Pentagon Tells Senate It Won't Demote Retired Gen. Petraeus

[inanna]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Jan 30, 2016, 12:59 PM ET

The Pentagon says it will not demote retired Army Gen. David Petraeus, who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information while CIA director, an incident stemming from an affair with his biographer.

"The Army completed its review of his case and recommended no additional action," Stephen C. Hedger, assistant defense secretary for legislative affairs, wrote the Senate Armed Services Committee on Friday. Given that review, Hedger said Defense Secretary Ash Carter "considers this matter closed."

The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter Saturday. The Pentagon had no further comment.

Media reports had surfaced that indicated the Pentagon was considering downgrading Petraeus to a three-star general. Such a move, if taken, would have reduced his retirement salary.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/pentagon-tells-senate-demote-retired-gen-petraeus-36616168

[jalan48]

1. Nice to see who's in charge here.

[PoliticAverse]

2. Too big to demote. n/t

[markj757]

3. I'm a veteran and I'm offended

I have worked with classified information before, and I'm appalled that he wasn't demoted. I can assure you if he was an enlisted man or a junior officer, he would have been demoted and probably faced some type of confinement. I think this sends a terrible message to lower ranking troops about the value of classified information, and a somewhat warped approach to military discipline. In the military, it is common knowledge, and respected tradition that rank has its privileges, but when it comes to discipline, officers are often held to a higher standard not a lower one, because of their responsibility to set an example for the rest of the troops. A violation of the UCMJ at this level, to go without a demotion, is an affront to that tradition and belief. To me, it feels like a political decision much more so than a military one. I think even if he was an unknown General officer, the outcome would have been much different.

[Joey Liberal]

4. Yes, they would have hammered a Sergeant

Let a Sergeant hand over classified info to a mistress. That sergeant would have been busted to E-1 and would still be in the stockade.

[24601]

5. It is noted however, that his mistress was an intelligence officer who had a TOP SECRET clearance

and was indoctrinated for access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI).

His classified information violation was that she had no need to know for performance of government duties.

The book she wrote went through the pre-publication review and there was no allegation that it contained any classified information.

Her violation (but she was never charged) was that the material was not stored a secure facility - for that material is required an SCI facility, or SCIF.

There was no allegation of improper transmission.

I find that the more interesting question is if Mrs. Clinton will be held to the same standard relative to transmission and storage of the same level of classified material or whether she will be given a pass.

[markj757]

7. Need to Know.....

You act as if because she was an intelligence officer with a clearance, that significantly diminishes the impact of the crime, and it does not. A "Need to Know" basis is at the heart of the dissemination of any classified information whether that person has an appropriate level clearance or not. And for a General officer, to violate that requirement during the handling of classified information is a criminal act worthy of confinement and demotion. Just because she also had a clearance means very little in the eyes of protecting classified intelligence or material. Even before the improper storage of that material adds to the seriousness of the crime. And let there be no mistake about it, this is an extremely serious crime, especially considering the classified information Petreaus made available to her. And also before factoring in that he committed an act of adultery with a junior officer. That alone gets many officers demoted and a dishonorable discharge.

[erpowers]

6. Should Have Been Demoted

It is not just that Chelsea Manning is serving a long prison term for releasing classified information. It is also the fact that a number of other generals and lower ranking officers have lost their careers and pensions for having affairs. I do not want to be a prude, but I far as I know David Petraeus' affair alone is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Other officers have been passed over for prominent positions because of affairs they had at the beginning of their careers. Others were given dishonorable discharges and denied the chance to get a military pension.

[marlakay]

8. I was thinking same thing

There is a morals clause, and if they aren't going to inforce it they should take it out.

[mpcamb]

9. These are some large pensions-

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/benefits/pay/2015/01/10/gfo-retirement-change/21387763/

For example, in 2014, monthly officer pay was capped at $15,125.10. But according to the military pay tables, a four-star officer with 36 years in service was eligible to receive for $18,821.10 per month. So if that officer just retired, he would see retirement checks amounting to nearly $17,000 monthly because the Pentagon calculated his pension based on the salary on the pay table rather than the officer's actual capped active-duty paycheck.

and

http://www.stripes.com/news/congress-we-went-too-far-on-star-rank-retirement-1.321816

[JackRiddler]

10. Who cares?

The war criminal can be Retired General Petraeus in a cell at The Hague.