David Patraeus, Who Leaked Classified Info To His Mistress, Says Snowden Should Be Prosecuted

from the say-that-again? dept

Last week, the Intercept published Ed Snowden's powerful foreword to Jeremy Scahill's new book The Assassination Complex. The foreword is entitled: Whistleblowing Is Not Just Leaking — It’s an Act of Political Resistance. It's really worth reading. In it, among other things, he does note that there are very different kinds of leaking information. There are situations where you are alerting the public to important information. And then there are... other situations. Like what happened to former CIA Director, General David Petraeus:
Not all leaks are alike, nor are their makers. Gen. David Petraeus, for instance, provided his illicit lover and favorable biographer information so secret it defied classification, including the names of covert operatives and the president’s private thoughts on matters of strategic concern. Petraeus was not charged with a felony, as the Justice Department had initially recommended, but was instead permitted to plead guilty to a misdemeanor. Had an enlisted soldier of modest rank pulled out a stack of highly classified notebooks and handed them to his girlfriend to secure so much as a smile, he’d be looking at many decades in prison, not a pile of character references from a Who’s Who of the Deep State.
That's a pretty good summary of the "high court" situation that lets powerful people like Petraeus get away with passing on such information that could have legitimately put people at risk.

So, it was interesting, just days later, to see a long interview in the Financial Times with David Petraeus, in which he's asked about Snowden (warning: the link may be paywalled). The interview covers many subjects, and the comment on Snowden is quite brief:
Should Edward Snowden be prosecuted, I ask? “Unquestionably,” he replies. “If Snowden had wanted to help that debate he could have very easily been a whistleblower who could have gone to the appropriate organisation and offered his views. He didn’t.”
This is bullshit on so many levels. First, it's bullshit because Petreaus himself got off with barely a wrist slap for his own activity, which had nothing to do with whistleblowing and appeared to be much more dangerous than what Snowden did. Second, as Petreaus absolutely knows, the intelligence community does not treat whistleblowers well. Previous whistleblowers, including Thomas Drake, basically had their lives destroyed as punishment for using the "appropriate" channels for whistleblowing. Hell, just last week, we wrote about yet another case of an intelligence community whistleblower, who used the "appropriate" channels, suddenly having her home raided and her career in shambles.

Third, it's bullshit because even in using the "appropriate" channels, as an NSA contractor, Snowden was not protected from direct retaliation for whistleblowing. Fourth, it's bullshit because the "proper channels" would just be to run it up the line of people who thought it was hunky dory to lie to the American public to reinterpret the PATRIOT Act to enable them to spy on everyone's communications data. That wouldn't have done anything. Fifth, it's bullshit because once the information actually did get out through the press -- which never would have happened through "appropriate channels," it has set in motion a number of changes, among companies, individuals, Congress and the intelligence community. That's the point of whistleblowing, to actually change the behavior through alerting more people to what's going on.

But, really, it seems especially idiotic that someone in Petreaus' position would weigh in so hypocritically on Snowden's situation.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2016 @ 10:47am

    High Court/Low court

    The powerful are allowed to boast, as it bolsters their ego, while whisleblowers are to be persecuted because they embarrass the powerful.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2016 @ 10:56am

    Petreaus must like the taste of crap with all that bullshit he's spewing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    David, 9 May 2016 @ 11:05am

    You cannot compare the two.

    Petraeus acted only for personal gain, passing classified information to his mistress in order to self-aggrandize. That's stabilizing the political establishment.

    Snowden acted in defense of the Constitution, passing classified information to the public in order to enable them to fight for their Constitutional rights. That's destabilizing the political establishment.

    Of course the latter is an openly hostile act against those sworn to defend the Constitution, making Snowden an enemy of the state.

    It would not be so if those sworn to defend the Constitution were not actively seeking to abolish it, but Snowden was perfectly aware that they were doing exactly this, so his acts clearly were hostile towards the government and its agencies.

    So he cannot expect mercy. Not as long as the American People cheer on the scum that has stolen its country and turned it into a mockery of democratic processes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 9 May 2016 @ 11:07am

    Missed one

    Sixth, it's bullshit because the law Snowden would be prosecuted under does not allow motive as a defense. It's entirely black or white, 'Did you reveal classified information?', and since obviously Snowden did his 'trial' would be just as pre-determined as Patraeus' was, except in the other direction.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2016 @ 11:22am

    So if I'm understanding him correctly, Snowden should've had a side whore, and leaked information to her instead, because that somehow would've been different.

    Congratulations "General" Patraeus on taking the term "asshole" and catapulting it to a new level!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. icon
    Almost Anonymous (profile), 9 May 2016 @ 11:27am

    Patraeus uses Hypocrite! It's not very effective...

    Patraeus is just unbelievable. He should be rotting in prison, and instead of being happy that he isn't, he's holding court with the press?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 9 May 2016 @ 11:32am

    Re: Patraeus uses Hypocrite! It's not very effective...

    Well when you know you're untouchable why not brag and rub it in everyone's faces? Doesn't matter what people think of you if all you care about is your power and position, and you know that both are safe because the only people in a position to go after you for any 'indiscretions' have absolutely no desire to do so.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. icon
    Pronounce (profile), 9 May 2016 @ 11:34am

    Obviously Patraeus is Above the America's Laws

    Patraeus obviously doesn't care about the morals of the common man. He's well connected and it shows.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. identicon
    Angrywebmaster, 9 May 2016 @ 11:37am

    Prosecuted, yes. Convicted??

    A few things here.

    First, I know of a person who is a retired army colonel and a retired lawyer. He has stated that Snowden should be prosecuted, however, he also has said that he isn't so sure about his being convicted.
    (He also said Manning should have been stood against a wall and shot)

    Second, Petraeus's stupidity didn't get out to the general public, and I understand his girlfriend also had a security clearance at the time. (Just not cleared for what Bonehead showed her)That may be why he wasn't tossed into prison.

    As I recall, Snowden didn't release any names or blow operations against our enemies.

    Now take Hillary Clinton. What she did was far worse that either Snowden or Petraeus. She had beyond secret information on that server of hers that could only have come from a secured network. (Top Secret Special Access Program)

    From what I understand, that information can not be sent to an outside system. There is no connection to the internet. It would have had to have been transcribed from that system to a system that did have internet access.

    Then there is the Guccifer issue. If he got into it, you can bet Russia, China, Iran and the 15 years old down the street did as well.

    People I know who have, or have had security clearances have said that from what they've seen in the public record, Clinton should be cooling her heels in a cell right now.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. identicon
    Angrywebmaster, 9 May 2016 @ 11:39am

    Re: Missed one

    Absolutely correct. Intent doesn't matter. This is why a certain presidential candidate is in big trouble.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. icon
    JoeCool (profile), 9 May 2016 @ 11:51am

    Re: Re: Missed one

    Hilldog will NEVER face charges, much less trial - she's one of the Good Ol' Boys.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12. identicon
    I.T. Guy, 9 May 2016 @ 11:52am

    Re: Re: Missed one

    "a certain presidential candidate in big trouble." ROFL. Thanks for the laugh.

    The only way emails go "missing" is if someone deleted them. Maybe if they went after the email server with as much vigor as they went after the iPhones they could "find" the "missing" emails too. ROFL... I made a funny.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2016 @ 11:57am

    You really dislike Hilary C. I get it, I do to, but let's be fair. First off NONE of the email on her server was classified when she received it. It was subsequently classifed with some twenty or thirty at a high level (out of over 2000). Most of it was at the "we're the government, so we're not going to let anyone else see this, even though there is we have no real justification for keeping it secret" level. Second, though a few of the emails were classified as very high-level secrets, it was all received via email, not copied off a different system.

    Yes, she showed extremely poor judgement in using a personal server for government email and even poorer judgement in trusting that particular server for anything more than a TV shedule, but her sins pale besides David Patraeous's who, in a just world would not be saying anything because he would already have paid the ultimate price for his misdeeds (at least if you agree with Snowden haters as to what constitutes a reasonable price to pay).

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2016 @ 11:57am

    just one more example of a nation out of control.

    if you had a car as badly broken as this nation, you'd just tow it to the wrecking yard. too much wrong to fix. just replace it.

    note to homewreckers . . . err . . . homely defense: i'm not advocating towing our nation anywhere. high purbs, ole, pal.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2016 @ 12:06pm

    Re:

    You are incorrect the emails were classified, because they contained classified information including methods and sources. The defense Hillary has put forward is that none of her emails were marked classified. This is a meaningless distinction. The claim that none of her email were classified is not true. She does not even claim this. She either claims that they were not marked classified or that classification is hard. Although even State has agreed that her emails contained classified information. The information was classified so the emails were classified.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2016 @ 12:07pm

    surely the difference here is that what Snowden did in enlightening everyone the world over about how they were being secretly surveilled and what was going on with the intelligence agencies in general, the USA in particular, was 'WHISTLEBLOWING!'

    what David Patraeus did, by informing 1 person (and a lover at that), about items that could have put people and the USA at serious risk, was, in my opinion, TREASON!

    it's obvious, surely, that betraying your country is nowhere near as serious as letting people know what their security forces are doing. how would those forces ever be able to do what they want, in secret, ever again?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2016 @ 12:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Missed one

    Just wait until some tech guy finds and leaks those "missing" emails, and THAT will be the person that gets prosecuted with no expense spared.

    It worked much the same way with the Wall Street banking scandal, when as usual, the only people to face any kind of punishment were the whistleblowers.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2016 @ 12:21pm

    Re: Re:

    oh c'mon. she was just taking a nap during the briefing over classified material sop. she was confused.

    nothing to see here people; move along

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2016 @ 12:36pm

    Of course because snowden is a slave not an elite like the good general.

    This guy goes out of his way to remove the rights of his fellow citizens while propping him and his cronies up. He gets rewarded for it.

    But if a slave has the audacity to expose the same thing then he needs to be punished for daring to raise above his station beneath the jackboot.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2016 @ 12:40pm

    Re:

    snowden should have been a general or had corrupt political connections

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2016 @ 12:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Missed one

    If things get bad enough she might swing from a yardarm though

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22. icon
    Ninja (profile), 9 May 2016 @ 12:43pm

    Re:

    Either that or, you know, have a high position in the Govt so you'll only get a slight wrist slap for your 'misdeeds'.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23. icon
    Ninja (profile), 9 May 2016 @ 12:48pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    That's not the only thing she missed while taking a nap back in the 90's.Yes, I'll probably rot in hell.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 9 May 2016 @ 1:52pm

    Re:

    This may surprise you but not every single mention of classified document is related to Clinton, and it's entirely possible to discuss classification/classified documents without discussing her. Shocking I know.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25. icon
    streetlight (profile), 9 May 2016 @ 2:16pm

    Did any of Hillary's emails get out?

    Her server might have been more secure than that of the State Department's. Not sure, though. Also, not sure whether Patraeus's secrets to his mistress went beyond her. The military has pretty severe penalties when officers are involved in illicit sexual affairs, particularly if married at the time. A double whammy in his case.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26. identicon
    Unanimous Cow Herd, 9 May 2016 @ 4:45pm

    Re:

    First off NONE of the email on her server was classified when she received it.


    First off NONE of that email should have been on a private server in the first place. The State Dept. already had an email system in place. I know it's "gubmint" and they're a bit slow, but they really did have actual "secured"* and approved email systems in place and used by previous Secretaries of State.

    Yes, she showed extremely poor judgement in using a personal server for government email and even poorer judgement in trusting that particular server for anything more than a TV [sic]schedule


    Again, the State Dept. already had an email system in place. For her to go to the trouble of creating her own is not just bad judgement. On it's face, it has the appearance of subterfuge. There was simply no reason for Prisoner 3355779 (H.R. Clinton) to create her own email server at all unless there was something she was trying to, albeit unsuccessfully, hide.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27. icon
    John85851 (profile), 9 May 2016 @ 5:02pm

    Don't you mean untouchable?

    You say "idiotic", I say "untouchable". This is a career general who has friends in all the high places, so he'll never be prosecuted for leaks or speaking out of turn.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28. icon
    Ehud Gavron (profile), 9 May 2016 @ 6:10pm

    Hypocrisy is not a crime, treason is.

    I know lots of hypocrites, and some of them are otherwise perfectly nice people.

    I don't personally know any traitors.

    When Petraeus PURPOSELY WILLFULLY and with WANTON DISREGARD FOR THE LAW provided top secret, sensitive, and compartmentalized secure information to an outside party he committed TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

    It is only a sign of the duality of justice for the 1% where he was given a misdemeanor slap on the rest.

    For him to EVEN MENTION Snowden's name let alone mouth off as if he has any chops ... is an insult to traitors everywhere. For him to LIE and suggest [go through channels; whistleblower, etc, already covered above] is what I expect from a TRAITOR.

    Do not forget.

    Petraeus BETRAYED US. He committed treason against the United States of America. He is not someone who should be looked to for advice, opinion, suggestion, or commentary on how to behave in or around classified information. He is a DISGRACE to the UNIFORM, the armed services, and the many MEN AND WOMEN WHO WEAR THAT UNIFORM and don't betray the country.

    So do I judge him for being a hypocrite? No. That's not even coming up to knee-biting level on him. He's a traitor.

    Ehud

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2016 @ 7:06pm

    Re: High Court/Low court

    Petreaus apparently believes that it's OK to reveal secrets for personal gain (as he did), but revealing secrets for the good of the people must be punished. What is he, a Ferengi or something?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2016 @ 7:20pm

    Re:

    You really dislike Hilary C. I get it, I do to,

    Sure could have fooled me.

    First off NONE of the email on her server was classified when she received it.

    Bullshit. Some information is "born classified", depending on the subject and source. Furthermore, anyone working with such information knows this. She has no excuse.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2016 @ 10:08pm

    If it was on a government server it would have been marked as secret. It wasn't a government server, therefor it wasn't marked. That crazy bitch will swing before everything is said and done. If she doesn't swing at least I will know where I stood. As for Mr. Patraeus his stiff prick has no conscience, and he is not half the intellect Mr. Snowden is.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32. identicon
    David, 9 May 2016 @ 11:04pm

    Re:

    As for Mr. Patraeus his stiff prick has no conscience, and he is not half the intellect Mr. Snowden is.

    This is not a dick size contest, or one of intelligence. This is about patriotism, love and service towards the country you have been born in and sworn in to serve, and personal integrity.

    Mentioning Snowden in the same sentence with Petraeus is doing Snowden an injustice.

    Yet Petraeus is free to hornswaggle about Snowden and brag about having sold government secrets for sex and pretended admiration, receiving little more backlash than a clap on the shoulder from his clan with a similarly dim view on its sworn and excessively well-paid duties.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33. icon
    art guerrilla (profile), 10 May 2016 @ 3:52am

    Re: Re: Patraeus uses Hypocrite! It's not very effective...

    just as likely he had some ace up his sleeve so that they went easy on him...
    a long time insider like him ? NO DOUBT, he knows where some (literal) bodies are buried...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34. identicon
    jim, 10 May 2016 @ 5:40am

    Re: Prosecuted, yes. Convicted??

    A little asside:as a citizen, as a government employee, even as a president, you could use whatever server, you set up. And have more then one email address. Right? Where is that illegal? Is that hilleries problem? She had a secure government server assigned from day 1. And another address for other uses. Is that illegal? No, the problem was, the people emailing her. They could not desperate the idea in their heads, on which is which. One was secure, one wasn't. So which one do you send witch-hunt documents too?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35. identicon
    Charles Wegrzyn, 10 May 2016 @ 6:57am

    Re: Prosecuted, yes. Convicted??

    If you think Clinton is guilty, how about going after 'W'. After all he lied to the American People, got us in a war in Iraq and he and his crony buddies in Congress got us way into debt.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36. identicon
    Jack Frisbee, 10 May 2016 @ 1:18pm

    Re: Prosecuted, yes. Convicted??

    YES!! It's apples and oranges.

    Snowden leaked so that classified data could go out directly to the public. Classified is labeled, "Seriously damages the interests of the US." Snowden did this intentionally.

    Petraeus gave documents to a US Officer with a security clearance. There was no disclosure to public, and hence, NOT seriously damaging US interests.

    The rub is "need to know," but to be honest, that's not really held strict all the time. Ironically, Snowden made it harder because we had started to more freely share information across the government, but Snowden f'd that up. People don't trust NSA as much because when's their next guy going to leak? When you have a guy or two "go rogue," it gives you a black eye with other agencies.

    I agree with Petraeaus, and I'll go a step farther to say, "Snowden should hang from a rope from a very tall tree."

    You sign an agreement, and in cases of some, give an oath that you will protect this country when given information. Snowden's release led directly to grave damage. In war, he'd be shot on the spot. Petraeus' classified was just an embarrassment, more because he was having an affair.

    Do you seriously think he's the first GO to share information with his biographer to assist them doing their job? No.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37. identicon
    Jack Frisbee, 10 May 2016 @ 1:28pm

    Re: Re:

    The irony lost with most about Clinton, is that she was an author of Sarbanes-Oxley, and later voted for strengthening punishment. What is SO, you ask? Sarbanes Oxley was a direct result of CEOs doing exactly what Clinton did about the Benghazi incident.

    Congress committee chairman: "What did you know and when?"
    Clinton/Madoff: "I didn't know. I can't tell you what I didn't know."

    So Congress went off and wrote SO to state, "You will keep copies of your email systems. You will certify under oath that the systems conform and can be recalled to testify." If you fail to comply, federal prison and fines.

    So here we are, an author of the bill that is supposed to create accountability and the ability to subpoena publicly traded large companies records is in charge of the entire State Department. And she violates multiple tenants: runs it off site, doesn't have back-ups, and when called to submit, picks and chooses what she sends.

    This alone speaks volumes about integrity, accountability, competence, and trustworthiness.

    If the police chief was caught stealing, when your house gets robbed, do you want him in charge?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38. identicon
    jack frisbee, 10 May 2016 @ 1:37pm

    Re: Re:

    Agree. 99% here have never had a clearance, so they don't know what they don't know. A Head of State knows classified can be created by origin of source alone. If Putin gives you his direct phone number, it's not going to have a SECRET stamp on the email. However, an XO/Admin/Head of State knows that's protected information due to the source.

    I have a feeling Clinton is the reason that now, after having a clearance for 25 years, my annual classified refresher training is hours long and goes in depth to explain "Security Classification Guides," which explains that information can be classified multiple ways (which was like stating "Sky is blue, water is wet," to anyone with an IQ above that of a gnat).

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39. identicon
    Jack Frisbee, 10 May 2016 @ 1:41pm

    Re: Did any of Hillary's emails get out?

    Yes, several hackers have accessed her servers. Also, actual spillage (people seeing it) doesn't change the status as a security incident (putting sensitive, SECRET and similar on an unsecure, unclass server).

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40. icon
    Ehud Gavron (profile), 10 May 2016 @ 2:04pm

    Re: Re: Prosecuted, yes. Convicted??

    Mr. Frisbee, you wrote:

    YES!! It's apples and oranges.

    Snowden leaked so that classified data could go out directly to the public.


    No. He didn't. He provided the information to journalists to vet and select what would be released. Also the word "so" implies that you know his reasoning... which you don't.


    Classified is labeled, "Seriously damages the interests of the US." Snowden did this intentionally.


    No. You have no idea which classifications in which the information he provided the journalists was categorized.

    Further there is no such classification. You are perhaps thinking of "Secret" which specifically addresses harm to NATIONAL SECURITY, which is not at all "the interests of the US", something you made up, which is not part of any classification. See e.g. http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/quist2/chap_7.html


    Petraeus gave documents to a US Officer with a security clearance. There was no disclosure to public, and hence, NOT seriously damaging US interests.


    Again, "US interests" is not part of a classification. Secondly "holding a clearance" is not a license to receive information. More specifically Petraeus is the one who took an oath and HE provided information to someone who was NOT cleared to receive them.

    There are three components to receiving classified information and "holding a proper level/compartment" clearance is only one.


    The rub is "need to know,"

    That's not "the rub". That's the second component that is REQUIRED to receive classified information. Please don't try and excuse it as a "rub" or as something you can gloss over in your zealous defense of this traitor.


    but to be honest,

    "To be honest" means "I'm about to make something up which is purely fabricated opinion so I'm going to tell you I'm honest so you'll feel it has added credibility."

    Cheap. Very cheap. To be honest it's lame.


    that's not really held strict all the time.

    So now you've gone from being honest to "implying" that the rules of providing classified information aren't really rules... they're not really strict... and hey what the hey right?

    Wrong. The only people who violate the strictures are those who are violating their oath and Petraeus is a perfect example of that.



    Ironically, Snowden made it harder

    Made what "it" harder???

    because we had started to more freely share information across the government,

    Bwahahahha. The least transparent administration... the most FOIA-obstructive administration... the most whistleblower-prosecuting administration... and you just pulled that sentence out your bum.

    No. "We" had not started to share information more freely "across the government" even giving your random words some semblance of meaning.


    but Snowden f'd that up.

    ...and the women who accuse Bill Cosby of rape really f'd up his reputation.

    You, Sir, are absolving all who violated our rights of any responsibility... and instead putting the blame on the man who alerted the media of those violations.


    People don't trust NSA as much because when's their next guy going to leak?


    No. People don't trust the NSA because the NSA has acted in an unconstitutional and untrustworthy manner and been brazen about running roughshod on our rights.

    NOBODY ON THIS EARTH other than you says "We trust the NSA less because who knows when another person will leak information." People say "We DON'T trust the NSA because they do shifty things, they lie, they obfuscate, they interpret English words incorrectly to justify their lies and violations."


    When you have a guy or two "go rogue," it gives you a black eye with other agencies.

    When you have women complaining about being raped it makes the guy who did it look bad with his golf buddies.

    The NSA has gone rogue with its data collections practices. They have given the US intelligence services two black eyes.


    I agree with Petraeaus, and I'll go a step farther to say, "Snowden should hang from a rope from a very tall tree."

    Finally you label an opinion as such. Good for you. I disagree. Also hanging is accomplished from an available branch, not a "very tall tree". Nobody scales trees to hang people, Sir.


    You sign an agreement, and in cases of some, give an oath that you will protect this country when given information.

    Yes, Petraeus DID sign that agreement and he DID take an oath... and then he gave classified documents to a third party.


    Snowden's release led directly to grave damage.

    No it didn't. Instead of a bland assertion I invite you to back up your comment with evidence.


    In war, he'd be shot on the spot.

    Wow, not only do you know nothing about handling classified information, but you know NOTHING about war.

    I invite you to look at the UCMJ. You'll note they have these things called "arrest" and "trial" and "verdict" and "sentence." http://www.ucmj.us/?s=punishment+for+treason


    Petraeus' classified was just an embarrassment, more because he was having an affair.

    No. It was not "just an embarrassment." It wasn't "just a rub". It wasn't any of these excuses you've used to attempt to make light of a very serious thing -- the same serious thing you want to hang Snowden from an absurdly tall tree.


    Do you seriously think he's the first GO to share information with his biographer to assist them doing their job? No.

    How is this relevant?

    David Petraeus violated his oath and provided classified intel to a third party. That is a crime and only his connections got him pled down to a misdemeanor.

    That anyone else did it or will do it doesn't change the nature of his crime.

    I appreciate your sophistry... it's quite clever.
    However, the true traitor is Petraeus... and those who attempt to rationalize and justify his behavior. Worse - those who would blame the victim.

    Ehud

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41. identicon
    J.B. Frank, 11 May 2016 @ 1:05pm

    Petraeus & Whistleblowing

    You say, "Petreaus himself got off with barely a wrist slap for his own activity, which had nothing to do with whistleblowing." Wanted to add that he did get off and it was the result of whistleblowing - though in this case he got off becuase it was his whistle that got blown. You are so correct in that if an enlisted soldier did what Petraeus did the only interview that soldier would be doing would be with the floor of the prison cell he and his buddies inhabited.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.