
Head of Navy intelligence hasn't been allowed to see military secrets for years - greenyoda
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/01/27/the-admiral-in-charge-of-navy-intelligence-has-not-been-allowed-to-see-military-secrets-for-years/
======
cant_kant
"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/...](http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/11/26/elizabeth-
train-nomination-ted-branch-navy-intelligence-boss-relief-ray-
mabus/19537939/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=)

"... 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."

------
bgilroy26
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](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...](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2010/04/08/they-did-authorize-
torture-but/)

------
ma2rten
_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.

~~~
hudibras
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.

~~~
ma2rten
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._

------
jonnybgood
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.

~~~
vonmoltke
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.

~~~
criddell
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?

~~~
vonmoltke
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?

------
ptha
_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/FUBAR_%28disambiguation%29)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snafu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snafu)

------
StudyAnimal
"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.

~~~
hudibras
>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.

~~~
XzetaU8
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_%28inform...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_%28information_security%29)

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

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

------
jxdjsks
I think you must be crazy to think like this.

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

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

------
ioquatix
Sounds more like the Head of Stupidity.

------
buserror
<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?

~~~
jessaustin
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.

~~~
kombucha2
"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."

~~~
jessaustin
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!

~~~
kombucha2
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. ;)

~~~
jessaustin
"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."

~~~
kombucha2
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??

~~~
jessaustin
"Whoosh!"

