AFA Informant Program

MedB said:
For whatever it's worth, what bothers me is not that such investigations occur, or even that CI's are used at the SAs. I mostly agree with the idea that our cadets MUST be held to a higher standard and deserve (yes, deserve) to live with benefits... and consequences of an honor code.

But beyond the shock value and revelations in this story, are some fundamental issues around due process and rights of the accused. As well as profound questions on how the informants are treated. These are afterall teenagers and in some rare cases, minors even!

For example....

Article 31 provides servicemembers with a broad protection against being compelled to incriminate themselves. The text of Article 31 provides as follows:

a. No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to incriminate himself or to answer any questions the answer to which may tend to incriminate him.

b. No person subject to this chapter may interrogate or request any statement from an accused or a person suspected of an offense without first informing him of the nature of the accusation and advising him that he does not have to make any statement regarding the offense of which he is accused or suspected, and that any statement made by him may be used as evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.

c. No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to make a statement or produce evidence before any military tribunal if the statement or evidence is not material to the issue and may tend to degrade him.

d. No statement obtained from any person in violation of this article, or through the use of coercion, unlawful influence, or unlawful inducement, may be received in evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.


Do we really want to say to these young men and women who have taken the oath and are in the military (yes, most folks here agree they are "in" the military), you are not afforded the protections of MCJ or any other measure such as Miranda rights? Instead we can simply use whatever methods we feel are appropriate to feret out wrong doings without any restrictions, oversight or consideration for your rights whatsoever.

THAT is where I draw the line.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting the text. Agree with you 100%.
 
I am from Philly. I do not like snitches. It is unfortunate they were doing something wrong, but a lot of the time they are pressured into finding something that may not be there when turned to informant.
My nephew is facing a year in jail because he sold 1/8 of an ounce of pot to a "friend" that happened to be caught by the PSU police dealing. The reason that he is facing this is because a snitch who he thought was a friend got him busted. The kid lived in the dorms at PSU so my nephew is also looking at dealing drugs in a school zone. All because some rat wanted to get more leniency with his case. I realize what my nephew did was wrong, but it was only 1/8 of an ounce and it was as a favor to a so called "friend". That is 3.6 grams of pot. The lint in my pockets weigh more than that. True to his South Jersey roots, my nephew is not turning informant.
As far as I am concerned all the snitches should be outed. There is an honor code for a reason. Water always seems to find it's level. The bad apples will be outed naturally. They will do things that will show their true character.
 
DevilDog said:
My nephew is facing a year in jail because he sold 1/8 of an ounce of pot to a "friend" that happened to be caught by the PSU police dealing. The reason that he is facing this is because a snitch who he thought was a friend got him busted.
Click to expand...

No, the reason he's facing punishment is he broke a law. It may seem extreme, but he's not distributing drugs if.... he's not selling drugs.

If my friend wanted to "get me busted" for selling pot, he'd have to wait a very long time, because not only would I not sell any, I wouldn't have any to sell.

A year seems a bit extreme, but "intent to sell" and "possession" are approached very differently.

Devildog, please understand, this isn't an attack on you. Yesterday a Facebook friend posted that the economy was to blame for stampedes at stores during Black Friday. No, HUMANS were to blame. Imperfect humans, yes, but we need to take responsiblity for our actions. I'm no different, it's something I constant have to remember, and sometimes forget.
 
Last edited:
These "informants" from what I can tell, have no training. Because of this, acting in an official capacity, they can REALLY mess up a case.

Also, these aren't honor cases, these should be cases for possible criminal wrong-doing.

Contrary to popular belief, cadets and midshipmen do have SOME expectation of privacy. A lock box? A locked dorm door? The head (bathroom).

In our oldlaw classes at CGA, we understood officials (including CGIS) couldn't search a single member's possessions, just for a possibility of wrong-doing. Want to test someone's pee after a long weekend... need to test more than just one. And it generally has to be random.

An invasion of some of that privacy takes documentation. Are informants privy to that info?

The military actually has greater protection for its members. In the civilian world, some rights are triggered by "custody". For the military it's generally "assumed." Besides Miranda, service members also have Tempia warnings.

This program seems misguided, not only because of the culture and environment it creates (which may lead to LESS things being discovered) but also because it could blow up cases....
 
Haven't seen any mention as of yet in regard to the cadet's thoughts on this, so I thought I would let everyone know that they are NOT HAPPY. IF you haven't spoken with your son or daughter, you should. This is really hitting home to the student body.
 
MB 13 said:
Haven't seen any mention as of yet in regard to the cadet's thoughts on this, so I thought I would let everyone know that they are NOT HAPPY. IF you haven't spoken with your son or daughter, you should. This is really hitting home to the student body.
Click to expand...

I have heard the same thing.
 
LineInTheSand said:
These "informants" from what I can tell, have no training. Because of this, acting in an official capacity, they can REALLY mess up a case.

Also, these aren't honor cases, these should be cases for possible criminal wrong-doing.

Contrary to popular belief, cadets and midshipmen do have SOME expectation of privacy. A lock box? A locked dorm door? The head (bathroom).

In our oldlaw classes at CGA, we understood officials (including CGIS) couldn't search a single member's possessions, just for a possibility of wrong-doing. Want to test someone's pee after a long weekend... need to test more than just one. And it generally has to be random.

An invasion of some of that privacy takes documentation. Are informants privy to that info?

The military actually has greater protection for its members. In the civilian world, some rights are triggered by "custody". For the military it's generally "assumed." Besides Miranda, service members also have Tempia warnings.

This program seems misguided, not only because of the culture and environment it creates (which may lead to LESS things being discovered) but also because it could blow up cases....
Click to expand...

Wow...never thought it would happen, but I might actually agree with you on this....simply earth shaking....:smile:
 
There are 2 separate issues going on here:

1. The pros/cons of the overall policy.

2. The treatment of Thomas as a result of the policy.

It seems odd that so may people are only looking at issue (1) in regard to the operation. If these facts bear out (and it seems compelling on its face that they will, though I recognize there is always another side to the story) I'm appalled that Thomas was kicked out. Obviously, the fact that they waived reimbursement signals that someone recognized there were issues. If that was the case, then why does he not have a degree? Why is he not an officer? Why was his back not protected?

As to the policy, it is contradictory to virtually every stated value of the Academy. If the story is true I find it troubling that cadets are being asked/coerced to compromise values like this. I also find it disastrous to morale that cadets could be lied to to get them to admit to drug use. Of course, everyone on this forum would agree that drugs should have no part in cadet life, but to compromise the values of the Air Force, the Academy and the cadets at the Academy in pursuit of those using drugs?

In a world where most cadets lean heavily on each other to make it through, the cons of this policy far outweigh the benefits.
 
I spoke with two cadets yesterday about the story. They were pretty perplexed about the whole situation.
One of them mentioned that cadets need to understand that they are always allowed to ask for an attorney and not talk to anyone without their attorney present. He said that even if he didn't do anything wrong (this is a cadet who hasn't received a single demerit in his 3 plus years at the academy) , that is what he would do because things can turn seriously so quickly.
What would happen to the informant program if cadets just lawyer up anytime they are called in?
 
5th Amendment Right and right to an Attorney

I totally agree with both of you tutmom and jojo. As an attorney, i am totally pissed with how OSI handled the situation with the cadets. If these were criminals, then i would understand. But these are cadets. They are quite young and inexperienced. Therefore, from this point on, i am advising ALL CADETS AND MIDSHIPMEN, if you were hauled by these people from OSI into their offices just because you went to the wrong party, you will be invoking your 5th Amendment Right to Remain Silent for every question they would ask. You simply answer "I'm taking the 5th". You also have the Right to an Attorney. You will say that you will not answer any question without the presence of your attorney. If the OSI people take you into custody without being arrested for an unreasonably long time (4 to 5 hours), tell them that they are opening themselves up to possible charges of False Imprisonment. I have already advised my DS (USAFA Class '15) and his friends just in case they have to go through this BS experience. Also as minorities, you guys need to be extra careful. I can already see lawyers investigating possible racial profiling against OSI.
 
Last edited:
socaldaddy said:
I totally agree with both of you tutmom and jojo. As an attorney, i am totally pissed with how OSI handled the situation with the cadets. If these were criminals, then i would understand. But these are cadets. They are quite young and inexperienced. Therefore, from this point on, i am advising ALL CADETS AND MIDSHIPMEN, if you were hauled by these people from OSI into their offices just because you went to the wrong party, you will be invoking your 5th Amendment Right to Remain Silent for every question they would ask. You simply answer "I'm taking the 5th". You also have the Right to an Attorney. You will say that you will not answer any question without the presence of your attorney. I have already advised my DS (USAFA Class '15) and his friends just in case they have to go through this BS experience. Also as minorities, you guys need to be extra careful.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your expert insight. I have been sad all day because this is not an environment I imagined for my DD or any of the cadets.

Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
I conducted initial investigations before, all administrative, and the guidance we always received was, if you believe something criminal happened, or something criminal comes to light, it's time to let the pros handle it. That said, members being question were advised of their rights.

I don't think cadets and midshipmen immediately need to "lawyer up" if their asked questions of an administrative nature (although I can think of many lawyers who wish they would :wink:) but it's pretty clear, with OSI involved, cases were not likely "administrative" in nature.

Am I worried about the cadet who was kicked out? No, I'm sure he did something that was wrong. But I do not believe this is a good "use" of cadets. Makes you start to wonder if there's something in the water out there in Colorado Springs.
 
LineInTheSand said:
Am I worried about the cadet who was kicked out? No, I'm sure he did something that was wrong. But I do not believe this is a good "use" of cadets. Makes you start to wonder if there's something in the water out there in Colorado Springs.
Click to expand...

This statement always makes me nervous, and the flippancy of it with the future of a cadet's career and future at stake makes me even more nervous.

From the facts we now have in front of us, what Thomas did wrong was at the request of OSI. And this appears to be the reason reimbursement was waived for him. Why waive reimbursement if he was at fault?
 
jojo said:
This statement always makes me nervous, and the flippancy of it with the future of a cadet's career and future at stake makes me even more nervous.

From the facts we now have in front of us, what Thomas did wrong was at the request of OSI. And this appears to be the reason reimbursement was waived for him. Why waive reimbursement if he was at fault?
Click to expand...

From what was presented, Thomas had already done something wrong and was being used as an informant after the fact (unless I read that wrong, which is entirely possible).
 
LineInTheSand said:
From what was presented, Thomas had already done something wrong and was being used as an informant after the fact (unless I read that wrong, which is entirely possible).
Click to expand...

Below is what landed him in the cross-hairs of OSI. He hesitated to turn-in fellow cadets for conduct at a party that OSI apparently had an informant at already. There was no indication in the story that he personally smoked pot, spice or drank at the party.

"Thomas said he wasn’t nervous. He was a straight-laced athlete from a strict home who had never done drugs and drank very little. The agent told him he was there only as a witness. He wanted to know who did what at the party. At first, Thomas gave vague answers, but Munson pressed harder, Thomas said, grilling the cadet for more than three hours: OSI had witnesses. They had proof Thomas knew more than he was saying. It was the cadet’s duty to tell the truth. Under the honor code, not turning in spice smokers was the same as smoking spice."
 
"Under the honor code, not turning in spice smokers was the same as smoking spice."

When I first read the article and saw this, my first thought was that USAFA's honor system can't really be that much different than USMA's. Can it?

"If you don't tell us who was breaking regs, it's an honor violation" is a classic example of what we used to call "using your honor against you," and that was a no-no during my time as a cadet.
 
And this is coming from Thomas, right? My experience.... folks who are kicked out for major conduct offenses, or honor offense, rarely give an accurate account of what they did wrong.

So I'm not saying this isn't what happened, but I am saying I have little reason to take Thomas's word alone. That said, it's crazy that OSI is even approaching the "honor" offense area. What a waste.
 
I should have added:

If USAFA's honor system is like USMA's, and if that's what the OSI agent said to him, then Thomas' response should have included exactly two steps.

1. Tell the agent that that's not how the honor system works.
2. Get up and walk out.
 
DHinNH +1 on both posts.

I can understand Crockett and Tubbs dealing with a street hustler in order to get to the drug kingpin.

I can understand the CIA blackmailing a philandering Soviet diplomat.

I can understand paying off a Pashtun warlord for two weeks of loyalty.

I spent a year in Poland after college in 1978-79. We were warned that drugs or drunk driving were an automatic ticket home. One American kid was busted for drunk driving, but was not sent home. Whether or not he was used by the UB (Polish KGB) didn't matter, we assumed he became an informant.

Is it any wonder that in prisons, snitches and child molesters, are at the bottom of the food chain? Jonathan Pollard (hopefully) will spend the rest of his life in prison for spying for a US ally. Trust, or lack thereof, is the one of the most basic motivators of human action.

I don't claim any special experience, but I have a nose. This whole thing stinks and the stink gets on everything it touches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top