Posted on 03/08/2015 6:17:34 AM PDT by Kaslin
Former four-star general and CIA chief David Petraeus pleaded guilty to one count of retaining classified information for handing over information in personal notebooks to his biographer girlfriend in 2011. He agreed to pay a $40,000 fine; prosecutors said they would recommend two years' probation instead of prison, although a judge could decide otherwise. It's a sad close to a government career for the man whose counterinsurgency strategy turned around the war in Iraq. He's an American hero who seemed all that much more upright when he resigned in November 2012 after admitting to an affair that compromised his position -- without drama and after quickly owning up to his mistakes.
Except he didn't come completely clean; America now knows -- because it's in the official record -- Petraeus lied to the FBI. That's a serious offense. But should he go to prison?
On one side, Petraeus supporters, such as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., argued that Petraeus had done too much for the country to be discarded in a prison cell. In January, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said the Department of Justice should not prosecute the former CIA chief, as he had "suffered enough."
Yes, D.C. pols tend to be quick to forgive crimes committed in the cause of self-aggrandizement. No need to wonder why.
On the other side, critics see a fine and probation as special treatment. The Los Angeles Times contrasted the Petraeus plea bargain with those of convicted leakers Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a former State Department contractor (13 months in prison), and John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer (30 months). "The whiff of a double standard is overwhelming. If anything, a leader at Petraeus' level should be held to a higher standard than lower-level officials or contractors," the paper editorialized. (Kim's leak risked compromising U.S. intelligence gathering in North Korea. Kiriakou revealed the identity of a covert agent.)
But there are good reasons to spare Petraeus from prison. David Deitch, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, told me he sees little public interest in sending Petraeus to prison, as his conduct "never really posed" a risk to national security. As for Petraeus' successful military record, Deitch believes it is something judges consider. Looking at a defendant's life is "not a dodge; it's part of the process."
Others contrast Petraeus with leakers on a grand scale -- Chelsea Manning, the former Army private now serving a 35-year sentence, and self-proclaimed National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden, now a fugitive in Moscow. The Chelsea Manning Support Network charged Petraeus with leaking "to his mistress, who was writing his biography, for personal gain," as opposed to Manning, who leaked "for the public good." Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., told U.S. News & World Report that Petraeus broke the law "to impress a girlfriend. Edward Snowden released confidential information in order to bring attention to overwhelming and pervasive constitutional violations."
Last weekend, I watched "Citizenfour," the Academy Award-winning Laura Poitras documentary on Snowden. Talk about self-aggrandizement. For almost two hours, I was treated to one-shots of Snowden typing on his laptop on a hotel bed, playing with his hair in a hotel bathroom and discussing how he didn't really want the NSA leak story to be all about him. But we never got answers to the questions that challenge the Snowden hagiography. How did Snowden really end up in Moscow? What does Snowden think of Russia's record on surveillance and treatment of "whistleblowers"?
Petraeus was wrong to keep handwritten highly classified notes and even more wrong to hand them over to Paula Broadwell, but that's as far as the information went. As former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow noted, "Petraeus mishandled classified information -- but there was no intent to expose secrets or evidence of damage done (except to himself)."
"Snowden intentionally stole enormous amounts of highly classified information and gleefully made it available to America's enemies," quoth Harlow. "Big difference." Unlike Petraeus, Snowden deliberately released sensitive information that informs terrorist organizations that want to kill Americans on how they can evade detection.
For all his good work, Petraeus had to pay a penalty because he lied to the FBI. But there is no need to send him to prison, because the system can survive his folly and no intelligence asset was hurt. You cannot say that about Manning or Snowden; the system cannot survive rogue actors who decide they have a right to broadcast state secrets. "It seems to be that unless you are willing to aggressively prosecute the classified nature" of U.S. intelligence, Deitch told me, "the whole system collapses on itself."
You’re kidding right? Snowden.
I can’t believe Petraeus did something so dumb. He really should have known better.
I’m trying to figure out why the white house sewer trout is still feeling threatened by Petreaus.
Ya gotta believe that the CIA Chief knows a buncha dirt on many actors in DC.
I imagine it has to deal with Benghazi. He probably knows too much.
Still say he got set up.
I've heard some folks call the guy a traitor. I guess those folks don't mind an oppressive totalitarian super surveillance police state.
https://www.rutherford.org/
Which leader is worse? Obama or Boehner?
Hillary is the worst leaker. Her email was probably hacked by so many foreign agencies, that it generated smoke from all the extra processing.
I know what Petraeus was trying to get. I don’t know what Snowden’s motives were.
Remember, Obama and Hillary trotted Petraeus out for his pathetic rendition of their lie about the video causing Benghazi…and after that humiliation, they threw him under the bus by revealing his affair.
He should tell us everything he knows about their actions in Benghazi. “Revenge is a dish best served cold.”
It is a bad thing for some nitwit to get it into his head that he’s going to give aid and comfort to repressive regimes that wish this country harm. He can tilt at Russia’s windmills and see what it gets him.
The answer is Hillary! (tm).
The classified material in the Petraeus case is known, with Snowden mostly known. But, with Hill!, tens of thousands of e-mails are unknown, and unknown what classified info was within them, but likely all now in the hands of foreign intelligence.
The only comparison I will make is one was a crisis of conscious and the other was a crisis of the pants.
What freedom was Snowden preserving for us here in the US when he spilled the beans about what we were listening to internationally?
I could go along with you had he divulged only the stuff that was being done here in the US against US citizens, but once you begin to leak the other stuff? Traitor applies.
JMO.
I’ll bet that part of it has to do with fear that Petraeus might have run for POTUS one day. Sadly, for him, his little head overruled his big one.
Recall that Sandy Berger walked out of a facility with classified stuffed in his pants. Absolutely nothing happened to him.
Crisis of some ego inflated nitwit who can’t see the forest for the trees vs a situation you could have figured after about 30 seconds of observation.
We took Oswald back, Snowden can rot in Russia for all I care.
I agree. But didn't he support the Obama-Clinton Team's unbelievable lie about the YouTube video as the source of the Benghazi attack. If so, he getting off easy as far as I'm concerned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.