Head of Navy intelligence hasn't been allowed to see military secrets for years | Hacker News Reader

Head of Navy intelligence hasn't been allowed to see military secrets for years

washingtonpost.com

109 pointsgreenyoda37 comments

"After a year in limbo, the Navy has decided to move ahead and replace the service's top intelligence officer, whose tenure has been hamstrung by suspected ties to a disgraced defense contracting firm.

The Office of the Secretary of the Navy has nominated Rear Adm. Elizabeth Train for a third star and to relieve Vice Adm. Ted Branch as director of naval intelligence, according to two Navy officials.

Branch's access to classified information was suspended in November 2013, along with that of a deputy, Rear Adm. Bruce Loveless, the director of intelligence operations, for possible connections to Glenn Defense Marine Asia — the husbanding firm at the center of one of the Navy's biggest bribery scandals in decades." http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/11/26/...

"... Navy officials boarded and relieved Capt. Daniel P. Dusek of his command of the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard. Fifteen months later on January 15, 2015, federal prosecutors obtained a guilty plea from Dusek on charges of bribery for supplying classified ship movements in the Asia-Pacific region to Glenn Marine in return for prostitutes and luxury hotel stays worth over $10,000. Dusek arranged for the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and the amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu to stop at ports where Francis' firm could service the ships. Dusek was released on $200,000 bail pending his sentencing hearing set for April 3, 2015. The previous week, on January 2, 2015, Cmdr. Jose Luis Sanchez pleaded guilty to supplying secret ship movement schedules in return for prostitutes, luxury travel and $100,000 in cash over a four year period."

In 2010, UWisconsin professor of history Alfred McCoy was invited to the 8th Annual Western Regional International Health Conference "War & Global Health" held at the University of Washington in Seattle. He gave a lecture mostly on torture and public policy.

In this lecture, Dr. Alfred McCoy claims that there was a bitter debate in the 2000s between the Justice Department and the Judge Advocate General's Corps [Famously broadcast television's JAGs] over torture [1]. He alleges that the JAGs were against the vast expansion of Executive power under the Bush administration (continued under Pres. Obama).

It is tinfoil-y to make broad sweeping narratives about the powers that be. All the same, on the basis of Dr. McCoy's speculation and public knowledge about John Yoo [2], I presume that if the Justice Department and the Navy are fighting that the Navy are the good guys.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy_jjwid3YM#t=52m21s [portion of immediate interest at 53:45]

[2] http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2010/04/08/they-did-authoriz...

Pentagon officials said his security clearance would have to be restored by a separate arm of the bureaucracy in a process that usually takes months.

You'd think that they'd make an exception and speed up the process for the head of intelligence.

"usually", so yes, I'd assume they would speed it up if they started it. But it doesn't seem like they want to, since they are not convinced he is "clean"?

Yes, sounds like a bureaucratic stalling action.

The problem is he's not yet cleared from the still-ongoing federal case. The feds need to release him from that before the adjudication authority can make a decision.

The context of the sentence I quoted said:

Even if Branch were cleared of wrongdoing by the Justice Department and the Navy tomorrow, he would face a much longer wait to regain access to military secrets.

I don't think this is that big of deal. Most intel officers and especially commanders are first and foremost managers of people. They don't really require access to classified information to do their job.

The reason for why is a big deal. A lot of navy officers are currently involved in a bribery scandal.

Yes, they do require access to classified information to do their jobs. You cannot manage people effectively if you have no idea what they are working on or visit their work areas. In fact, many basic operational details of units like this are low-level classified information, which would make command without a clearance effectively impossible.

My health insurance is provided by Aetna. Does Mark Bertolini, the CEO of Aetna, require access to my private health data do to his job?

No, but he does need to know that his company processes your health claims. The existence of many intel programs is a secret.

If something exceptional happens, yes, a subordinate needs to be able to raise the issue up the chain and say, "What do I do?"

As someone else mentioned, yes he does need to be able to access that data should a specific need arise.

That said, personal health records at an insurance provider are not the same thing as classified information within the DOD. The DOD classifies lots of operational details in order to protect its operations. Unit locations, security procedures, budgets, even the existence and personnel rosters of certain locations. Do you think Mark Bertolini could run Aetna without access to its complete budget, employee rolls, locations, and functional areas?

Branch can't meet with other senior U.S. intelligence leaders to discuss sensitive operations, or hear updates from his staff about secret missions or projects. It can be a chore just to set foot in colleagues' offices; in keeping with regulations, they must conduct a sweep beforehand to make sure any classified documents are locked up.

"I have never heard of anything as asinine, bizarre or stupid in all my years," Norman Polmar, a naval analyst and historian, said in an interview.

SNAFU/FUBAR come to mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUBAR_%28disambiguation%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snafu

"That has resulted in an awkward arrangement, akin to sending a warship into battle with its skipper stuck onshore."

This seems a bit overstated. Its more akin to the head of NASA not having a space suit, or the head of the Olympics Committee taking 40 seconds to run the 100m. He is basically a pen-pusher at this stage, chasing funding, greasing up to politicians, attending banquets. I think it is good he cannot see secrets, he doesn't need to, he has staff for that.

It looks bad to lower ranks, who'd have their security clearances and (most importantly) jobs taken away for much smaller (but at the same time, bigger) infractions. Its like the former sheriff of San Francisco County staying on his job after a domestic violence conviction.

It's actually fairly common for military members to lose their clearances temporarily pending the results of an investigation.

I'm thinking more along the lines of a junior enlisted soldier with a clearance who tests positive for pot during a random urinalysis.

It's basically the same scenario: the clearance will get pulled until the investigation is complete. The difference here is that the drug case will be resolved in a few days, as opposed to this prolonged federal criminal case involving millions of dollars and potentially dozens or hundreds of defendants.

Sadly it's not so fast. I saw it take months for an article hearing after an investigation (the duration of which clearances were suspended). It's not until then can an adjudicator assess and with the backlog that existed prior to the extra scrutiny the snowden issues have brought, i'd be hard pressed to believe the timeline was anything under 12 months at a minimum.

Another issues is some facilities require a clearance simply to visit HQ which often times is very well removed from the actual operations. When you can get a Campus Access Badge, often times pending adjudications like this can stop even that access. The whole system is rather antiquated.

>I think it is good he cannot see secrets, he doesn't need to, he has staff for that.

I think you're underestimating how important classified material is in the day-to-day operations of the military. He doesn't have access to any classified material, even down to the CONFIDENTIAL level. Every U.S. Navy officer has at least a SECRET clearance as the "default," and a ensign would be hard-pressed to work without a clearance, let alone a 3-Star.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_%28inform...

But he doesn't have the clearances for even non-compartmented classified material and that stuff is everywhere.

$150B budget. Interestingly about two thirds of Apple's revenue

I think you must be crazy to think like this.

I think you must be drastically misinformed about what's necessary to function within those assigned positions.

Please don't post uncivil and unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10989737 and marked it off-topic.

Sounds more like the Head of Stupidity.

<sarcasm on>I thought the whole reason for the military budget these days was to funnel public money into large defense contractors for dubious services?

After a lengthy investigation, lobbyists have determined that neither Glenn Marine nor its CEO "Fat" Leonard Francis have ever given any money to a PAC, super-PAC, campaign, or think tank. Nor have they put up any retired generals at the Four Seasons for the week while said generals made the rounds of the political bloviation shows. This is simply not how it is done in USA military procurement. "Cultural differences" is no excuse. The aesthetics of bribery are at least as important as the amounts. To bribe a C.O. directly is to ignore the chain of command, and that shit ain't cool.

"On October 2, 2013, near the end of the three-year investigation, Navy officials boarded and relieved Capt. Daniel P. Dusek of his command of the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard.[8] Fifteen months later on January 15, 2015, federal prosecutors obtained a guilty plea from Dusek on charges of bribery for supplying classified ship movements in the Asia-Pacific region to Glenn Marine in return for prostitutes and luxury hotel stays worth over $10,000.[6] Dusek arranged for the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and the amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu to stop at ports where Francis' firm could service the ships. Dusek was released on $200,000 bail pending his sentencing hearing set for April 3, 2015. The previous week, on January 2, 2015, Cmdr. Jose Luis Sanchez pleaded guilty to supplying secret ship movement schedules in return for prostitutes, luxury travel and $100,000 in cash over a four year period."

This reply indicates that you are several layers of reading comprehension behind the conversation that 'buserror and I were having. Please note that 'buserror's post helpfully began with a <sarcasm on> tag. It would have taken you less time to re-read the thread, than copying-and-pasting that pile of irrelevance took.

If the irrelevant block-quote was an attempted meta-comment on a thread that you found irrelevant or confusing, then keep trying! Don't let me discourage you!

well I was responding to you specifically. I fail to see how the quote is unrelated as it was from the most up-to-date sources regarding the situation. I apologize for assuming that your response was in earnest. Indeed, I did not see the sarcasm tag despite reading buserror's comment first and then your's. I still don't think your comment is factually correct and if it was in jest, I simply didn't see it as sarcastic despite it being in response to a sarcastic comment.

Also, it took me a few seconds to past that comment as I had it on the ready. So really no loss for me, except for responding to your comment, that has indeed cost me much more time than my first comment did. ;)

"After a lengthy investigation, lobbyists have determined that neither Glenn Marine nor its CEO "Fat" Leonard Francis have ever given any money to a PAC, super-PAC, campaign, or think tank."

"To bribe a C.O. directly is to ignore the chain of command, and that shit ain't cool."

I love how aren't reading my comment. I also didn't know buserror's sarcasm tag immediately transferred to your comment. I genuinely thought your comment was in earnest. The Four Seasons thing did happen, parts of your comment are factually wrong. The fact that you fail to see what I'm commenting on is probably as funny as my original mistake. Sarcasm tag or not I was still commenting on the lack of facts in your post. So agree to disagree??

"Whoosh!"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com