Do you think the charges against General David Petraeus are politically motivated?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 22:19:08 -0500

What do you think about the charges being possibly brought on General Petraeus? Politically motivated?

Story added by RP Staff:
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/01/09/justice-recommends-felony-charges-against-former-gen-petraeus/21525859/

Criminal charges recommended against Petraeus

The Department of Justice recommended that retired Gen. David H. Petraeus face felony charges for provided classified information to his former

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2015 10:28 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 22:28:25 -0500

It would help if you embedded a link so that those of us unfamiliar with the story have a chance to catch up.

As far as the charges it's hard for the common citizen to have an educated opinion until evidence is provided. If the allegations are true it's pretty damn serious. It's painful to see the man fall from grace though.

Prosecutors weigh charges against David Petraeus involving classified information

David Petraeus could face criminal proceedings for providing classified documents to his biographer.

Response by SMSgt Judy Hickman made Jan 9 at 2015 11:31 PM

SMSgt Judy Hickman — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 23:31:13 -0500

At this point in history I don't think the charges are politically motivated. I had pretty much forgotten about Gen Petraeus until I read some comments on Rally point the other day. If provided classified information to someone (it doesn't matter who) who did not have a need to know or the clearance to receive the information, then he should be brought up on charges. If they can prove that release of information led to the death or injury of a service member, then there is no doubt he should be charged.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jan 9 at 2015 11:34 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 23:34:59 -0500

Apparently releasing dangerous terrorists from GITMO only to reenter the fight is nothing compared to General David Petaeus' crimes.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2015 11:37 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 23:37:50 -0500

I highly doubt that there isn't SOMEONE who has political motivations to take him down. Does that mean that there's no weight to the issue? I'd have no way of knowing.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2015 11:58 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 23:58:11 -0500

Political. I ,,,,,,

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2015 12:18 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 00:18:45 -0500

In 2 years They have not produced the evidence to drive this verdict. He committed adultery. He is paying the price for that.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2015 4:30 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 04:30:06 -0500

It is hard to make an informed decision as we are only fed bits and pieces.
General P is definitely someone who towards the end was not a favorite. Once that happens those at top levels will do anything to dig up all the possible things which were done incorrectly.

There again, we are seeing many individuals transgressions come to light lately. I find it hard to believe that all these Leaders are as horrible as they are being portrayed.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2015 4:31 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 04:31:24 -0500

I'm only surprised that it has taken this long for charges to be brought; that Broadwell also isn't being charged; and that our military leaders have done nothing in response to Patraeus' and Broadwell's misdoings. Let's not forget that both were subject to the UCMJ at the time of some of the crimes, and that both still are.

In an era of budget austerity where we're throwing out majors and captains, its frustrating that the military hasn't thrown the book at Patraeus, to court martial him. He's admitted he's guilty, so the outcome of a court martial is known. He'd likely be reduced to the rank at which he last served honorably (which is probably major general or lieutenant general), if not lower given the seriousness of the crimes he's committed. With Patraeus probably among those 4-stars who retired at ridiculously expanded retirement benefits, how many majors and captains could we have saved, how much many could we save in the future, if Patraeus were held accountable under the UCMJ? I don't have the math handy, but its millions and millions of dollars.

While I think its necessary for charges to brought against the both of them, its unfortunate that this isn't likely to be done under the UCMJ. Not charging them and having them court martialled under the UCMJ sends the message that their crimes were acceptable, and reinforces the perception that the rules are different for senior military leaders, even when it comes to felony offenses.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2015 4:42 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 04:42:21 -0500

I think the jury is still out whether it is strictly politically motivated. And this story does take some spot light off the administration. So maybe in a sense it is just politically motivated. He has been under investigation for quite some time so I think its time for answers. Did he or not pass secret or sensitive information.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Jan 10 at 2015 9:28 AM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 09:28:09 -0500

It is probably the right thing to do, in my opinion. It's not easy for me to say that, given how much GEN Petraeus meant to the military at times, but if a crime was committed then justice should be served regardless of the pay grade of the person involved.

Response by MSgt Rob Weston made Jan 10 at 2015 12:20 PM

MSgt Rob Weston — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 12:20:50 -0500

Currently, this is all speculation. Like with any case (Tryvon Martin, Michael Brown, etc.) instead of making an accusation or stating an opinion, I'll wait to see what the evidence states and how the jury decides. Due Process is Innocent till proven guilty without a shadow of doubt. Currently there is a possibility of wrong doing (evidence), however this is also the possibility this is a vile political move as well (to focus away from scandals).

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Jan 10 at 2015 12:35 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 12:35:23 -0500

Regardless of political issues, everyone with a clearance signs an NDA and receives training on note disclosing classified (of any level) without the proper clearance AND need to know.

Response by MSG Scott McBride made Jan 10 at 2015 2:02 PM

MSG Scott McBride — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 14:02:09 -0500

I had the priviledge of meeting GEN Petraeus and talking with him. For me, It was like meeting a rock star. I hope that these particular charges are unfounded and dismissed. If not, then justice needs to be served. Good luck General.

Response by CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2015 3:55 AM

CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 03:55:48 -0500

While it certainly can seem as though it is politically motivated, the bottom line is that if indeed a crime was committed it is absolutely the right thing to do. Especially when someone has brought so much scrutiny upon himself in the ways that General Petraeus has.

Response by SSG Tim Everett made Jan 11 at 2015 10:03 PM

SSG Tim Everett — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 22:03:35 -0500

It's the right thing to do. The guy was having an affair. Both he and the woman should face disciplinary action -- she's a military officer, UCMJ her ass. And as for the general, well... he was in a job position with access to classified material. He was susceptible to bribery -- whether or not he'd have taken a bribe is irrelevant. That's not even touching the allegation that he gave her access to classified material.

Response by PO3 John Jeter made Jan 11 at 2015 10:06 PM

PO3 John Jeter — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 22:06:32 -0500

I look at all the actionable offenses by Eric Holder which resulted in the deaths of U.S. Law Enforcement Officers (among others) and the offenses brought to light involving the violations of civil rights, not to mention Benghazi and I have to wonder, Why are they concentrating on Petraeus? I'm not aware of any indiscretions on his part which actually harmed anyone. I certainly don't see where his offenses warrant the expenditure of taxpayer monies and resources when there are far more severe offenses being unpunished.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2015 4:51 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:51:20 -0500

As much as I liked and respected the man while he was leading the fight in Afghanistan, what he did was completely wrong. I respected him for resigning the CIA immediately as the affair came to light, but you can't give Top Secret and SCI info to your mistress/biographer and then lie to the FBI about it. Sadly, it is right to recommend criminal charges against him. Charges should be brought against Broadwell too. She was no saint in all of this either. He admitted guilt, now he needs to take his punishment like a man. This is nobody's fault except his own. It was a big mistake but easily preventable.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2015 4:58 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:58:57 -0500

I believe pure politics... Look at exactly when they released the information about General Patreus, just as the Israeli PM was speaking to Congress... Also the original scandal was released just before General Patreus was suppose to speak before Congress about Benghazi... And since there was an on going investigation he couldn't speak before congress, and now that this is out, it has ruined his credibility so even if he testifies before Congress they may not believe him.. Again I would like to see the whole truth and not the smoke and mirrors we have been seeing...

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Mar 3 at 2015 5:16 PM

Cpl Jeff N. — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 17:16:44 -0500

They are politically motivated but he put the bulls eye on his chest. He made some poor decisions as a general officer and is paying a far higher price than most ever would have. Politically motivated yes. Do I feel sorry for him, no. He made his bed, now he will have to sleep in it.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2015 5:34 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 17:34:21 -0500

Former SECDEF Panetta mentioned in his book that Petraeus' promotion (was it?) to DCIA was politically calculated to keep him busy rather than let him develop a political career.

I think taking him to trial would have been the right thing to do, justice being blind an all. There is simply no justiciable difference between Petraeus and Manning. The only cognizable one may be in degree.

My answer to the poll was "right thing to do." There simply is no obvious reason why charges would be needed to keep Petraeus in political checkmate; the scandal alone did that.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 4 at 2015 1:21 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 01:21:45 -0500

No! He should be held accountable for his misconduct. This is an age old story. A man carries on an inappropriate quid-pro-quo relationship, and in the process releases classified documents. If he was an enlisted puke, he would have fried for that. They would have charged him with adultery, conduct unbecoming, etc. in addition to the breach in national security. He would have already been at Leavenworth. Why do you think he plead guilty to the lesser charges? Because he knew cutting a plead deal was the only way out!

Response by Capt John J. Bartell Sr. made Jan 18 at 2020 7:17 AM

Capt John J. Bartell Sr. — Sat, 18 Jan 2020 07:17:17 -0500

Private Matters although not what we aim for are private matters and everyone makes mistakes and he should still be CIA Director with a eye on the White House