AFA Informant Program

[LineInTheSand]

When I was a 4/c cadet at CGA a few classmates of mine started meeting, behind closed doors (I believe). They saw issues with the Corps of Cadets and wanted to figure out how to address them. They called themselves "The Golden Shellbacks."

When news of these secret "Golden Shellback" meetings got out, it caused quite the uproad (at least in my class). Who were these classmates who believed they had the answers or were on a different level from the rest of us? Some believed they were keeping check lists or ratting out classmates. They weren't. It never was that.(NOTE: I wasn't a "Golden Shellback", but my friend formed them, and I know it was painful for him, to see what followed). The idea backfired and the members of this secret "Golden Shellbacks" group broke up, I think somewhat humiliated.

The thing was, they were right. They were taking ownership of the Corps, granted they were only 4/c cadets, but they wanted to make a difference. Where the lost it was the "secretness" of the "exclusive" group. I feel bad it went the way it did, because it was a good group of folks with a honorable goal.

Secrecy keeps people looking over their shoulders. Perception is reality (we always say) and that's very true in this situation.

OSI was wrong to use cadets to act as the eyes and ears of an organization that investigates criminal conduct. It's hard to settle down and tackle all the challenges of a rigorous college experience at an academy if you feel you can't trust the people around you. This AFA incident has damaged some of that trust, no doubt. I feel bad for the innocent Zoomie collateral damage.

 

[DevilDog]

There are two sides to every story. Let's see what comes out in the coming days and weeks.

 

[Tigger]

OSI was wrong to use cadets to act as the eyes and ears of an organization that investigates criminal conduct. It's hard to settle down and tackle all the challenges of a rigorous college experience at an academy if you feel you can't trust the people around you. This AFA incident has damaged some of that trust, no doubt. I feel bad for the innocent Zoomie collateral damage.

Exactly.

 

[LineInTheSand]

There are two sides to every story. Let's see what comes out in the coming days and weeks.

I absolutely, 100% agree.

So, I think we've provided the "why this is a bad idea from an organization standpoint."

But like DevilDog says, there are two sides to every story. And that's where it gets messy. The ex-cadet at the center of this was separated administratively. He had no trial by jury. Because this was an administrative action, the Air Force Academy, and the Air Force in general, has its hands at least partially tied. Because administrative actions are not generally public, less can be disclosed about the individual. That said, Thomas can say whatever he wants.

There's an Air Force lawyer and a PAO somewhere engaged in some serious self control. Of course Thomas would waive from of this privacy protection, and let the Air Force speak about him specifically, buy why would he?

I'm waiting for an Air Force response, to the effect of "we would love to talk about Thomas if he allows us to."

But I suspect there are also other issues here... like his "work" being used for other cases, also limits what can be said, and could affect those other cases.

But let's speculate for the fun of it... for a second.

Thomas is an "informant." OSI says "let us know if anything is going on." This is especially great it Thomas is also a dirt bag. Maybe he was actually a dirtbag and a slacker and THAT made him a great informant, as opposed to be a stelar individual who acted like a dirtbag to be an informant.

Now, let's speculate that Thomas, seeing a chance to have some fun, engaged in activities that were either against academy policy, or were illegal, but responded with "I'm just an informant trying to get info." Now, let's see how that plays out. Thomas engages in misconduct in the barracks. He drinks and smokes and does drugs all to "get intel" on all the other bad cadets. But what if he's the ring-leader? What if the dirtbag is just using his informant status to have fun?

Let's take it one step further, what if Thomas engaged in entrapment, believing he was acting in an official capacity. "Come on man, just smoke a little. AH HA! GOT YA!"

When I was a cadet at CGA, there was a naughty cadet stealing drugs from desks. A cadet a year ahead of me set up his computer to have a motion-activated camera take pictures of his desk, and a box with his drugs (he had his wisdom teeth removed I guess).

Hey, kudos to the cadet, but he was also lectured on the expectations of privacy in the barracks and entrapment. He had the right idea, but there are other concerns not immediately apparent.

So maybe we won't have "both sides," because, for whatever reason, one side can't talk, and the other can inflate or lie as much as he'd like.

Again, these hypotheticals are why it is DUMB to have cadet/midshipmen informants.

 

[HeWantsTheBFE]

Sadly - this doesn't really seem to be written like it is sour grapes. But-is it possible that even the Superintendant doesn't know that he has cadets being used as informants by OSI??

Not everything is as it seems.

Seems pretty shameful to me, at first glance.
I'm betting there is more to the story, but I'm worried it's not substantial enough to alter the current image by much!

Much more. I wonder why they didn't talk about his actual track record at the Academy? They seemed to glance over the fact that he, ya know, was involved with the people OSI was investigating in the first place.

Usually it deals with drugs, as finding the dealer is difficult. Additionally, all informants in the OSI are required to sign documentation stating that their seeking of information should not violate the law in any sort, which is contrary to civilan police informants which may break the law to assist in convictions.

That leniency does not mean their initial crime goes unpunished. For these cadets, it is separation without an Article 15 or official case. Additionally the Cadet (Thomas) I believe was relieved of his 180,000 fine for being separated in his senior year.

If you read the article again knowing all of that, the perspective changes quite a bit. None of the cadets opposing are saying "I was a perfect student, never did anything wrong or illegal, and they forced me to break a law and I got expelled."

Very observant. There is more to Cadet Thomas than they tell you. After all, why would he be "dirty" in the first place? My bet is he was in a butt-ton of unrelated trouble before the incident.

There are two sides to every story. Let's see what comes out in the coming days and weeks.

I wouldn't be surprised of the Commandant put out a release or had public affairs do it. The Gazette has released 2 other articles criticizing the academy this year alone. Each one was written in the same ilk, and I think in light of them someone just doesn't like the academy. I would take everything here with a very large grain of salt. This is a biased article for many reasons.

 

[aglages]

There is more to Cadet Thomas than they tell you.

This sounds like a statement of fact. Considering you are in the class of 2017, how well did you personally know Cadet Kelly?

My bet is he was in a butt-ton of unrelated trouble before the incident.

Your bet? Are you speculating?

 

[aseanag]

Not everything is as it seems.



Much more. I wonder why they didn't talk about his actual track record at the Academy? They seemed to glance over the fact that he, ya know, was involved with the people OSI was investigating in the first place.



Very observant. There is more to Cadet Thomas than they tell you. After all, why would he be "dirty" in the first place? My bet is he was in a butt-ton of unrelated trouble before the incident.




I wouldn't be surprised of the Commandant put out a release or had public affairs do it. The Gazette has released 2 other articles criticizing the academy this year alone. Each one was written in the same ilk, and I think in light of them someone just doesn't like the academy. I would take everything here with a very large grain of salt. This is a biased article for many reasons.

It is possible that he was a terrible cadet and in lots of trouble (partly due to the undercover work.) But USAFA should have gotten rid of him immediately and not strung him along. That is were I have trouble with the use of cadets (minors) as spies and then dumping them after they served there purpose. Most people don't like snitches and I see this includes the AF. I find it interesting that he was dismissed in his Senior year for honor offenses and no payback!!!!!!!!! I wonder why?

 

[LineInTheSand]

Not everything is as it seems.



Much more. I wonder why they didn't talk about his actual track record at the Academy? They seemed to glance over the fact that he, ya know, was involved with the people OSI was investigating in the first place.



Very observant. There is more to Cadet Thomas than they tell you. After all, why would he be "dirty" in the first place? My bet is he was in a butt-ton of unrelated trouble before the incident.




I wouldn't be surprised of the Commandant put out a release or had public affairs do it. The Gazette has released 2 other articles criticizing the academy this year alone. Each one was written in the same ilk, and I think in light of them someone just doesn't like the academy. I would take everything here with a very large grain of salt. This is a biased article for many reasons.

There's only so much the Air Force Academy can release about an administrative action (there's that dang Privacy Acy again... protecting individuals). There are certainly ways to hint at the fact that other "things" are happening. Of course, there's the always risky, sometimes rewarding "leak".

But in many ways, I think the AFA and leadership have their hands tied. It's unfortunate the Gazette didn't do more digging or state that other things are in play... but it's such a juicy story, I'd bet they just ran it.

 

[falconfamily]

Not everything is as it seems.

Much more. I wonder why they didn't talk about his actual track record at the Academy? They seemed to glance over the fact that he, ya know, was involved with the people OSI was investigating in the first place.

Very observant. There is more to Cadet Thomas than they tell you. After all, why would he be "dirty" in the first place? My bet is he was in a butt-ton of unrelated trouble before the incident.

I wouldn't be surprised of the Commandant put out a release or had public affairs do it. The Gazette has released 2 other articles criticizing the academy this year alone. Each one was written in the same ilk, and I think in light of them someone just doesn't like the academy. I would take everything here with a very large grain of salt. This is a biased article for many reasons.

First of all congratulations for being at the Air Force Academy. That said, I am curious about some of your statements, you seem to be inferring that you have more detailed information. Given that you are a Doolie and likely never interacted with Mr. Thomas or members of his class which graduated before you reported to I-Day, how is this possible? Remember, rumor and second hand conversations are not reliable facts and are not considered admissible in court for very obvious reasons.

I can understand that you might feel compelled to defend the honor of the institution, but I think that such a program, if it operated in the manner that has been described by the Gazette, is counter to every value that the academy tries to teach. Lying to commanders, breaking rules, breaking laws, destroying documents that could be subpoenaed by investigators is not the values that the academy espouses.

Even if we only know part of the story, even if there is more information that could be had about former Cadet Thomas. This in no way justifies a program that on first pass appears to do more harm than good. Police solve rape cases all of the time, they do so without informants. Drug cases are prosecuted all the time, but police would choose to put trained undercover agents in place to gather intel, not untrained teenagers, whose actions could compromise a case or put themselves in physical danger.

As for your comments about the Gazette, I do not know where you got the impression that they are a scandal rag, they are not at all hostile to the academy (Do not mistake them for a writer from the Colorado Springs Independent). This article would never have been written without people vetting it and it appears that there is actually enough of a paper trail that the writers were able to confirm the existence of this program, that Thomas was part of it, and that it was not an investigation tool associated with a specific case, but rather it was a adhoc intelligence network at the Academy using untrained cadets who were directed by OSI handlers. If only part of this is true, it is indefensible and who ever approved of it, is guilty of a massive failure in judgement and leadership.

 

[BlahuKahuna]

Unless they know Cadet Thomas or the issue personally, cadets here frankly don't know anything about the issue other than the Commandant's talking points and what we've read.

The only thing I have to say about the issue is that I think that Cadet Thomas's cadet record or how many demerits he had is perhaps one of the least relevant pieces of information out there.

I'm interested to see the official response from USAFA's public affairs team. They've had an interesting couple of months.

 

[falconfamily]

Unless they know Cadet Thomas or the issue personally, cadets here frankly don't know anything about the issue other than the Commandant's talking points and what we've read.

The only thing I have to say about the issue is that I think that Cadet Thomas's cadet record or how many demerits he had is perhaps one of the least relevant pieces of information out there.

I'm interested to see the official response from USAFA's public affairs team. They've had an interesting couple of months.

Wise words BK.

 

[HeWantsTheBFE]

Your bet? Are you speculating?

Somewhat. OSI wouldn't ask him to be an informant unless he was involved in some way already.

 

[HeWantsTheBFE]

Somewhat. OSI wouldn't ask him to be an informant unless he was involved in some way already.

First of all congratulations for being at the Air Force Academy. That said, I am curious about some of your statements, you seem to be inferring that you have more detailed information. Given that you are a Doolie and likely never interacted with Mr. Thomas or members of his class which graduated before you reported to I-Day, how is this possible? Remember, rumor and second hand conversations are not reliable facts and are not considered admissible in court for very obvious reasons.

I can understand that you might feel compelled to defend the honor of the institution, but I think that such a program, if it operated in the manner that has been described by the Gazette, is counter to every value that the academy tries to teach. Lying to commanders, breaking rules, breaking laws, destroying documents that could be subpoenaed by investigators is not the values that the academy espouses.

Even if we only know part of the story, even if there is more information that could be had about former Cadet Thomas. This in no way justifies a program that on first pass appears to do more harm than good. Police solve rape cases all of the time, they do so without informants. Drug cases are prosecuted all the time, but police would choose to put trained undercover agents in place to gather intel, not untrained teenagers, whose actions could compromise a case or put themselves in physical danger.

As for your comments about the Gazette, I do not know where you got the impression that they are a scandal rag, they are not at all hostile to the academy (Do not mistake them for a writer from the Colorado Springs Independent). This article would never have been written without people vetting it and it appears that there is actually enough of a paper trail that the writers were able to confirm the existence of this program, that Thomas was part of it, and that it was not an investigation tool associated with a specific case, but rather it was a adhoc intelligence network at the Academy using untrained cadets who were directed by OSI handlers. If only part of this is true, it is indefensible and who ever approved of it, is guilty of a massive failure in judgement and leadership.

It is a problem, and does scare me. My problem with it is that it's sensitive information, and there is obviously a lack of information present. But, as you note, there is enough of a paper trail to set off alarm bells.

I dont think either side is telling the whole truth here. And that's almost as bad as the issue itself here. I don't believe everything the Gazette said, or everything that they tell us at USAFA. It's concerning to know that I can't necessarily trust every cadet now, but at the same time, i'm not doing anything wrong. I just don't think this bodes well for the Academy. Honor Code, public affairs, etc.

 

[jojo]

It's concerning to know that I can't necessarily trust every cadet now, but at the same time, i'm not doing anything wrong. I just don't think this bodes well for the Academy.

This is the concern and the root problem - The undermining of implicit trust in fellow cadets who are needed to carry each other through extremely trying circumstances. My concern is that there are those in leadership that could not see this and approved or tacitly approved of the program. Obviously, I have no knowledge of how deep that approval/knowledge went so the concern is generalized at this point.

 

[MedB]

I don't mean to be dense, but why is the loss of trust due to CIs the thing that has folks concerned?

There are lots of concerning issues in the article/program including how the CI's are selected/dealt with and the highly disturbing circumvention of rights for the accused (and innocent). But the distrust amongst the cadets isn't the big one, or it shouldn't be... should it?

For example... if you went to war with a Sgt York-type (Hollywood version) who has ultra straight laced and told you "By golly, drinking and drugs are against the rules and I'll darn sure turn you in if you use them", is that really someone you can't trust to watch your back when it matters???

These CI's aren't reporting on how you brush your teeth, or if your feet smell. They are reporting on drug use, sexual abuse, off-campus party houses, etc. In other words... things that are serious violations and that every single cadet has been told clearly, and repeatedly, are way off limits and will get you kicked out.

Now to be fair... If instead these CIs are being used to dig dirt in general ways so investigators can continue to coerce others through marginal associations with wrong doings (ie "We've been told you knew someone who knew someone who did X, tell us what you know or else.....") in a witch-hunt style, then this is a much bigger issue. But again that sounds more like a bad application of using the honor code as a weapon and serious questions about loss of basic legal protections.

 

[falconfamily]

I don't mean to be dense, but why is the loss of trust due to CIs the thing that has folks concerned?

There are lots of concerning issues in the article/program including how the CI's are selected/dealt with and the highly disturbing circumvention of rights for the accused (and innocent). But the distrust amongst the cadets isn't the big one, or it shouldn't be... should it?

For example... if you went to war with a Sgt York-type (Hollywood version) who has ultra straight laced and told you "By golly, drinking and drugs are against the rules and I'll darn sure turn you in if you use them", is that really someone you can't trust to watch your back when it matters???

These CI's aren't reporting on how you brush your teeth, or if your feet smell. They are reporting on drug use, sexual abuse, off-campus party houses, etc. In other words... things that are serious violations and that every single cadet has been told clearly, and repeatedly, are way off limits and will get you kicked out.

Now to be fair... If instead these CIs are being used to dig dirt in general ways so investigators can continue to coerce others through marginal associations with wrong doings (ie "We've been told you knew someone who knew someone who did X, tell us what you know or else.....") in a witch-hunt style, then this is a much bigger issue. But again that sounds more like a bad application of using the honor code as a weapon and serious questions about loss of basic legal protections.

The loss of trust in a military organization is a big deal. Your example of Sgt York, ignores how humans actually react to the idea that someone they must rely on might turn on them. No Band of Brothers would do such a thing unless the actions of the person in question would endanger the unit.

The use of an informant with a specific case that was under investigation is understandable. But informants are often used to map associations and that is where it gets dicey and innocent people can get dragged in. There is no real consent for a cadet to be told to report to OSI even if they are not guilty of something. It is entirely possible to get pulled in just because you are at a party with an informant where something might have happened and your name is provided to the handler as being present or perhaps being able to verify some information that the informant is providing. If the handler thinks you might be useful, he might try to recruit you into his network. Remember that a smart informant system has informants who inform on other informants, sort of a a quality assurance measure. The end result might be that the OSI handler ends up creating an adhoc intelligence network in the cadet wing. If this Stasi like system of informants does not sound like a reasonable outcome to you, then the use of a student informant system ought to be strongly questioned.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I don't mean to be dense, but why is the loss of trust due to CIs the thing that has folks concerned?

There are lots of concerning issues in the article/program including how the CI's are selected/dealt with and the highly disturbing circumvention of rights for the accused (and innocent). But the distrust amongst the cadets isn't the big one, or it shouldn't be... should it?

For example... if you went to war with a Sgt York-type (Hollywood version) who has ultra straight laced and told you "By golly, drinking and drugs are against the rules and I'll darn sure turn you in if you use them", is that really someone you can't trust to watch your back when it matters???

These CI's aren't reporting on how you brush your teeth, or if your feet smell. They are reporting on drug use, sexual abuse, off-campus party houses, etc. In other words... things that are serious violations and that every single cadet has been told clearly, and repeatedly, are way off limits and will get you kicked out.

Now to be fair... If instead these CIs are being used to dig dirt in general ways so investigators can continue to coerce others through marginal associations with wrong doings (ie "We've been told you knew someone who knew someone who did X, tell us what you know or else.....") in a witch-hunt style, then this is a much bigger issue. But again that sounds more like a bad application of using the honor code as a weapon and serious questions about loss of basic legal protections.

I don't disagree with the things that you listed as important, but I do think you're downplaying the importance of trust. "Honor" is central to that trust. I don't think anyone is saying "following the rules is lame," in fact, it sounds like the CIs tended to NOT follow the rules. Instead of your example, I see it more as, do I want to serve with the guy breaking all the rules who, when the going gets tough, will abandon me?

But now we're making too much of that too. This is a college. College already takes some adjusting, and that's for normal college. But academy life has extra pressures. We would tell our swabs that to get through CGA, they would need to rely on their "shipmates." Not sure how effective that is if the caveat is "who may be watching your every move, preparing to pounce when it's most advantageous for him."

I don't se CIs as these selfless public servants. Thomas's statements seem pretty self-serving, and he seems to have removed the human element, so it's almost "fun".

Don't downplay the role of trust at a service academy or in the service though.

 

[USMCGrunt]

I am not an academy grad so I am seeking to understand how the honor code applies in real life.

"We will not lie, steal or cheat nor tolerate among us anyone who does"

Is this the code the cadets agree to uphold? I assume "cheat" is applied broadly to include anything against the law, rules, codes, etc. Is this correct? How does a cadet handle the "tolerate" aspect of this? Are they required to report an abuse to the chain of command or handle on a personal level? If they do not report any transgression is that interpreted as a "tolerance" on their part?

Thanks

 

[bruno]

I am not an academy grad so I am seeking to understand how the honor code applies in real life.

"We will not lie, steal or cheat nor tolerate among us anyone who does"

Is this the code the cadets agree to uphold? I assume "cheat" is applied broadly to include anything against the law, rules, codes, etc. Is this correct? How does a cadet handle the "tolerate" aspect of this? Are they required to report an abuse to the chain of command or handle on a personal level? If they do not report any transgression is that interpreted as a "tolerance" on their part?

Thanks

No- not everything against the law is encompassed by cheating and cadets are not required to turn in any violation of any law or regulation that they see.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I am not an academy grad so I am seeking to understand how the honor code applies in real life.

"We will not lie, steal or cheat nor tolerate among us anyone who does"

Is this the code the cadets agree to uphold? I assume "cheat" is applied broadly to include anything against the law, rules, codes, etc. Is this correct? How does a cadet handle the "tolerate" aspect of this? Are they required to report an abuse to the chain of command or handle on a personal level? If they do not report any transgression is that interpreted as a "tolerance" on their part?

Thanks

CGA has an honor concept, but the differences between the code and concept aren't huge. The main difference is, if someone commits an honor offense (lies) and I know about it, but fail to do anything like reporting, I could be guilty of a conduct offense (for condoning an honor offense if I was there, or "failure to report" a violation if I failed to act). A good cadet will talk to the person and give them a chance to come forward (of course, bad timing, and you end up not reporting it before it all hits the fan, you may be looking at a class I conduct offense). But cadets who self-report seem to have a slightly easier time than cadets who are found out or reported. I believe the difference for the code, is, if I didn't handle/report, I would be guilty of an honor offense too (instead of a conduct offense). Also keep in mind, these are rules for cadets and midshipmen. If my best friend lies from a civilian school, I have no obligations to act.

I don't agree with that reasoning, but that's how I understand it.

That said, there are certainly time that there are exceptions. If I'm a cadet on a ship and that ship does something that is "deceptive" but commonly used for operations, I am also not obligated to report. You can imagine the fall out of a military full of folks who will telegraph every move because they don't want to be accused of "lying, cheating, stealing or attempting to deceive."