CIA Director Petraeus resigns over extra-marital affair - before tesitying on Libya

Originally Posted by BeMyWhip

At least he had good taste. Anyhow, why woild he resign over infedelity?
I think he needs to be responsible for telling what he knows about this conspiracy.

Because it's about setting the example, and in his words, it's about honor. He cannot expect to lead an organization where ethos such as honor and other values are held in high regard, when he, in fact, broke that trust and had an affair.

His resignation letter to CIA employees:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...53f_story.html

Yesterday afternoon, I went to the White House and asked the President to be allowed, for personal reasons, to resign from my position as D/CIA. After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair. Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours. This afternoon, the President graciously accepted my resignation.

As I depart Langley, I want you to know that it has been the greatest of privileges to have served with you, the officers of our Nation's Silent Service, a work force that is truly exceptional in every regard. Indeed, you did extraordinary work on a host of critical missions during my time as director, and I am deeply grateful to you for that.

Teddy Roosevelt once observed that life's greatest gift is the opportunity to work hard at work worth doing. I will always treasure my opportunity to have done that with you and I will always regret the circumstances that brought that work with you to an end.

Thank you for your extraordinary service to our country, and best wishes for continued success in the important endeavors that lie ahead for our country and our Agency.

With admiration and appreciation,

David H. Petraeus

Originally Posted by mdyaman

Because it's about setting the example, and in his words, it's about honor. He cannot expect to lead an organization where ethos such as honor and other values are held in high regard, when he, in fact, broke that trust and had an affair.

His resignation letter to CIA employees:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...53f_story.html

Ok

I've known several guys that were adjutants to generals. They said without exception every single one of them had extramarital affairs. It's a damn shame.

Disappointing, but I am wonder what is happening behind the scenes. The FBI counterintelligence unit doesn't get involved when some official is banging some piece on the side. Are they concerned about possible leaks, blackmail, etc.? Do they believe there is a national security risk? Both individuals were US citizens, and Paula Broadwell certainly doesn't appear to have hostile intentions towards the government. Why the FBI counter intel is involved is something we may never know.

Speculation about avoiding Benghazi inquisition is just that...speculation.

Overall, I think Petraeus is a great leader. His contributions to this country should not be overshadowed by this, apparent, lack of judgement.

As a top spook, if he can't get away with some action on the side, maybe he shouldn't be running the CIA

Disappointing, but I am wonder what is happening behind the scenes. The FBI counterintelligence unit doesn't get involved when some official is banging some piece on the side. Are they concerned about possible leaks, blackmail, etc.? Do they believe there is a national security risk? Both individuals were US citizens, and Paula Broadwell certainly doesn't appear to have hostile intentions towards the government. Why the FBI counter intel is involved is something we may never know.

I think she's currently under FBI investigation for acccessing top secret info via Patraeus becuase she might have had access to his email accoount.

damn shame

and interesting timing... think he was coerced to wait until after the election?

Originally Posted by badfast

Disappointing, but I am wonder what is happening behind the scenes. The FBI counterintelligence unit doesn't get involved when some official is banging some piece on the side. Are they concerned about possible leaks, blackmail, etc.? Do they believe there is a national security risk? Both individuals were US citizens, and Paula Broadwell certainly doesn't appear to have hostile intentions towards the government. Why the FBI counter intel is involved is something we may never know.

Speculation about avoiding Benghazi inquisition is just that...speculation.

Overall, I think Petraeus is a great leader. His contributions to this country should not be overshadowed by this, apparent, lack of judgement.

Agree, it is a shame, and shocking.

FBI CI can get involved for a myriad of reasons ranging from things like espionage, to even acting on information only to reveal (hopefully in this case) an extramarital affair. Of course, having an extramarital affair, one can be subjected to blackmail and is at risk. It really depends on what they find out.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.

From CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/politi...html?hpt=hp_t2

According to a U.S. official, the FBI had a tip that Petraeus was involved with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, and investigated the alleged affair to determine whether it posed a security risk.

The FBI was not investigating Petraeus for wrongdoing. The concern was that he could potentially be blackmailed or put "in a vulnerable spot," the official said.

Originally Posted by kaput

I am not talking aboutthe affair... the resignation, the timing... Seems very coincidental.

ture....very suspcious especially when he is schedule to tesify to congress about Libya

Sounds like another "phast and phurious"

Originally Posted by mdyaman

Because it's about setting the example, and in his words, it's about honor. He cannot expect to lead an organization where ethos such as honor and other values are held in high regard, when he, in fact, broke that trust and had an affair.

Originally Posted by BeMyWhip

Ok

You won't understand unless you have been in the military.
People in the military are held to a higher standard, and officers are suppose to be the standard bearer.

Originally Posted by flashtwosix

ture....very suspcious especially when he is schedule to tesify to congress about Libya

It does sound suspicious. And Hillary will be gone out of town 'on business' and Obama will be in Asia (Burma). The first time a president has ever visited the nation. Makes you want to go hmmmmmmmm.

Originally Posted by phrozen06

Sounds like another "phast and phurious"

Could be.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/house-...1#.UJ7bv4biuuA

Now Hilary can't testify due to a 'scheduling conflict', wow.

Originally Posted by Big Rick

Hey... The guy is human isn't he?

Exactly.
It's only bad because we judge him based on American puritan standards.
Petraeus, Tiger Woods,... who said we have the right to put certain people on a pedestal?
How about when a Holywood celebrity has an extra marital affair? Nobody gives a blip.
Why?
They are all human beings.

Didn't that French prime minister (Chiraq?) had a well know mistress for ever? I heard she was more popular with the French than his wife was.
At the same time Clinton is caught with an intern and is almost impeached.
It's just a matter of (unrealistic) expectations.

Under extreme circumstances someone can be court martialed for adultery.

Article 133:

Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman (or conduct unbecoming for short) is an offense subject to court martial defined in the punitive code, Article 133, of the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), enacted at 10 U.S.C. § 933.

The elements are:

That the accused did or omitted to do certain acts; and
That, in the circumstances, these acts or omissions constituted conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.[1]
Here "officer" is understood to include commissioned officers, cadets, and midshipmen of both sexes, hence the more common term conduct unbecoming. A gentleman is understood to have a duty to avoid dishonest acts, displays of indecency, lawlessness, dealing unfairly, indecorum, injustice, or acts of cruelty.[2]


Article 134:


The General Article (Article 134)

The general article (Article 134) authorizes the prosecution of offenses not specifically detailed by any other article: all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty. Clause 1 of the article involves disorders and neglect "to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces." Clause 2 involves "conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces." Clause 3 deals with non-capital offenses violating other federal law; under this clause, any such offense created by federal statute may be prosecuted under Article 134. United States v. Perkins, 47 C.M.R. 259 (Air Force Ct. of Military Review 1973).[5]

The most recent version of the Manual for Courts-Martial lists the following offenses commonly prosecuted under Article 134: Abusing public animal; adultery; assault with intent to commit murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, robbery, sodomy, arson, burglary, or housebreaking; bigamy; bribery or graft; burning with intent to defraud; check, worthless, making and uttering; by dishonorably failing to maintain funds; child endangerment; cohabitation, wrongful; correctional custody - offenses against; debt, dishonorably failing to pay; disloyal statements; disorderly conduct, drunkenness; drinking liquor with prisoner; drunk prisoner; drunkenness - incapacitation for performance of duties through prior wrongful indulgence in intoxicating liquor or any drug; false or unauthorized pass offenses; false pretenses, obtaining services under; false swearing; firearm, discharging - through negligence; firearm, discharging - willfully, under such circumstances as to endanger human life; fleeing scene of accident; fraternization; gambling with subordinate; homicide, negligent; impersonating a commissioned, warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer, or an agent or official; indecent language; jumping from vessel into the water; kidnapping; mail: taking, opening, secreting, destroying, or stealing; mails: depositing or causing to be deposited obscene matters in; misprision of serious offense; obstructing justice; wrongful interference with an adverse administrative proceeding; pandering and prostitution; parole, violation of; perjury: subornation of; public record: altering, concealing, removing, mutilating, obliterating, or destroying; quarantine: medical, breaking; reckless endangerment; restriction, breaking; seizure: destruction, removal, or disposal of property to prevent; self-injury without intent to avoid service; sentinel or lookout: offenses against or by; soliciting another to commit an offense; stolen property: knowingly receiving, buying, concealing; straggling; testify: wrongful refusal; threat or hoax designed or intended to cause panic or public fear; threat, communicating; unlawful entry; weapon: concealed, carrying; wearing unauthorized insignia, decoration, badge, ribbon, device, or lapel button.[6]

[edit]See also

Originally Posted by Master Po

Exactly.
It's only bad because we judge him based on American puritan standards.
Petraeus, Tiger Woods,... who said we have the right to put certain people on a pedestal?
How about when a Holywood celebrity has an extra marital affair? Nobody gives a blip.
Why?
They are all human beings.

Didn't that French prime minister (Chiraq?) had a well know mistress for ever? I heard she was more popular with the French than his wife was.
At the same time Clinton is caught with an intern and is almost impeached.
It's just a matter of (unrealistic) expectations.

Heaven forbid we should hold someone to a solemn vow they made. If your not going to live up to your marital vows then don't get married.

Only thing is Petraeus is retired. He left the Army when appointed to be D/CIA.

UCMJ doesn't apply to him anymore

Originally Posted by Raymond42262

Under extreme circumstances someone can be court martialed for adultery.

Article 133:

Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman (or conduct unbecoming for short) is an offense subject to court martial defined in the punitive code, Article 133, of the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), enacted at 10 U.S.C. § 933.

The elements are:

That the accused did or omitted to do certain acts; and
That, in the circumstances, these acts or omissions constituted conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.[1]
Here "officer" is understood to include commissioned officers, cadets, and midshipmen of both sexes, hence the more common term conduct unbecoming. A gentleman is understood to have a duty to avoid dishonest acts, displays of indecency, lawlessness, dealing unfairly, indecorum, injustice, or acts of cruelty.[2]


Article 134:


The General Article (Article 134)

The general article (Article 134) authorizes the prosecution of offenses not specifically detailed by any other article: all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty. Clause 1 of the article involves disorders and neglect "to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces." Clause 2 involves "conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces." Clause 3 deals with non-capital offenses violating other federal law; under this clause, any such offense created by federal statute may be prosecuted under Article 134. United States v. Perkins, 47 C.M.R. 259 (Air Force Ct. of Military Review 1973).[5]

The most recent version of the Manual for Courts-Martial lists the following offenses commonly prosecuted under Article 134: Abusing public animal; adultery; assault with intent to commit murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, robbery, sodomy, arson, burglary, or housebreaking; bigamy; bribery or graft; burning with intent to defraud; check, worthless, making and uttering; by dishonorably failing to maintain funds; child endangerment; cohabitation, wrongful; correctional custody - offenses against; debt, dishonorably failing to pay; disloyal statements; disorderly conduct, drunkenness; drinking liquor with prisoner; drunk prisoner; drunkenness - incapacitation for performance of duties through prior wrongful indulgence in intoxicating liquor or any drug; false or unauthorized pass offenses; false pretenses, obtaining services under; false swearing; firearm, discharging - through negligence; firearm, discharging - willfully, under such circumstances as to endanger human life; fleeing scene of accident; fraternization; gambling with subordinate; homicide, negligent; impersonating a commissioned, warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer, or an agent or official; indecent language; jumping from vessel into the water; kidnapping; mail: taking, opening, secreting, destroying, or stealing; mails: depositing or causing to be deposited obscene matters in; misprision of serious offense; obstructing justice; wrongful interference with an adverse administrative proceeding; pandering and prostitution; parole, violation of; perjury: subornation of; public record: altering, concealing, removing, mutilating, obliterating, or destroying; quarantine: medical, breaking; reckless endangerment; restriction, breaking; seizure: destruction, removal, or disposal of property to prevent; self-injury without intent to avoid service; sentinel or lookout: offenses against or by; soliciting another to commit an offense; stolen property: knowingly receiving, buying, concealing; straggling; testify: wrongful refusal; threat or hoax designed or intended to cause panic or public fear; threat, communicating; unlawful entry; weapon: concealed, carrying; wearing unauthorized insignia, decoration, badge, ribbon, device, or lapel button.[6]

[edit]See also

Originally Posted by Master Po

Exactly.
It's only bad because we judge him based on American puritan standards.
Petraeus, Tiger Woods,... who said we have the right to put certain people on a pedestal?
How about when a Holywood celebrity has an extra marital affair? Nobody gives a blip.
Why?
They are all human beings.

Didn't that French prime minister (Chiraq?) had a well know mistress for ever? I heard she was more popular with the French than his wife was.
At the same time Clinton is caught with an intern and is almost impeached.
It's just a matter of (unrealistic) expectations.

you're suggesting that the president is held to the same standards as I would hold my next door neighbor?

Originally Posted by 330iPilot

I've known several guys that were adjutants to generals. They said without exception every single one of them had extramarital affairs. It's a damn shame.

Same here. We have a few friends who are aide de camps and they say the same exact thing

sent from my dahc-6900 using Bimmer App

Originally Posted by 330iPilot

Heaven forbid we should hold someone to a solemn vow they made. If your not going to live up to your marital vows then don't get married.

Petraeus and Tiger made a solem vow to you?

Originally Posted by broey v

you're suggesting that the president is held to the same standards as I would hold my next door neighbor?

In his personal life, yes.
Your neighbor would kick your ass if you uninvitingly judged him on what he does in his personal life.

Not to me, to their wives. Nice dodge though.

There is no higher sacred contract of trust than between a man and his wife. If you make the solemn promise to forsake all others until death do you part, then do it. Otherwise don't get married.