that it's been in the paper, there is nothing to blackmail him with...

Sage advice folks.

This could've all been prevented, if only the General had a SNCO (like Bos Mutus) there to remind him, that before engaging in illegal activities... It's always a good idea to take out a full page ad in the newspaper and announce to everyone, that you're GETTING READY TO COMMIT A CRIME!

Mjölnir
10-18-2016, 07:26 PM
Sage advice folks.

This could've all been prevented, if only the General had a SNCO (like Bos Mutus) there to advise him, that before engaging in illegal activities... It's always a good idea to take out a full page ad in the newspaper and announce it to everyone that you're.... GETTING READY TO COMMIT A CRIME!

And the mistress wasn't even that good looking to boot ... damn.

Bos Mutus
12-27-2016, 08:08 PM
General demoted after affair, "swinging" lifestyle revealed



WASHINGTON -- An Army major general has been stripped of his stars and forced out of the military after a 30-year military career because of a long extramarital affair and “swinger” lifestyle.

An Army spokesman says Maj. Gen. David Haight was demoted by three steps to the rank of lieutenant colonel, a steep and rare downgrade for a senior officer.

The demotion will cost him more than $40,000 in annual retirement pay, based on pay scales for a lieutenant colonel and a two-star general with 30 years in the Army. And it slams the door on what was once a promising career.

Rainmaker
12-27-2016, 09:05 PM
General demoted after affair, "swinging" lifestyle revealed

$40K a year in reduced retirement pay.... That's an expensive piece of ass!

sandsjames
12-28-2016, 12:43 PM
$40K a year in reduced retirement pay.... That's an expensive piece of ass!

Cheaper than marrying her.

Rainmaker
12-28-2016, 07:40 PM
I see you sparks.... Stop lurking in the bushes and come out & talk to us.