CriminologyJustice: David Petraeus

Showing posts with label David Petraeus. Show all posts

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Today’s Investigative Special Report – November 19, 2012 “Dealing With Today’s Law Enforcement Specialized Investigations” Should Law Enforcement Officers Be Able To Shade The Truth Under Any Circumstances

Posted on 7:18 PM by Unknown

English: Official photo of David Petraeus, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Lawrence W. Daly, MSc

Forensic Expert – Senior Author

With the recent resignation of CIA Director David Petraeusand his extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, many questions have been raised about Petraeus’s integrity and his ability to tell the truth. Many issues have yet to be addressed and currently the Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating a multitude of allegations in this convoluted situation involving Petraeus, Broadwell, and many others, including politicians who may have played a part in the cover-up of this situation and the killing of four dead Americans in Benghazi, Libya.

The basic law enforcement officer who works in the operational division to those who are responsible in managing a law enforcement agency would be suspended or terminated under the same conditions which Petraeus finds himself in. The higher the rank an officer is on the hierarchical ladder the less likely he would be terminated because their positions are appointed, like Petraeus who is appointed by the President of the United States. However, Petraeus was in charge of the organization which has agents worldwide and these agents deal with some of the most sensitive investigations, not to mention some of them are in undercover operations and if their identity was known it could cost them their life. Further, law enforcement at the CIA level deal with documents and information which have to be classified, confidential, and protected at all costs.

In reviewing the Petraeus situation law enforcement officers may have the attitude that having an extramarital affair is not something which is that serious and what they do off-duty in their personal lives should not be the concern of the law enforcement officials they work for. However, being a law enforcement officer has some laws which they must abide by at all times. In the State of Washington law enforcement officers are considered to be on-duty 24/7. Therefore, their behavior and conduct under the law will come under the scrutiny of the agency where they are employed if they make bad choices.

Most professions do not have this on-duty all the time because their responsibilities generally do not include protecting citizens in their community from individuals who either want to harm another citizen or commit a crime in their presence which requires immediate law enforcement action. The pros and cons, should an officer who is off-duty become involved in a matter which occurs in front of them, is a constant issue between law enforcement management and officers.

There are many scenarios where you could ask the question “what if” a law enforcement officer would have been present. The recent shooting at the Century Movie Theater, by James Eagan Holmes in Aurora, Colorado and the Ft. Hood shooting, by U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, outside Killeen, Texas may have made a difference if a law enforcement officer who was off-duty would have been present, carrying his service weapon and was able to take out the two shooters.

English: Major Nidal Malik Hasan, Fort Hood shooter (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The difference between having an extramarital affair and being involved in a possible shooting situation speaks for itself. However, they do have one thing in common which is in both scenarios they are law enforcement officers. Further, they work under a set of rules and regulations, protocols, procedures, and law which doesn’t change who they are under the two above situations.

In the Bible a sin is a sin, and for the most part there isn’t much difference between other sins? The same should hold true when it comes to telling the truth and the officers integrity has to be abided by at all times, under any and all circumstances. There cannot be any shading of the truth and the actions of the officer, or his integrity called into question. His actions are attached to the other officers he works with and the law enforcement agency and community as a whole.

The question about should a law enforcement officer be able to shade the truth should be answered with a resounding “NO.” Under no circumstances should an officer shade the truth to accomplish or justify an arrest or any situation where his conduct is called into question. The television show of the early 70s, “Baretta” which was about an undercover law enforcement officer who was played by Robert Blake. Every episode began with the song, which contained the motto, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" sung by Sammy Davis, Jr. is apropos.

Seriously, shading the truth brings about the visualization where a law enforcement officer pulls over a young lady late at night who has been drinking and they agree that she will agree to have sex with him instead of arresting her. These types of situations happen too frequently and when the officer is confronted by his supervisor once the complaint is lodged that the young women he forced to have sex with is now complaining that the situation was not consensual. The issue is not whether it was consensual or not, but that he forced another person to have sex with him, a person with authority over her, and his actions were criminal in nature; misconduct of an officer and possibly rape. Still some officers in this situation don’t see that their conduct was not inappropriate or criminal. They intentionally shade the truth to avoid termination and the filing of criminal charges.

There are law enforcement agencies which have moral clauses for their officers to abide by. The problem with extramarital affairs is some law enforcement officers do not believe there is anything wrong with the development and being in a sexual relationship. According to author Anne Bercht, “My Husband’s Affair Became The Best Thing That Happened To Me” states the following:

So you feel suspicious that your spouse may be having an extramarital affair, and now you find yourself wondering 'what are the signs of infidelity?' Statistically more than 50% of marriages end in divorce, and many more than that have to deal with the devastation and after math of marital infidelity. We surveyed a group of people who had been cheated on asking them to share what were the signs of infidelity in their relationships. In this article we share the results of that survey combined with other research. 70% of those surveyed professed a high level of morality in their belief systems, and a high level of marital fulfillment and satisfaction. Affairs are not solely a problem of an unfortunate few with 'bad' marriages. Extramarital affairs happen to good people in good marriages too. Would you be able to recognize the signs of infidelity in your own marriage?

To date Holly Petraeus has stood by her husband. It may be for legitimate support or it may be a façade until his extramarital affair is lost in the media by another scandal. Today’s news is already obsolete and society has a tendency to be involved for the first week and then they move onto other serious news worthy issues which may have affected them or a politician, movie star, and etc.

Commander Jeff Noble, Irvine City Police Department, Irvine, California in an article he authored for The Police Chief, October, 2003, states:

Law enforcement managers should be able to recognize deceitful conduct at either end of the scale and deal with the conduct appropriately. The issues that fall somewhere in the middle of the continuum are obviously much more difficult. The issue is not whether these middle ground deceptions are acceptable; they clearly are not. Any intentional deceptive conduct that is not justified or excusable is inappropriate. The issue for police managers is whether they have management discretion and whether there is any punishment available to them other than termination. The answer is that police chiefs have discretion available to them and that not every act of intentional deception may be worthy of termination. But management must be warned that with their discretion comes a duty to punish the inappropriate behavior and the willingness to deal with the officer's action for years in the future. In life, there are often second chances, and sometimes even more. In law enforcement, there are no second chances when it comes to the integrity of our officers and us. In law enforcement, malicious deceptive conduct is untenable and cannot be tolerated at any level in the organization.

Commander Noble was intellectually and competently ahead of his time in the law enforcement community. He hits a home run in the article he authored about ‘police officer truthfulness.’ His article was written a decade ago and this past week Americans are dealing with the same concerns he raised at the time.

Law enforcement officers have a difficult time in admitting that they may have incorrectly perceived a situation after they had some time to think about what they saw and then how they reacted to it. Being married and having a sexual relationship outside of the marriage may be viewed by some as just one of those things that happen. Others, such as Christians and other religions believe it is spiritually a sin, and not acceptable in God’s eyes. Whatever position an individual decides to choose, the exception to the rule of how you view the sexual activity will be predicated on the profession which may dictate how you behave in and outside your job.

As previously discussed above, in the law enforcement profession the conduct of the officer is a 24 hour role and responsibility. Law enforcement officers lose their freedom to choose what their behavior will or won’t be as the law enforcement community dictates the code of honor, truthfulness, integrity, image, decisions, and etc. A young individual who becomes an officer knows what they will be allowed to do and not to do as an officer. It should be no surprise to them that their word has to always ring true and any shading of that truth is inappropriate, unacceptable, and potentially criminal.

In the Petraeus matter he made the choice to behave in such a manner that it caused him to resign from his position as the top spy in the world, the Director of the CIA. It is the desire of those who are citizens of the United States that those who are in the highest law enforcement positions must and will behave above the bar at all times in public and most importantly in private. Pastor Bill Hybels wrote a book called, “Who You Are When No One’s Looking: Choosing Consistency, Resisting Compromise” and in this book he discusses character, courage, discipline, vision, endurance, and etc.

There is no character or discipline present when violating the oath of their position as a law enforcement officer. Further, there should be no judging of those individuals who cross the line and boundaries until all the facts are in. It is difficult to stand on the side lines and try to find excuses for the Petraeus and Broadwell’s who break the covenants of marriage. However, when people know something is wrong, it is important they stand up for their beliefs and opinions and should be able to call it as they see it. When law enforcement officials and officers cheat the system by lying and being deceitful it not only hurts them, but the position of authority that every officer worked hard to become. Disgracing the law enforcement profession is wrong when someone puts their self-interest in front of the community they are responsible to protect and serve. People like Petraeus need to be held accountable as their actions have a ripple affect which may bring harm to his subordinates and possibly to the safety of the United States. It is irrelevant that he was a great soldier because his actions obviously speak louder than his common sense he used in this situation.

The Petraeus situation is good for the United States of America as it may be an indication of how far Americans have lost their way and made the same mistakes or are in the process of making the same mistakes. In the final analysis and the evaluation of Petraeus and Broadwell people should find themselves evaluating and examining if they could possibly become entangled into such a convoluted mess. If there is any question then take the time to step back and reevaluate what you are doing and potentially how many people will be hurt by your actions.

No one is above the law no matter what profession they choose to dedicate their life to. When accepting responsibility to protect and serve those who work under them at all times and situations they must consider what is best for everyone involved. It is all about using common sense and making reasonable, logical, and intelligent decisions.

Lawrence W. Daly

www.onedaly.com

206-650-0229

onedaly@onedaly.com

Kent, WA

Posted in Criminology Amp Justice, David Petraeus, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Law enforcement agency, Law enforcement officer, Lawrence W. Daly, Nidal Malik Hasan, United States, Washington | No comments

Friday, November 16, 2012

Today’s Investigative Special Report – November 17, 2012 “Dealing With Today’s Law Enforcement Specialized Investigations” “How High Does The Corruption In Law Enforcement Go”

Posted on 9:40 PM by Unknown

English: Official photo of David Petraeus, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Lawrence W. Daly, MSc

Forensic Expert – Senior Author

It is easy to identify the law enforcement officer has a better home than his cohorts or a cabin on a lake that most millionaires couldn’t afford. These types of officers generally don’t use common sense that just may be the life style they are living is outside their financial status.

So how far does the corruption of law enforcement exists as you move up the chain of command? How many officers say no to a bribe where others under the right circumstances may say yes or do say yes? This statistic is one which would be difficult to determine because bribery of a public official is something most officers would not admit to doing or being a part of. The type of corruption isn’t defined only as a law enforcement official taking a bribe. This may be one aspect of the corruption, but what about the definition which includes lying to citizens of the United States by law enforcement directors and commanders who are in the position to protect and serve those citizens.

In the recent disclosure that the Director of the CIA David Petraeus was involved with an extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, has raised the question about just how high does the corruption in law enforcement go? Some professionals would argue that having an affair with another woman other than your wife is not corruption it is just a lack of judgment.

The definition of what is law enforcement corruption then needs to be defined so all of law enforcement officials and officers are abiding by the same rules. It would not be fair that the law enforcement officer who is the head of a law enforcement agency should not have to abide by the same rules promulgated to all of his subordinates. There may be some type of parity to be found in this analogy but at this time it isn’t clear. It is difficult to understand when Director Petraeus steps outside the rules of his agency? This may lead others to wonder does it really matter what rank or responsibility an individual has, in order to have those sexual moments and times with a subordinate.

If the investigation of the Petraeus situation is an indicator that sexual relationships outside of marriage do occur, then the need to determine just how great of a problem is infidelity in the law enforcement agencies. Further, specifically what is the residual effect to the agency they work for or lead? The Petraeus situation is a great place to begin as the events surrounding his demise may have more coconspirators than which have been identified at this time. These coconspirators could include the President of the United States, Barack Obama.

The facts which have been uncovered to date reveal that Attorney General Eric Holder and National Intelligence Director James R. Clapper knew about the alleged extramarital affair involving Petraeus and Broadwell some six months ago. There is so much conjecture about how the affair began, why it happened, and most importantly how much intelligence was exchanged between the two.

If Holder and Clapper knew the affair was occurring and failed to take aggressive and proactive actions to stop the affair and there was the exchanging of classified and confidential top secrets of the United States of America, is it possible the cover-up for the four to six months they had knowledge about was happening could be considered a dereliction of duty on the part of Holder and Clapper. Both these men meet weekly with the President, and it is not reasonable or logical to assume that he didn’t know or didn’t want to know.

The information gathered to date indicates that one, not ten, but one Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Agent was responsible for the initial investigation due to a complaint made by a family friend of Petraeus, a Jill Kelley. Reports indicate that the assigned FBI agent became too personally involved in the investigation and had to be pulled.

This is very interesting as the web which has been weaved appears to have created other hierarchical issues possibly many law enforcement organizations. There is a hierarchical process in most law enforcement agencies. In the FBI there is definitely a process in how a complaint is handled. In the Petraeus situation there was a complaint allegedly filed by a Ms. Kelley. Who she made the complaint to is unknown at this time, but whoever was in charge of receiving the complaint it eventually was assigned to Agent Frederick W. Humphries who is known by his peers as “relentless in his pursuit of what he sees as wrongdoing, which appears to describe his role in the FBI investigation involving the Petraeus matter.

Apparently, Humphries became frustrated with the manner of which the FBI was handling the complaint against Petraeus so he turned to Representative David Reichert for assistance, which then turned him to contact House majority leader, Eric Cantor, who passed him onto FBI Director Robert Mueller.

According to the New York Times, “By all accounts, Mr. Humphries doggedly pursued Ms. Kelley’s cyber stalking complaint. Though he was not assigned to the case, he was admonished by supervisors who thought he was trying to improperly insert himself into the investigation.” There is some dispute and confusion about specifically what role Humphries did play in the initial and follow-up investigations. Some have now labeled him as a whistle blower. His status with the FBI is unknown, but it appears he may have become personally involved in fact at one point of the investigation he sent out a picture of him without a shirt on next to two dummies which looked like him. The pose was not sexual nor was it recently taken. Allegedly, he sent the photo to multiple people he personally knew as well as Ms. Kelley.

So was Humphries the main reason the Petraeus conduct with Broadwell came to light in the public arena, when it appears the hierarchical men and women inside the FBI, National Intelligence, CIA, and the Attorney General’s office were apparently trying to hide the conduct of Petraeus. Moreover, the allegations made by Ms. Kelley against Petraeus and Broadwell couldn’t have come at a worse time for President Obama. President Obama was in the middle of the fight for his presidential office and the polls indicated that the presidential race was a close as it could be.

If the conduct of Petraeus would have surfaced the public may have had enough of the apparent incompetence of the President and those in his Cabinet. Remember, the President’s Cabinet and agencies over the past four years have had a multitude of problems, from excess spending to partying on tax payers dollars to sexual harassment allegations to other indications of divisiveness and incompetence amongst his staff.

It isn’t easy being the top Commander in Chief, but the responsibility for what happens throughout the law enforcement agencies rest on the shoulders of the President of the United States. Each law enforcement officer plays their role and makes decisions based upon their position, role, and responsibilities.

Yesterday, November 14^th, after an eight month absence, there was a presidential press conference where President Obama made statements about the economy and then took questions from multiple reporters. During the question and answer phase many reporters wanted answers about the role of the FBI and who knew what and when about the Benghazi and Petraeus situations. The President referred the reporters to the FBI for answers or would not answer questions stating there is an active investigation occurring and it would be inappropriate for him to answer. His responses only raised more suspicion that he was not telling the truth and any information he would have supplied may have indicated there was indeed a cover-up.

This seems to be the mantra of the Whitehouse as earlier in the day and week agents i.e. Whitehouse Press Secretary Jay Carney, referred reporters to contact the FBI to answer specific questions they had about the investigative process and results. Therefore, over the next couple of days, weeks, months, or maybe years Americans will be held at bay from receiving the truth because most of those in the law enforcement hierarchy will follow the mantra of their leader, President Obama.

The integrity of these federal law enforcement agencies from the bottom to the top will be diminished if the President doesn’t step-up and take responsibility for what happened in Benghazi, and with the situation surrounding the Petraeus matter.

What will happen to Agent Humphries? Will he too become the escape goat for those who are above him in rank, roles, and responsibilities? Will he be discarded for attempting to do his job? Humphries appears to be an excellent, competent, and intelligent officer which is dedicated to his profession. There appears to be some inappropriate actions that Humphries committed, but are these actions as inappropriate as those he works for i.e. FBI Director Robert Swan Mueller III, National Intelligence Director, James R. Clapper, Eric Himpton Holder the Attorney General of the United States, and Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton the Secretary of State, and last but not least President Barack Hussein Obama.

Isn’t it time to answer the questions, stop the nonsense, and reestablish the integrity of the federal law enforcement agencies of the United States? The first step has to come from President Obama. There are four Americans dead and possibly national classified and confidential documents were distributed amongst a group of men and women who appears to have believed they were above

Lawrence W. Daly

www.onedaly.com

206-650-0229

onedaly@onedaly.com

Kent, WA

Posted in Criminology Amp Justice, Dave Reichert, David Petraeus, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Humphries, Petraeus, Robert Mueller, United States | No comments

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Today’s Investigative Special Report – November 13, 2012 “Dealing With Today’s Law Enforcement Specialized Investigations” “Where Does Law Enforcement Fit In?” Former CIA Director Petraeus and President Barack Obama in the Thick of the Benghazi Investigation

Posted on 9:00 PM by Unknown

By Lawrence W. Daly, MSc

Forensic Expert – Senior Author

What role did law enforcement play in the Benghazi, Libyaand Director David Petraeus’s matter? It appears the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has been involved in both situations. To date the role and results of the FBI in the Benghazi investigation is unknown. Though in the Petraeus’s matter it appears they have been and continue to investigate several individuals.

Two FBI employees share a laugh with President Barack Obama during his visit to FBI headquarters. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Today the Whitehouse continued to dodge what specifically the FBI performed in their lengthy investigation of the Petraeus situation. When asked by a reporter today what has been transpiring with the Petraeus situation Jay Carney, the Whitehouse Press Secretary, referred him to the FBI. Instead of answering the question the Whitehouse continues to allow the cyclical lack of information.

The recent discovery that CIA Director David Petraeus resigned on Friday, November 9, 2012, from his position ‘citing personal reasons for the resignation.’ The personal issues surround the FBI’s discovery that Petraeus was having an affair with his biographer, Pamela Broadwell. Allegedly, Broadwell had sent some threatening and intimidating emails to an employee inside the CIA, Jill Kelley, a family friend of the Petraeus’s. This past week Broadwell’s residence was raided by the FBI. Previously Broadwell was interviewed by s
omeone in the FBI. The results of the interview with Broadwell are unknown.

General David Petraeus (Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service)

The resignation comes at a time where Petraeus was to testify on Thursday, November 15^th in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Since Petraeus submitted his resignation the social media has focused on him not wanting to provide testimony to the Committee about his and everyone’s action in reference to the murder of four Americans at the Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11^th.

There are many hypotheses which should be considered reference why Petraeus submitted his resignation on Friday and why he now is refusing to testify in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. They are as follows:

1. Taking one for the team. It is always possible that Petraeus has agreed to take the responsibility for what happened in Benghazi. This is highly unlikely, but must be considered. The need for President Barack Obama to be as far distant from these murders is important. There are several reasons for this as the manner in which Americans have received information from the Whitehouse has been confusing, misleading, not forth-coming, and so forth. The President has been associated with or promoted much of the misinformation according to many reliable sources and social media outlets.

2. Petraeus’s resignation may have nothing to do with the timeliness of him having to testify. The issue and analysis of the timeliness of the resignation has many people asking the question about the coincidence of why now since the FBI allegedly knew about the extramarital affair six months ago? No matter what the Whitehouse has to offer in way of an explanation it is difficult for people to believe they had nothing to do with one another.

3. If Petraeus testifies the information he may provide may put the President in vulnerable and precarious situations. The need for Petraeus to testify is relevant and material because he knows who knew what. In the debate with Representative Paul Ryan and Vice-President Joe Biden, Biden stated that he and the President did not have any knowledge, he said, “…we weren’t told they wanted more security” at the diplomatic facility in Benghazi.

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

4. It appears the allegation of Petraeus and Broadwell having an extramarital affair is true. However, the sex scandal appears to be driving the politicians from moving from the Benghazi incident to focusing on Petraeus. It seems reasonable and logical that both Petraeus and his extramarital affair with Broadwell are inter-related. How at this time is unknown.

There are numerous times where the President made statements that he knew nothing about what had occurred early on in Benghazi; that what occurred was in response to a videotape and they are investigating the matter. When the President spoke in front of the United Nations he repeatedly blamed the death of the four Americans on the videotape.

Further, the President did not call the act a “terrorist act” until many days after the incident. Although he did state that our country would not stand for terrorist acts. He didn’t directly state that the incident in Benghazi was a terror act. On Sunday, two days before the presidential election, CBS News released a video clip that provides an interesting dialogue. The clip is from President Barack Obama’s Sept. 12 interview with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes. The newly released clip includes this exchange between the reporter and the president.

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. We are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one-way or the other.

In the debate with former Governor Mitt Romney, he told President Obama, “I want to make sure we get this for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror. The President responded by check the record. Social media outlets did check the records and the President was mistaken.

5. During his first Presidential term, President Obama has not used the words “Terror, Terrorism, or Terrorists. The reasons will not be known why he will not use these words until years from now. His Presidential campaign surrounded the theme that his administration had Al-Qaida on their heels, using the death of Osama Bin Laden as an indication for his opinion. The explanations are yet to have been revealed at this time why the President is leading the country in this manner.

6. If the resignation of Petraeus would have been disclosed to the public prior to the Presidential election the information may have been harmful to Presidential Obama’s re-election bid. Former Governor Mitt Romney may have been able to use this information along with the other leadership problems in Obama’s administration during his first Presidential term. There appears to be a multitude of problems from the GSA to Homeland Security to Attorney General’s Office to the partying of CIA Agents and etc. There seems to be a pattern which has taken place during the President’s first term in office.

7. President Obama’s reputation as an “ineffective leader” is something he does not want to be an aspect of his Presidential Legacy.

8. The reasons for the FBI investigating Petraeus is something which would not be dealt with without the authority of the President. According to the social media outlets, the allegations about Petraeus having the extramarital affair were known by FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, National Intelligence Director James R. Clapper, and Attorney General Eric Holder.

English: U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of Multi-National Force – Iraq, walks with Sen. Barack Obama after Obama’s arrival to Baghdad International Airport in Baghdad, Iraq. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

9. It is illogical and unreasonable to believe that the first time President Obama heard about the allegations against Petraeus was on Election Day. This is not how the President operates nor would those working for the President would have kept this information from him. The President would have immediately been made aware of the situation as soon as one of these three Directors was made aware of the situation.

10. President Obama gives the appearance that he runs a tight ship and for him not to have known weeks or months in advance what was occurring with Petraeus prior to receiving his resignation is simply naïve and ignorant. There is an established chain of command which is in place for just these types of situations.

Once the extramarital affair was uncovered there would have been a time of meetings between the parties involved in the situation. President Obama and his advisors would have held meetings to determine what would be the best course of action.

If the FBI was truly investigating a complaint by a CIA employee, there will be an established timeline supported by written documents, emails, witness interviews, meetings, phone conferences, and any other type of facts and evidence which was uncovered. This is where the President needs to be careful about his rendition of when he became aware of Petraeus’s extramarital affairs, as well as his role in the Benghazi incident. Some social media outlets have alleged that Petraeus had been under investigation for some time, but the reasons for the investigations have yet to be made known to the public. It is possible the investigations by the FBI will never be made public citing confidential and national security reasons.

The investigation of the Benghazi incident and now the resignation of Petraeus continue to be a law enforcement issue. The investigation should be performed by law enforcement experts in the field to analyze all of the information from the beginning of both of these situations to today. The timeline will establish who was involved, who knew what, when they became aware of the information, who made decisions, and so forth.

Apparently the committees will continue to be the ears and voice of the people. Backdoor dealings or the appearance of any backdoor deals should and will cause the public to ask further questions about what happened and who was responsible. Petraeus may not appear for his scheduled testimony, but the committee does have subpoena power and may be able to force him to testify.

The Benghazi incident occurred over nine weeks ago and there has been too much happening in reference to obtaining the necessary information about what happened on September 11^th. Specifically, what has happened since the event, and what roles everyone played prior to, during, and since? The investigation by law enforcement, which ever agency is responsible for both investigations is not complicated and the convoluted manner in which this has been handled to date is incompetent, unreasonable, illogical, and lacking in the basics of a law enforcement investigation. The Committee needs to quit complaining about the resistance they have received from the State Department and the Whitehouse and begin unpeeling the layers of bureaucratic nonsense.

As of today, which law enforcement agency is doing what is unknown? It is a guessing game of who is the leader of the investigation. A strong leader is necessary someone who has the ability to process the information and guarantee Americans are being told the truth and all of the facts. As the information comes to light, there will be a better understanding of what happened in Benghazi and with Petraeus.

Lawrence W. Daly

www.onedaly.com

206-650-0229

onedaly@onedaly.com

Kent, WA

Posted in Barack Obama, Benghazi, Criminology Amp Justice, David Petraeus, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Jay Carney, Joe Biden, Mitt Romney | No comments

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Today’s Investigative Special Report – November 10, 2012 “Dealing With Today’s Law Enforcement Specialized Investigations” “Is The Integrity Of Law Enforcement Hurt By Extramarital Affair By The Top Spy CIA Director David Petraeus?”

Posted on 7:11 AM by Unknown

By Lawrence W. Daly, MSc

Forensic Expert – Senior Author

Yesterday President Barack Obama, citing using poor judgment by having an extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, accepted the resignation of top spy CIA Director David Petraeus. The resignation comes at a time when Director Petraeus was to testify in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee November 15, 2012, who are investigating the bombing of the consulate in Benghazi, Libyaon September 11, 2012. According to Petraeus he does not intend to testify in front of the committee at this time. Allegedly interim CIA Director Mike Morell will be taking his place and will testify in behalf of Petraeus.

English: Gen. David H. Petraeus chats with Sen. Barack Obama after a briefing to a congressional delegation led by Sen. Jack Reed, which also included Sen. Chuck Hagel. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The question is being raised that the timeliness of the resignation questions specifically what Petraeus may be trying to hide and is a ploy by the Whitehouse for him not to testify. The Committee must make the decision to subpoena Petraeus to testify and this is something the Committee will have to decide at a later date. However, Americans need to have closure on the Benghazi incident where four Americans were killed. New reports indicate the FBI was investigating another matter when they came across the extramarital affair.

Each time there is a scandal dealing with politicians and government officials, who are in the law enforcement profession, later cause all law enforcement's integrity to be placed in question. The average citizen generally can’t compare how the Top Spy in America somehow affects the law enforcement who works in Seattle, Washington.

Most Americans view law enforcement officials in a compartmentalized paradigm, where either they are eating donuts and drinking coffee when crime is being committed in their community or are pursuing women single or married. There is a risk to the reputation of law enforcement officers no matter what their position is.

General David Petraeus (Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service)

The average law enforcement officer who has an extramarital affair is not something which the community reads on the front page of the local newspaper or news show. It just doesn’t seem that important. However, it may be something which is serious and can’t be tolerated by the community or law enforcement officials.

If a law enforcement officer has sex on his mind, then his focus is not on the responsibilities of his job; which is to protect and serve. He avoids the reality that his improper actions have consequences and sooner or later his behavior will eventually ‘leak’ out and then there will be an accounting.

The integrity of law enforcement officers is a serious issue in that there is more to the event of an extramarital affair. If those in the law enforcement profession are known as an individual who lack common sense and expends his time on the job chasing women, he will be judged and viewed as lacking integrity. He disrespects the uniform in which he wears and generally once viewed as a disrespectable and indecent human being others look down their nose at him and wonder what he was thinking. This is one of the main questions being asked of Petraeus.

Sooner or later the mud slides far enough downward where it takes everyone who is in the quagmire down the hill where at the bottom stands individuals who will hold the officer accountable for his behavior.

In Petraeus resignation, the media is talking about his wife Holly and that he has been married for 37 years. There is little known about the woman he had the affair with, nor is there any indication that she will step forward until such time that some media outlet or publisher offers her millions of dollars to ‘tell all.’ Moreover, the social media will expend hours trying to draw people out who have knowledge about the affair.

The moral majority will provide advice to others that having an extramarital affair is something which has and will be destructive if you are married. There are no winners when you are sleeping with a man or woman who is married.

The standard of whether a law enforcement officer should be held to a higher standard must be decided by the expectations of the community and law enforcement officials. If there is a ‘moral clause’ in the agreement of employment with the law enforcement agency then there must be a definition for what specifically does the ‘moral clause’ include? If there is no definition then an officer probably will not be held accountable for his extra-curricular activity, unless the improper conduct occurred while on duty.

Law enforcement integrity according to Captain Randy S. Belasic (n.d.) of the Zephyrhills Police Department:

Police integrity is a serious topic that has been the spotlight of law enforcement’s concern for the last fifteen years. Corruption and integrity are germane where corruption is basically dishonesty for personal gain and integrity can best be defined as “the normative inclination among police to resist temptations to abuse the rights and privileges of their occupation” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2005). Integrity can be measured based upon an individual’s moral principles or ethical values.

Did Director Petraeus see the value of the “Integrity which can be measured based upon an individual’s moral principles or ethical values?” In comparing moral principles and ethical values there is this thin line between these principals where the community of law enforcement officers should abide by? Here is a man for 40 years dedicated himself to the United States of America and now with a major indiscretion has lost all that he has represented across his professional and personal life.

The general attitude about who has sex and with who is demonstrated in the number of children being born out of wedlock. Currently two-thirds of children are born to mothers under thirty. Making good decisions about why and who people have sex with has diminished over the past decade. The changing in the attitudes of this new attitude comes from a multitude of reasons.

WASHINGTON - APRIL 28: (L-R) Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Vice President Joseph R. Biden and President Barack Obama listen while the new Secretary of Defense nominee, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Leon Panetta, speaks in the East Room of the White House April 28, 2011 in Washington, DC. President Obama announced he is nominating Director of the CIA Leon Panetta as Secretary of Defense, commander for International Security Assistance Force and US forces in Afghanistan Gen. David Petraeus as Director of the CIA, Ryan Crocker as US ambassador to Afghanistan and Gen. John Allen as commander for International Security Assistance Force and US forces in Afghanistan. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

The percentage of married couples who cheat according to author Lindsay Shugerman is “…approximately 50 percent married women and 60 percent of married men will have an extramarital affair at some time in their marriage.” (Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, n.d.)

When taking a broad stroke of the pen when evaluating and examining the Top Spy caught in an extramarital affair, to the integrity of law enforcement officials when it comes to their integrity or to women and men having an extramarital affair may seem like a stretch. The question is, “Is it, really a stretch; isn’t there some correlation between these issues?” Isn’t the attitude of Americans being demonstrated inside the bedroom and who you have sex with is something that appears to be significantly consistent with research and morals.

Law enforcement officers, no matter if it is the Top Spy in America or the law enforcement officer working the streets in Seattle must live by a higher standard than other individuals and professions. Their integrity, reputation, morals, honesty, presentation, attitude, behavior, and other characteristics, which reflect upon them not only as individuals but as an individual who enforces the law must be above reproach.

There can be no indiscretions, there can be no excuses, there can be no missteps, and there must be a law enforcement code of morality which can never be abused, twisted, violated, or put to question. Obviously Director Petraeus no matter how honorable he was for 40 years in the United States Armed Services or married to a woman (Holly) for 37 years, he has indirectly and directly negatively affected the image of law enforcement officials. The ripple effect of his behavior will have consequences for all who wear the law enforcement uniform who serve and protect their community, especially the men and women in the CIA. The ramifications of such conduct always has a lasting affect and with the facts which came out today it appears Americans have much to learn about his behavior over the past year.

His conduct can only be viewed as extremely improper, inappropriate, and possibly dangerous as he was the leader of thousands of men and women with a magnitude of responsibilities worldwide. Instead of protecting the four dead Americans who died in Benghazi, Libya on the anniversary of 9/11, possibly being preoccupied with Ms. Broadwell, a married woman, may later be determined that his lack of leadership had something to do with their deaths. This statement is written with the hope that this isn't true, but his refusal to testify now speaks highly of what information is unknown to Americans.

In Petraeus’s personal life, his wife is also the victim here and everyone should pray that she will rise above the hurt and pain and move forward from this tragedy.