Retired CG CAPT breaches National Security

[PSCS Frank Gorman]

Don't know if this made the news on a National Level, but a retired CG CAPT,who now works for the TSA, has been identified by the NY Daily News (pg 2 of their Friday 21 OCT Edition) as one of two CG personnel (the other is the CG's civilian Chief Technology Officer) who leaked the classified info regarding the terror threat to the NYC Subway to family and friends before the FBI and NYPD determined it necessary to alert the public!

This is a disgrace! After all the great work and good press the CG has rec'd for Katrina Ops, these bastards put themselves before national security, and gave the whole CG a black eye. If, God forbid, a CPO did this, he/she would be hung out to dry!

If the accusations are proven to be true, the civilian should be fired immediately, and tried criminally. The Captain should be recalled to active duty, and tried at a General Court Martial. Please make your feelings known.

We can not tolerate such actions from our senior leadership.

[MSTCM C Stevenson]

No. There is a complete lack of information. Questions needing to be answered include:

1. Specifically, what law did he break?
2. Does the CG have any legal recourse to recall him strictly for the purposes of disciplinary action?
3. With regard to the civilian: What, if anything does his contract say about releasing information? "Leak" is a media spin word. It sounds dramatic and gets attention. Someone else might say he simply "discussed" it with friends and family.

By the post, it looks like neither of them are uniform wearing members of the CG. So, I wouldn't consider them senior leadership. I would consider them employees of the U.S. Government... like any GS grade or civilian contracted worker.

Do you have a link to the article?

[BMCS Don Zoll]

I agree with the Master Chief. We need more info! How can someone who used to be in the CG, now retired be tried by the CG for something done after his CG is over? Come on! Think about how dumb that sounds. He should be tried as a GS whatever not as a CG Captain if he broke any laws. I'll vote if/when you help clear this up for me.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

I vote No, there is not much in the way of info here to make a clear cut determination.

I would suspect that it was an issue of saying something (innocently?) to a family member about looking for an alternative method of commuting during this period. That person told a friend, who told another and so on, and so on...

Should the person be completely exonerated here? No! We are given security clearances for a reason. My spouse and other family members do not hold a clearance, so they do not need me to tell them anything. Period

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

"But he just told his mommy..."

Yes he did. And what he told her was classified. This is a breach of SEVERAL commsec/opsec/alphabet-soup-sec laws. It doesn't matter WHO you tell, if they don't hold the proper clearances and have a demonstrated NEED TO KNOW, then it is a breach of security.

If, and I repeat, IF what they say is true, then there needs to be charges filed.

Either that, or free Lonetree, Aldrich Ames and all the other folks convicted of passing on classified info. Just because he passed info to Mommy doesn't mean that investigations weren't screwed up or the bad guys got info from it.

But, we won't know if they really did it or not until AFTER they are convicted in a court of law - martial or civilian. Until then, they are still innocent.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Jerald, I agree that he shouldn't have passed classified info to mommy or anyone else not cleared, but you cannot honestly compare this guy with Clayton Lonetree, Aldrich Ames, Hansen, the Walkers, etc. He does need to have some sort of action taken against him. They are not even in the same league.

Of course if you go the the Library of Congress and stuff classified documents in your underwear all you get is stripped of your clearance for 10 years and a nominal fine.


I hope you were making absurd comparisons to stimulate discussion.

[PSCS Frank Gorman]

MSTCM Stevenson:

I will try and get a link for you to the article. The CG by referencing the MCM and MJM, can recall any retired member to active duty (or a reservist) for trial by CM. The charges could be as simple as ART 92, disobeying a standing order. I'll get the link for you. If I can't get the link, I'd be glad to get it to you all other ways. I'm very happy with the discussion!

THX for all of your opinions!

Frank Gorman

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I'm with Frank. If they can determine that he is if fact guilty, and his actions did reach the level of breaching National Security, bring him back and fry him. If he is being billed in the papers as a Retired CG Capt, it's still our black eye. I would be willing to bet that he got his TSA position as a result of his CG time. He should have known better. People have had been recalled to Active Duty and Court Martialed in the past. It isn't unheard of. And just to prove that the only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them dies, how did they find out that he told anyone ?

[PSCS Frank Gorman]

Master Chief et al:

Here is the article. Note that a member of Congress is calling for criminal prosecution of both men.

2 ID'D IN LEAK COAST GUARD TECH BIG PROBED BY FEDS IN TERROR TIPOFF; [SPORTS FINAL Edition]
ROBERT F. MOORE in Bethesda, Md., and ALISON GENDAR in New York DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS With James Gordon Meek. New York Daily News. New York, N.Y.: Oct 21, 2005. pg. 2
Full Text (503 words)
Copyright Daily News, L.P. Oct 21, 2005
THE U.S. COAST GUARD'S technology czar is the other high-ranking federal employee who allegedly tipped off friends and family to the New York City subway terror threat, the Daily News has learned.

Nathaniel Saltonstall Heiner, chief knowledge officer of the Coast Guard, is suspected of warning of the plot before the city and the FBI went public Oct. 6, federal sources said yesterday.
[COLOR=DarkRed]
Heiner and William Ross, a retired Coast Guard captain identified Tuesday as the first alleged leaker by The News, are being investigated by the Homeland Security Department's inspector general and the Office of Security, sources said. Here are the first photos of both men, who had their security clearances yanked shortly after The News exposed the early warning E- mails Oct. 13.

"I have just received a most disturbing call from one of my oldest friends . . . who by dint of his position has access to the highest level of intelligence 'traffic,' " Tony Micocci, founder of a Manhattan arts company, wrote in an Oct. 5 E-mail after allegedly hearing from Heiner, sources said.

"He called with a very specific caution to not enter the New York City subway system from Oct. 7-Oct. 10," Micocci wrote.

Heiner, 55, is one of the highest-ranking civilians in the Coast Guard. His father, George Heiner, was a Yale roommate of President George H.W. Bush.

The younger Heiner got his doctorate at Columbia University and was one of the original members of the group Sha Na Na before it performed in Woodstock. The group was known as the Columbia Kingsmen, said Sha Na Na drummer John (Jocko) Marcellino.

"I'm sorry, I have absolutely no comment," Heiner told The News at his Bethesda, Md., home yesterday.

Ross, who works for Homeland Security's Transportation Safety Administration, allegedly tipped off his son, Nick Seligson-Ross, of Manhattan, who fired off his own E-mail Oct. 3. Ross declined to comment at his house in Warwick, Md.

Some congressional leaders have called for criminal charges to be brought.

Rep. Peter King, (R-L.I.), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff considers the leaks an extremely serious matter.

"He was shocked by it," King said after a breakfast with Chertoff. "He said everyone has an instinct to warn someone you know, but when you sign up for the job you have to give that up."

Chertoff also told King that Homeland Security will "embed" an employee in both the NYPD and LAPD to better share terrorism-threat information.

NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly agreed to the liaison, which would be similar to a program that assigns NYPD officers with law enforcement agencies around the globe.

The Homeland Security Department did not respond to requests for comment. A Coast Guard spokesman declined to comment.

agendar@nydailynews.com


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Good enough for me....fry 'em. E-mails and phone calls, I'm thinking .....guilty. As you can see, once you've broken your oath and passed classified material, people who have never taken an oath, have no problem sharing it with "their" loved ones.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

If it had been a Chief, I have no doubt he would be held accountable!

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Can I change my vote?

I say discipline without a Court Martial for the retired O6 and have them both submit their resignation letters from their civilian jobs. Strip the clearances

[BMCS Bill Gheen]

While I agree that heavy discipline should be in order, I can't get over one word in the article: "alleged".

I'd hate to think that our judicial system, even being what it is at times, not being followed.

Innocent until proven guilty!?

[MSTCM C Stevenson]

Frank-

Thanks for the story. So now we wait to find out...

1) Will he/they be charged? Investigations are as frequent as opinions, which are like assholes.
2) Would the CG proceed with it's own investigation and charges using MJM protocols? No. It is the CG'S nature not to take high profile bad news into it's own house regardless how severe we think it is.


Some congressional leaders have called for criminal charges to be brought.
Yeah. Okay. Blah, blah, blah. What criminal charges, specifically?

Rep. Peter King, (R-L.I.), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff considers the leaks an extremely serious matter.

Oooooo... an extremely serious matter? That is right up there with: "Stevenson noticed the price of dog food rose $2 and he considers the price hike an extremely serious matter." - It's verbal sewage without substance.

It's still not clear what law, if any, was broken.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Oooooo... an extremely serious matter? That is right up there with: "Stevenson noticed the price of dog food rose $2 and he considers the price hike an extremely serious matter." - It's verbal sewage without substance.
I'm taking it, that that's your opinion.........

I don't need to now what actual law is has been violated to realize that disclosing classified material is wrong. Martha Stewart went to prison for less. The information was classified for a reason. It's access was classified for a reason. Their security clearances aren't the only thing these two government employees should lose.

And just my opinion....an observation from watching years of Law and Order......where many guilty people profess their innocence, innocent people ALWAYS do. Innocent people never need to hide behind "No comment."

[MSTCM C Stevenson]

Stu-
I am not wrapped around whether or not it is wrong. Clearly, it was. It's a no-brainer. They got their clearances revoked/suspended. At that level such an action is considered a severe punishment, regardless of whether or not we think it is severe enough. They will never work in the security industry again. They will be let go, or quit, or they're contracts will play out without being renewed. No one will touch them.

It's too dirty an issue for the CG. At the end of the day, the CG is going to keep it's house and doorstep clean. You, me, Fido and our collective opinions won't change that. Especially not for issues at that level.

[MSTC Michael Schmidtke]

I am not wrapped around whether or not it is wrong. Clearly, it was. It's a no-brainer. They got their clearances revoked/suspended. At that level such an action is considered a severe punishment, regardless of whether or not we think it is severe enough.

Ok, then why would you down play the situation? You said yourself that 'It's a no-brainer'! And, I know you'll pick apart my post like you do others, but this is a serious subject, and I don't think that sarcasim is the right tact for this thread....you have already gone back and agreed to everyone's posts', but lets leave the sarcasim out of this one! Do you still agree that these people need to be punished? That's what was asked at first, and I'm curious at what you and others think?

Who cares whether the Coast Guard brings them back and punishes them as a Coastie....your right, they won't....but the point was brought up that they are listed as a 'Retired Coast Guard Captain'.....this is the point that was made...(ie 'Black eye for the Coast Guard'), so I agree with the 1st post, after Post Katrina relief, we will sustain a 'Black eye' over this if it makes national news!

No one wins in this one!!!!

[MSTCM C Stevenson]

And, I know you'll pick apart my post like you do others
Mike-
You know me well! You should also know I do it strictly to answer your questions in a clear way.... never a personal attack.


but this is a serious subject,
It is, but there are countless serious subjects in our day and, unfortunately, there are only 24 hours in a day. So, I have to choose which issues to spend time with. I usually tackle the ones where I can affect the most positive change... like closer to home (at my unit). Internet news snippets are a very distant 2nd.


and I don't think that sarcasim is the right tact for this thread....
You say sarcasm, I say honest net-speak. Remember: None of this is personal or targeted.


Do you still agree that these people need to be punished?
Yep. I believe the system has already punished them. Their error will follow them for years. The punishment won't end in that sense. Check my post again.


'Retired Coast Guard Captain'.....this is the point that was made...(ie 'Black eye for the Coast Guard'),
Yeah we've established that, but if the outcome is likely to be little/no public hanging and we know that to, what's the point in perpetuating the drama by beating it to death?



24 hours in a day...

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

It's the "at that level" attitude that bothers me. At that level we should expect more out of them. At that level they should be held at a higher standard. At that level the punishment should be greater. Revoking or suspending their security clearances is a no brainer. What they did is a little more serious than the rising cost of dog food. Losing their job isn't good enough for me.
Let's bring it down to a lower level........two people go out to two different bars and get into fist fights. The E-4 is taken to Mast, reduced to E-3, restricted, given extra duty and an alcohol incident. The O-2 is given a letter of reprimand. Is that Justice ? One is given actual real time punishment, one is put into a position that could possibily reflect poorly on him down the road.
If a janitor at the TSA had made those same e-mails and phone calls you can bet that they would have already done more to him than revoke his security clearance.

I want to see these people held accountable. I don't want to see them transferred to another agency. At that level, their pay and responsibility should be reflective of the type of punishment that they should expect. The clearance revoked/SUSPENDED has me worried also. What's to prevent one of their cronies/buddies from re-instating that clearance once this blows over.

Let's look at this from another angle. If something HAD blown up and hundreds of people HAD died.....and then these e-mails were discovered. How do you think the rest of the tax payers paying these two mens salaries would view their NOT disclosing this information to THIER families as well. Would the families of those victims look at them as serving the public, or serving themselves ?

[BMC Mark C. Lewis]

I do not plan on voting until it is proven that they breached security, everything right now says alleged.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

If they don't go to trial and get convicted , it will always, only be alleged. The question is, do you think they should face prosecution, or should they be allowed to walk away.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Based on what I know of this case, and I only know what is in the news, I do not see the necessity to prosecute these two.

By having no clearance, and the investigation into the allegations attached to them, I don't see how either one of these people would be able to hold a clearance ever again, thus ending their careers in public service and most likely in private service also.

I would be willing to bet that this type of leak occurs on a daily basis on all level of government. I am not condoning it, but it happens, do you prosecute every last one of those as well?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And I would say yes. Prosecute them all. What's the point in having laws, if you're not going to enforce them. Your arguement goes back to the inappropriate and prohibited relationships arguement. People at higher levels break these rules and are given letters of censure. Junior people are taken to mast. There's a double standard at play.
Simply removing them from their job, is.......in my opinion.........the same thing as firing a teacher who molests children, and saying...."Well with that on their record, they'll never teach again." Losing their job is a good start. Now what are you going to do to punish them, and let others know not to do the same thing.
I don't want to hear that they "probably" will have difficulty working in the private sector. I was paying those two people to perform a service. They didn't perform the service I was paying them for. They did the exact opposite of what they were being paid for. How long would you last at your job if you did the opposite of what you were getting paid for?
They were using that position of authority to serve their family and friends. Let their family and friends pick up their bills from now on.
And Steve.....I would argue that by saying that it happens all the time, there's nothing that we can do to stop it, and we should just let it go.......you are condoning it. These people didn't get my order wrong at the drive-thru, they "allegedly" violated National Security.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Senior,

Prosecute them all? How do you propose to find them all? How are you even going to know when it happens?

Suppose for argument's sake that:

a). I lived in the New York area, had access to this same information,
b). My wife wants to go shopping in Manhatten and use the subway system,
c). I casually suggest that we do something else instead, or use a different mode of transportation,
d). I do not provide specifics, nor do I say anything about the fact that "I know something"
e). My wife never says anything to anybody, ever about the fact the we changed our plans

That by definition is a security leak. I should be prosecuted, Right? How would you ever know that I did it?

These two did something similar, got caught and should face some sort of consequence, I'm just not convinced that prosecuting them is the way to go here. I just don't see the government expending the amount of energy and money to prosecute this case.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

No no no no...........
"He called with a very specific caution to not enter the New York City subway system from Oct. 7-Oct. 10," Micocci wrote.
........not even close to the same thing.
I don't think the situation you described is a security leak. You never disclosed anything.
As for not being able to find all violators........let's expand on that one for a minute. Are you aware of how often someone is raped in this country ? How many rapes go unreported ? Should we stop prosecuting the rapists we catch because we can't prosecute the ones we don't ? These people were caught. I can't believe we have people who don't want them held accountable.
If your wife had gone into the subway and something had happened, and you later found out that someone else's wife didn't make that same planned trip because her husband told her about specific information about a terrorist strike that he learned at his job, would you still go to his house for Thanksgiving ?

[MSTC Michael Schmidtke]

By my count, or if someone can reset the poll, has everyone on the same page, its just that we vary on the punishment.....expected!

Steve and SSS bring up very good points...so at what point do you teeder one way or the other? We all know that we don't have all the details, so everything that we are speculating about is moot, until the facts come out.

Either way, I'm curious how this will be handled.

SSS, your point brought another viewpoint that I didn't consider and Steve, yours did as well, but they are on both ends of the spectrum! You can make a suggestion to a loved one without disclosing facts, or you can disclose something to a loved one with facts, and if your subtle about it, no one knows either way...

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Suppose for argument's sake that:

a). I lived in the New York area, had access to this same information,
b). My wife wants to go shopping in Manhatten and use the subway system,
c). I casually suggest that we do something else instead, or use a different mode of transportation,
d). I do not provide specifics, nor do I say anything about the fact that "I know something"
e). My wife never says anything to anybody, ever about the fact the we changed our plans

That by definition is a security leak. I should be prosecuted, Right? How would you ever know that I did it?



Steve...that analogy makes no sense! How can you say that this example is the same? There are HUGE differences between the two. I don't get it...maybe you should let us all know what the definition of a security leak is?

[PACS Steve Carleton]

In the world of Ethics, this is a Right-vs-Right situation.

Do I;

a). Keep quiet (not break security) and allow a loved one to board a subway train, that ultimately is attacked and they are killed or severely wounded

or

b). Warn my loved one (break security) in some way that they shouldn't ride the subway on a given day because they could come under attack

When making this decision, I have to consider that I will face a set of consequences in either case;

a). My loved one is killed or wounded, and I live with the heavy burden of knowing that I could have somehow prevented them from being caught up in a tragic event.

b). Face the consequence of breaking security, stripped clearance, removed from my work position, prosecution, long-term unemployment, etc.

Looking at what is in the media on this case, and so far, only one media outlet is reporting the allegations, it appears that both people chose to warn a loved one in some way.

In the ethical right-vs-right discussion, they believe that they made a good decision. I cannot say that I wouldn't have done the same thing if presented with a similar set of conditions. Should I face the consequences of my actions if I am found out? Absolutely!

Do they deserve to be prosecuted in a court of law? I don't think so. Do they need to face some form of punishment? Yes. If the investigation turns up that they were warning the enemy, or had other motives, such as selling the information, etc. then they should be prosecuted accordingly.

[SKCM Linda Reid]

Fascinating case! ... not the least of which is the fact that Mr. Heiner ... a pretty straight-laced suit in this building ... was part of Sha-Na-Na.

[BMC Ralph Williams]

Why didn't they make this information public sooner?

I personally would like to know if I'm going to be blown up.

Ralph

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Should they be punished? Yes, if they are guilty.

How do we determine guilt? Investigate and prosecute.

Should it be a Courtmartial? No. They may have broken our rules as well as their present employer, but they don't belong to us now and the alleged infraction did not occur while they were working for us. When people are brough back from ETS or retirement for punitive actions it is usually because they screwed up while in uniform but it wasn't discovered until later. If we try them we make it our black eye.

We should find a good PAC(S) (Congrats Steve) to send an editorial to that specific publication stating that the people in question should not be referred to as Coast Guard czars (i didn't know we had those...) or Coast Guard anything else. They are civilians working for a government agency. Just like the mailman except with a higher clearance.

I think the TSA should definitely get a backbone and try them. They should also permanently revoke their clearances as part of whatever punishment is doled out if they are found guilty.

[ETCM Joseph Harold]

Should they be punished? ..."but they don't belong to us now and the alleged infraction did not occur while they were working for us."

Just wanted to clearify. Dr Heiner works (or worked) for CG-6 as the Chief Knowledge Officer when this occured. Still a Civilian, but well within the Coast Guard and at the top at that.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

I stand corrected. Well, at least he was in Sha-Na-Na. That has to count for something, even if he didn't make it to woodstock.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Steve, A couple of things to keep in mind, they didn't "tell" their loved ones.....they used e-mails and telephones. Their "loved ones" included friends, who passed the same information to their friends. And most importantly, why should their loved ones be better informed and protected than my loved ones. If we're all paying taxes shouldn't we all be getting the information at the same time ? I can't look at their actions as anything other than selfish. If there was an attack and their loved ones were spared, how could they have any less of a burden knowing they let mine die ? Selfish, and criminal. I don't care how many people would have done the same thing in their situation.....it's still wrong.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

How is it that the media let their names out but go to jail to protect others? I agree with Ken. It they were no longer an active service member when they did this, then they did not violate UCMJ. Using that logic, we would have to recall a retiree when he gets a DUI to slap him twice.
That said, it still does not make it right. Now if they were to be prosecuted, most of DC would need to be prosecuted. Hell, if DC were a ship it would sink from all the "leaking".
I think the "freedom of press" should include some clause for "responsibility of the press" with regard to National Security issues, and hold them accountable for inapporopriate release of classified information. I know that it would require a constitutional ammendment, but irresponsible reporting can cost American lives.
And there you have it.

[MSTCS Tom Gentile]

Do I think people should be held accountable? Yes! Do I think the Coast Guard should be bringing people back from retirement to do so? Absolutely not! In a perfect place everyone is held accountable for thier actions by whichever organization they are employed by. My goodness man....Where does it end? Suppose for the sake of arguement, I retire, get a DUI in Elizabeth City, the CO hears about it and proclaims "That punk has brought discredit to my organization, bring him back and administer justice!" I know that this is a far cry from the accusations listed in this thread but really, that's why there is a civil court process, lets let them do what we as taxpayers pay them to do, and then let us go forth as Coast Guard leaders and spend our time continuing to hold our own folks on active duty accountable for thier actions.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

OK, the one guy is a current CG employee, and I believe he still falls under the UCMJ jurisdiction. The other guy didn't get a DUI, he's accused of violating National Security. Let's try and keep the apples with the apples and the oranges with the oranges.
The thing that I can't get past, is they are accused of violating National Security and the Nation is still paying their salary and one guy's retirement as well.
As for the Media....I think everybody already knows where I stand on that issue.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Great debate!

Makes me realize that I could not take a job like his. I'd have warned my wife and children to stay off the subway, too.

I voted that he should be punished by the civilian authorities with which he works now.

[MSTCS Tom Gentile]

Hi Dennis, I think this is a first. I agree wholeheartedly with every statement made in your last post! :) My job is to protect my family as I see fit, I would have had to take the day off and take the family to Chuckey Cheese.

Hi Stuart, my example was intentionally low level to illustrate the conundrum that ensues when we open the floodgates of bringing people back from retirement for the sake of "holding them accountable" for "whatever" they did regardless of the level of significance, where does it end? Especially when there are already avenues out there for punishment?

That's all I was trying to convey.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And Tom I get all of that. I understand that everybody wants to protect their family. I understand that people want to protect their friends. But this case reminds me of a certain presidential sex scandal. Ya see, I didn't care that he cheated on his wife. I didn't care where he had sex or what kind of sex he had. I was concerned that he had sex with an intern. If one of us had done the same thing we would be looking for new employment. I did care that he lied about it under oath.
This case isn't about someone protecting their family. It's about people released classified information, when they are being paid not to. It about people releasing that information by two methods that they rest of us are trained not to utilize. Dennis is right, in that people who aren't willing to safe guard those facts shouldn't be seeking those positions.
You ask where we should stop bringing people back in to prosecute them ? Where does it end ? Let's end it on the national level. Anytime your actions, or inactions, can be construed as a Threat to National Security or Treason, I would say that you have put your government pension, and future freedom back into play.
And that's what I'm trying to convey.
Dennis is also right in that this is a good debate. If you want to debate what's actually going to happen to these two, my money goes on nothing. Both men walk away without a scratch. I don't think either man will lose their job or face prosecution. And I think that both will have their clearances re-instated. If for any reason they are removed from their postion, they will have another government job by this time next year.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Stu,
I appreciate your point of view and agree with much of it. Now in keeping "apples with apples", why do you think that the government should go back to a previous career that is now ended and take away what they have earned there because they screwed up in their new or subsequent career? I think that if the information they leaked was something that was learned while in their previous career, then there may be something to that. However, if someone goes on to another Civilian position and screws up there, then they should be punished, fired, thrown in jail.... or whatever fits the crime in that sector. The worm bust be related to that particular apple.
Another "for instance": Say a former President goes on to be a porn star in his post presidential career. Should he have his presidential retirement taken away because he brings discredit upon the office? Personally, I don't think one has anything to do with the other, although I personally find them repugnant.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Well with the apples and apples, if the president uses his new found porn contacts to sell government secrets....yeah, take away his pension. I'm not talking about petty crimes. Jay walkers shouldn't be prosecuted by courts martials. But anything that reaches the level of, let's say, National Security, should be prosecuted by all means available. That retired Capt got his current position from his previous position in the CG. The Civilian guy is a CG employee and falls under the UCMJ. Their actions threaten the very government that cuts them a pay check. I don't care what the retired guys who go on to work for home depot or pizza hut do. This guy is still a government employee. He's accused of Breaching National Security. If he were to be found guilty, do you think that we as tax payers still owe him his CG pension ? How about if someone actually goes over to the other side ? If they started planting the bombs ? Should we continue to give them their pension after they have taken up arms against the very nation that is paying them ? I'm sure that we could all come up with scenarios where we could justify stopping someones government pension. My tolerance just seems to be alot lower than almost everyone else's.

[MSTCS Tom Gentile]

Current Job, if he did something wrong he should be punished IF found guilty = Apples

Retired Job, Retired honorably and has nothing to do with his current situation = Oranges

Yes we pay his retired paycheck, because his retired check is for his past performance of which he earned. Not for his present shenanigans.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Senior,

Since the civilian released classified information to his family, for whatever reason, can I safely assume that you want to begin a hunt for the person(s) who "leaked" details regarding the investigation to the media?

While the leak to the media isn't on the level of breaching National Security, it is inappropriate to release information regarding an on-going investigation.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I don't think that the CG should take the retired guys pension away...he earned it just like the 17 year sluffer that we went ahead and let retire in another thread!

Both should be punished accordingly by their current employer.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Steve, nothing is safe, and again he released the information to his "friends", who in turn released it to their "friends". Maybe one of those friends worked in the media. You're still viewing these guys as people looking out for their families. That's why you and I will never agree on this case.
Tom, I connect his current job to the one he retired from, and so does the Media apparently = bananas. And his present shenanigans are exactly why we can't see eye to eye on this. Tiolet paping someone's house can be called shenanigans, they both did a little bit more than that.
Deane, Both should be punished accordingly by their current employer., you're absolutely right. However, their current employer in the Federal Government who is giving the one guy his check, and the other guy both of his. Let's hope their current employer punishes them accordingly and prevents others from making these same mistakes. And if they allow them to get away with it, then you're right again, and we've just inherited two more government sluffers, and we should ensure anyone can e-mail anything that they want, to anyone they want, anytime they want, and still be entitled to their pension.

[ETCM Joseph Harold]

The Civilian guy is a CG employee and falls under the UCMJ.

Huh? I don't think so. Civilians are not subject to the UCMJ.

[BMC Ralph Williams]

So back to my original question.

Why wasn't this information released SOONER???

Which agency decided to keep it HUSH HUSH???

If I'm going to be blown up I want to know about it!!

I have a right to know this information!!

Ralph

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Huh? I don't think so. Civilians are not subject to the UCMJ.

Then someone needs to explain to me why the Manual for Courts-Martial United States (2005 Edition) says:

(4) Limitations on jurisdiction over civilians. Court-martial jurisdiction over civilians under the code is limited by judicial decisions...........Before initiating court-martial proceedings against a civilian, relevant statues and decisions should be carefully examined.

Apparently, civilians CAN be subject to the UCMJ seeing as that is the only thing that Court-Martials cover. Now I understand that civilians are usually covered under other means when held accountable for their actions, but again I'm looking at the Threats to National Security aspect, not so much the sleeping at work parade that is listed in the quarterly Good Order and Discipline report.

[BMCS Bill Gheen]

Stu,

You are absolutley right. UCMJ does and always has applied to civilians (under the right circumstances). ;)

[ETCM Joseph Harold]

BMCS,

I stand corrected. Thanks for the education. I spoke before researching based on personal experience.

ETCM

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Not a problem, I was having the same arguement here with a couple of people. Again, I don't think anything WILL happen to those two guys, but it COULD. We don't even seem to want to hold certain people accountable for certain actions when we have exclusive jurisdiction over them.