AFA Informant Program

[LineInTheSand]

Troll? I call him "Precious".

 

[Tigger]

There has been a lot of discussion about Thomas but early in the Gazette story there is this, “I hate it,” said a third cadet who said he became an informant in 2011. The cadet, who graduated in May and is now an officer, did not want to be identified because he feared retribution by the Air Force. He said being an informant was the worst thing he has ever done. “It puts you in a horrible situation: Lying, turning on other cadets. I felt like a rat. OSI says they will offer you protection, have your back. Then they don’t. Look what happened to Eric.”

What's this officer's story? Why did they become an informant? Was this a way out of trouble? How many more like this person are there at USAFA? How is using cadets in this way consistent with the mission and values of USAFA?

Thomas isn't the story.

 

[pointguard]

I agree Tigger,

and at the end of the day I am hoping to read that this 'program' is done away with in a magnanimous way with lofty ideas and ideals overtaking this McCarthy-type secretive trolling in places where imo it has no earthly business. Class of 2018 DS is shocked, and not a little dismayed.

 

[BlahuKahuna]

From an email from General Johnson to the AOG...

"Many of you have voiced concerns regarding inconsistencies between a CI program and the Cadet Honor Code. I want you to know that the chain of command does not condone lying, cheating or any violation of the Honor Code in support of CI investigations and that I will exercise oversight of any operations involving cadet confidential informants." (emphasis added)

...ok.

 

[WTDoor]

^^^^^^^
I think they are still missing the point.

The military's mission depends on trust and teamwork. Perhaps not blind trust, but the benefit of the doubt, at least, until proven otherwise. The road to understanding these two traits begins the first summer at all the service academies. These are two of the primary reasons that I have always felt service academy grads stood shoulders above their contemporaries. This program has driven a stake into the heart of these principals.

 

[falconfamily]

Amazing amount of consensus

Surely, you are aware that members of the military have limited constitutional rights compared to the public at large. Knock off the strawman arguments about the KGB. What I referred to was use for the armed services, not the public at large.

Meteor, I try not to get too personal in my posts, I don't know you personally and I see that you only joined a few days ago. My hope is that you want to be a meaningful contributor on this forum. It does not mean that we need to agree, but that the discussion you contribute to should bring added insight to a given topic.

With regard to your comments about the cadet informant program, it appears that you either lack experience or wisdom, perhaps both with respect to this subject. In my experience, when ever there is a controversial topic on this forum, you seldom have consensus, it might lean more in one direction than the other, but it is typically 60/40. Just read through this thread, consider the reactions of the Academy graduates, and there is amazing consensus that this was a very bad idea (heck I even found myself agreeing with LITS and that almost never happens ).

Consider the nature of the threat and the damage done by this program. Col. Keith Givens - current deputy commander of the OSI, wrote an article in "The Reporter" where he details the growth of "Club Drugs" in the Air Force, yet states that less than 1% of the Air Force are active drug users. At no point did he suggest setting up a program of this nature at the Academy and cautioned that commanders need to balance using aggressive interventions versus the nature of the threat. At the time this was going on the cadet wing was somewhere between 4400 and 4000. There were about a dozen cadets who were kicked out due to drug use, that is about .3%, much smaller than the AF population as a whole. Not sure the leadership really considered Givens caution, and the harm has been immeasurable considering how addressing the misadventures of .3% of the cadet population had impacted the other 99.7%.

With regard to Sexual Assaults, I find that any number is intolerable in a military organization, yet I do not buy the argument that the use of informants was absolutely necessary to solving these cases. Civilian police solve such cases all of the time and since these are crimes of opportunity, there are seldom any informants present to provide information.

So from where I stand, I think this program is a hammer trying to kill a gnat, it is misguided at best, and in my judgement is an overreach.

 

[Bullet]

OK folks, let me weigh in here with a few observations, some of which you may not want to hear.

- The US military is NOT this bastion of perfect integrity, honor, and trust that many of you here so desparately want to put your faith into. Is the VAST majority worthy of that description? Certainly. But we are made a indiviudals who represent the full cross section of the population. And some of those individuals AREN'T worthy of that "trust" many here are loudly proclaiming is the backbone of our existence. And we've seen too many examples of this recently to continue to beleive the fairy tale that this isn't the case.

- These individual's illegal actions actually do MORE to hurt the team than what has been done in efforts to prevent these individuals from comitting these illegal actions.

- News flash: OSI undercover operations are NOT exclusive to the AFA. Nor are they exclusive to the AF alone. Stop acting like this is a deviation from standards, because it isn't. And when you get to your first operational tour you'll discover that fact for yourself.

- Stop the whole strawman argument about "rights to privacy". Using undercover agents has been a standard tactic for our civilian police forces for DECADES, and has been held up as legal in the court system. You don't like Big Brother watching you while doing your duty? Guess what, he's doing it it many more ways than just a guy in your office spying for OSI. Try logging on a prohibited site on your Government network one day and see what happens when you do. It is what it is, and although I hate to agree with Meteor -- you don't want to get in trouble? Then don't do something that GETS you in trouble. It's standing orders, so follow them. And it seems we HAVE to sometimes resort to tactics like "informants" becasue we need to weed out the bad apples for the sake of the good ones. I don't like it, but it is what it is, and I can't think of a better way of discovering those bad apples before they ruin the whole barrel.

Now, here is where I DO have issues with what happened here.

- It seems like the typical case of: "do something wrong, get caught, feel persecuted by the "Man", not like the results, so "Lawyer Up and go direct to the Media over my "persecution"". We don't know the whole story, but the kid appears as if he was "dirty", and was given the choice between being kicked out and paying for the years he was at the AFA, or becoming an informant (who would still be kicked out in the end, but would not be "billed"). It's OK, he "lawyered up"; I'm sure the Court of Public Opinion will handle this more appropriately than the justice system.

- Regardless of whether this kid was "dirty", or whether he was rail-roaded, he should have had legal representation when he was interrogated and given the choice. THIS is what is going to get a few heads rolling due to the Court of Public Opinion, and rightfully so.

- OSI has a history of being a little over-zealous in their "we operate alone and outside of the system" attitudes. NOT informing a base commander (or in this case the AFA Sup) is a BAD IDEA from the start. I'm thinking OSI is getting an "attitude adjustment" this week in some offices a few floors above me. The offices with the nice wood panelling and portraits on the walls.

- Does finding out that a program like this exists within the AFA hurt the moral of the cadets? Sure. But they'll get over it. I could only hope that finding out they were infested with many other cadets doing many other illegal actions hurts their moral a little more. The black eye from the informants program is minor compared to the black eye they should have every time another cadet is kicked out for drugs or sexual assault.

Bee's nest, kicked. Ready for the resulting wave of rebuttals in indignation.

 

[LineInTheSand]

(heck I even found myself agreeing with LITS and that almost never happens ).

I think what you experienced was an evolutionary jump. This should be studied by top universities around the world and very junior, uniformed, Hill staffers when they're not fetching coffee for senior junior staffers.

 

[WTDoor]

- The US military is NOT this bastion of perfect integrity, honor, and trust that many of you here so desparately want to put your faith into. Is the VAST majority worthy of that description? Certainly. But we are made a indiviudals who represent the full cross section of the population. And some of those individuals AREN'T worthy of that "trust" many here are loudly proclaiming is the backbone of our existence. And we've seen too many examples of this recently to continue to beleive the fairy tale that this isn't the case.

So, since there are isolated examples where the system has failed, are you suggesting that we completely abandon teaching it? If not, are you suggesting that we not teach it in the most effective manner possible? Or are you simply suggesting that a spy in one's midst does not detract from the overall training mission? Your labeling of the entire concept a "fairy tale" does lead to questions.

 

[LineInTheSand]

OK folks, let me weigh in here with a few observations, some of which you may not want to hear.

- The US military is NOT this bastion of perfect integrity, honor, and trust that many of you here so desparately want to put your faith into. Is the VAST majority worthy of that description? Certainly. But we are made a indiviudals who represent the full cross section of the population. And some of those individuals AREN'T worthy of that "trust" many here are loudly proclaiming is the backbone of our existence. And we've seen too many examples of this recently to continue to beleive the fairy tale that this isn't the case.

I agree. Bullet, you and I know units that have little trust, across the entire command. Those commands are TOXIC. There are bad actors here and there, and at some point people figure it out, understand they can't be trusted and label them "$hiTB@gs". And then they are promptly promoted to colonel (or captain, HA!)

- These individual's illegal actions actually do MORE to hurt the team than what has been done in efforts to prevent these individuals from comitting these illegal actions.

We don't agree here. There are PLENTY of examples of taking down cadets or midshipmen, who's actions are damaging, without using this system. Using outside investigators, like CGIS or NCIS or OSI or CID. I'm not convinced this is the "go-to" system that prevents individuals to commit crimes while minimizing the damage done to the student body. They could lock cadets in cages and prevent them from doing a crime, doesn't mean the student body is better for it.
- News flash: OSI undercover operations are NOT exclusive to the AFA. Nor are they exclusive to the AF alone. Stop acting like this is a deviation from standards, because it isn't. And when you get to your first operational tour you'll discover that fact for yourself.

- Stop the whole strawman argument about "rights to privacy". Using undercover agents has been a standard tactic for our civilian police forces for DECADES, and has been held up as legal in the court system. You don't like Big Brother watching you while doing your duty? Guess what, he's doing it it many more ways than just a guy in your office spying for OSI. Try logging on a prohibited site on your Government network one day and see what happens when you do. It is what it is, and although I hate to agree with Meteor -- you don't want to get in trouble? Then don't do something that GETS you in trouble. It's standing orders, so follow them. And it seems we HAVE to sometimes resort to tactics like "informants" becasue we need to weed out the bad apples for the sake of the good ones. I don't like it, but it is what it is, and I can't think of a better way of discovering those bad apples before they ruin the whole barrel.

Actually, there is an expectation of privacy in some instances. I can't break the lock off of a guy's locker on my ship just to inspect it. I'm guessing OSI folks know this. I'm also guessing untrained cadets don't. It may be an effective program, but if you have untrained folks running around, collecting evidence in a way that won't hold up in court... well, you haven't done anything at all.

Now, here is where I DO have issues with what happened here.

- It seems like the typical case of: "do something wrong, get caught, feel persecuted by the "Man", not like the results, so "Lawyer Up and go direct to the Media over my "persecution"". We don't know the whole story, but the kid appears as if he was "dirty", and was given the choice between being kicked out and paying for the years he was at the AFA, or becoming an informant (who would still be kicked out in the end, but would not be "billed"). It's OK, he "lawyered up"; I'm sure the Court of Public Opinion will handle this more appropriately than the justice system.

I was talking to a public affairs person yesterday, and one of the things I mentioned is, when someone comes forward with information, but only tells half of the story, to make himself look better, when the whole story comes out, his credibility is SHOT.

- Regardless of whether this kid was "dirty", or whether he was rail-roaded, he should have had legal representation when he was interrogated and given the choice. THIS is what is going to get a few heads rolling due to the Court of Public Opinion, and rightfully so.

He was dirty because his record shows he was. Of course, plenty of "dirty" cadets and midshipmen graduate each year.

- OSI has a history of being a little over-zealous in their "we operate alone and outside of the system" attitudes. NOT informing a base commander (or in this case the AFA Sup) is a BAD IDEA from the start. I'm thinking OSI is getting an "attitude adjustment" this week in some offices a few floors above me. The offices with the nice wood panelling and portraits on the walls.

Or, just as likely, they're standing in an office saying "can you believe this inaccurate story? Wish we could say more."

- Does finding out that a program like this exists within the AFA hurt the moral of the cadets? Sure. But they'll get over it. I could only hope that finding out they were infested with many other cadets doing many other illegal actions hurts their moral a little more. The black eye from the informants program is minor compared to the black eye they should have every time another cadet is kicked out for drugs or sexual assault.

Again, there are other tactics for investigating drug and assault violations that don't involve untrained confidential informants. And those programs are less risky.

Bee's nest, kicked. Ready for the resulting wave of rebuttals in indignation.

My responses in RED above.

 

[USMCGrunt]

I had to comment on this sentence: "These are two of the primary reasons that I have always felt service academy grads stood shoulders above their contemporaries."

WTDoor - You are entitled to your opinion of course. However, I don't share the same position.

 

[MedB]

- Regardless of whether this kid was "dirty", or whether he was rail-roaded, he should have had legal representation when he was interrogated and given the choice. THIS is what is going to get a few heads rolling due to the Court of Public Opinion, and rightfully so.

And once again, I say this is is exactly what should generate the most outcry.

The reality is we have some incredible teenagers (emphasis on BOTH words) here that deserve some protection. As a group, these kids mostly want to do the right thing, follow the rules, make a difference and are fully aware of the wonderful opportunity they've been given.

In many, many, many ways this group of amazing young people is MORE vulnerable to the kind coercion that can take place from law enforcement. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to find the right buttons to push here.

So for this reason.... AND because these are still citizens, AND because they have committed to serving and protecting our country as military members, they deserve some basic protections. All of them, accused or innocent or informant.

 

[LineInTheSand]

And once again, I say this is is exactly what should generate the most outcry.

The reality is we have some incredible teenagers (emphasis on BOTH words) here that deserve some protection. As a group, these kids mostly want to do the right thing, follow the rules, make a difference and are fully aware of the wonderful opportunity they've been given.

In many, many, many ways this group of amazing young people is MORE vulnerable to the kind coercion that can take place from law enforcement. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to find the right buttons to push here.

So for this reason.... AND because these are still citizens, AND because they have committed to serving and protecting our country as military members, they deserve some basic protections. All of them, accused or innocent or informant.

I think we can still say he, from his record, does appear pretty dirty.

But it also needs to be said, beyond "taking orders" cadets and midshipmen are taught to trust their leadership. If I was called in by an O-5 or O-6 when I was a cadet, and told I needed to do something, I would first assume that it was OK, because a senior officer told me to, and second, would think that senior officer had the best of intentions.

And I wasn't a dirt bag!

They don't know their rights, and they don't want to make waves by telling a senior officer (heck even a junior officer) no. That's just not how cadets and midshipmen have been programmed to act.

Sure, give them a few years of real experience, and everything becomes a little more clear. But as a cadet or midshipman.... easily molded by leadership and "officials." And it's just another reason a program like this at an academy makes me uncomfortable.

 

[KPEngineer]

OK folks, let me weigh in here with a few observations, some of which you may not want to hear.

- The US military is NOT this bastion of perfect integrity, honor, and trust that many of you here so desparately want to put your faith into. Is the VAST majority worthy of that description? Certainly. But we are made a indiviudals who represent the full cross section of the population. And some of those individuals AREN'T worthy of that "trust" many here are loudly proclaiming is the backbone of our existence. And we've seen too many examples of this recently to continue to beleive the fairy tale that this isn't the case.

Couldn’t agree more. Like in most/every organization, there is a big difference between the guys/gals in the trenches and the hierarchy. I have waaaaaaay more faith in the honor and integrity in the person next to me because I can see them in their day to day conduct. I have little to no faith in the hierarchy, senior leadership and the “system” because I have seen too many times where the system did not keep the faith with those within it.

- These individual's illegal actions actually do MORE to hurt the team than what has been done in efforts to prevent these individuals from comitting these illegal actions.

Coultn’t agree more. We all knew who the bad apples are/were and they sometimes got away with their “crimes”. 20+ years later I can still tell you exactly who they were and what they did. Don’t ask me about the ones who got caught and punished cuz I can’t tell you squat about them.

- Stop the whole strawman argument about "rights to privacy". Using undercover agents has been a standard tactic for our civilian police forces for DECADES, and has been held up as legal in the court system. You don't like Big Brother watching you while doing your duty? Guess what, he's doing it it many more ways than just a guy in your office spying for OSI. Try logging on a prohibited site on your Government network one day and see what happens when you do. It is what it is, and although I hate to agree with Meteor -- you don't want to get in trouble? Then don't do something that GETS you in trouble. It's standing orders, so follow them. And it seems we HAVE to sometimes resort to tactics like "informants" becasue we need to weed out the bad apples for the sake of the good ones. I don't like it, but it is what it is, and I can't think of a better way of discovering those bad apples before they ruin the whole barrel.

I refuse to agree with Meteor because I as a rule, I never agree with trolls and I try to avoid agreeing with LITS; buuuuut I will agree that informants as a concept is perfectly fine. The bad apples need to be weeded out and isn’t that essentially what we do by challenging someone who doesn’t have the correct badge? Isn’t that essentially what we are doing if we babysit an unattended CAC? The whole concept of we are ALL as individuals responsible for our collective security is to some degree based on the idea that we are all informants.

Now, here is where I DO have issues with what happened here.

- It seems like the typical case of: "do something wrong, get caught, feel persecuted by the "Man", not like the results, so "Lawyer Up and go direct to the Media over my "persecution"". We don't know the whole story, but the kid appears as if he was "dirty", and was given the choice between being kicked out and paying for the years he was at the AFA, or becoming an informant (who would still be kicked out in the end, but would not be "billed"). It's OK, he "lawyered up"; I'm sure the Court of Public Opinion will handle this more appropriately than the justice system.

If he had gotten kicked out when they said he originally should have he would not have incurred the payment obligation anyway. I doubt he was pure as the wind driven snow, but at least one (and doubtless a lot more) informant managed to graduate and get commissioned so clearly it can be done.

- Regardless of whether this kid was "dirty", or whether he was rail-roaded, he should have had legal representation when he was interrogated and given the choice. THIS is what is going to get a few heads rolling due to the Court of Public Opinion, and rightfully so.

My sense is that he got bullied into being and informant and was probably made promises that OSI had no intention or ability to keep and I have a problem with that.

- OSI has a history of being a little over-zealous in their "we operate alone and outside of the system" attitudes. NOT informing a base commander (or in this case the AFA Sup) is a BAD IDEA from the start. I'm thinking OSI is getting an "attitude adjustment" this week in some offices a few floors above me. The offices with the nice wood panelling and portraits on the walls.

It seems like OSI was purposefully blurring the lines between Academy Rules, the Honor System and the UCMJ. I hope that is also a topic of discussion.

 

[KPEngineer]

So, since there are isolated examples where the system has failed, are you suggesting that we completely abandon teaching it? If not, are you suggesting that we not teach it in the most effective manner possible? Or are you simply suggesting that a spy in one's midst does not detract from the overall training mission? Your labeling of the entire concept a "fairy tale" does lead to questions.

What Bullet labelled a "fairy tale" is the idea that the military is, top to bottom, a bastion of honor and integrity. If that were the case, OSI, CID and NCIS would not exist.

 

[KPEngineer]

I think we can still say he, from his record, does appear pretty dirty.

I wouldn't be so quick to say that. You're only going by an Academy press release and we both know that an Echelon II command is not above resorting to "spin" to protect itself, especially when the "target" is no longer in the service. We also both know that you can rack up a large number of demerits very quickly if you catch the attention of the wrong upperclassman.

Is it beyond belief that an informant in their Senior year might be told to find someone a new recruit and we will let you graduate. Is it beyond belief that that same Senior might target someone and nickle and dime them up over 200 demerits so that OSI can swoop in at an opportune moment to turn them? Did it happen here, is that the SOP?, I don't know but I can certainly believe it's possible.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I refuse to agree with Meteor because I as a rule, I never agree with trolls and I try to avoid agreeing with LITS; buuuuut I will agree that informants as a concept is perfectly fine. The bad apples need to be weeded out and isn’t that essentially what we do by challenging someone who doesn’t have the correct badge? Isn’t that essentially what we are doing if we babysit an unattended CAC? The whole concept of we are ALL as individuals responsible for our collective security is to some degree based on the idea that we are all informants.

I think you're in luck, because I'm not sure we agree here. Informant programs WORK. That doesn't mean they're good.

Taking personal responsibility is different than working for someone else (my opinion of the difference between a cadet honor concept or code and working as informants for OSI). Clearing, taking ownership is MORE effective than confidential informations (how many people have demerits, conduct and honor offenses v. criminal cases?)

Don't want people breaking rules or laws? There is NO WAY to stop it from happening. So, now that we're past that.... how do you catch it? Develope a culture where it's, to the vast majority, unacceptable? Maybe. Hire people to find it? Um.... maybe.

Consider fraud in the markets. The majority of fraud cases come from tips and actions of individuals, reporting wrong doing (taking personal responsibility to report), while a minority of cases come from Securities and Exchange Commission staff detecting and investigating (hired).

I'm not convinced CIs are the way to go at an academy, and I bet they yield lower results than cadets taking responsibility to report on their own (while allowing that if someone is going to break a rule, they're going to break a rule, and some of them will try to hide it, from fellow cadets and CIs. But NOW cadets may suspect ALL cadets are CIs, and REALLY bury misdeeds.)

 

[LineInTheSand]

I wouldn't be so quick to say that. You're only going by an Academy press release and we both know that an Echelon II command is not above resorting to "spin" to protect itself, especially when the "target" is no longer in the service. We also both know that you can rack up a large number of demerits very quickly if you catch the attention of the wrong upperclassman.

Is it beyond belief that an informant in their Senior year might be told to find someone a new recruit and we will let you graduate. Is it beyond belief that that same Senior might target someone and nickle and dime them up over 200 demerits so that OSI can swoop in at an opportune moment to turn them? Did it happen here, is that the SOP?, I don't know but I can certainly believe it's possible.

I'm confortable saying an upperclassman won't nickle and dime a dirt bag with the idea that 2 years down the road he will be used as a CI and this will be good back up to the "dirty" story.

I know CGA had it, and I would guess the other academies do, regulations restricting the use of the demerit system to "make an example." A cadet issuing demerits is accountable for those demerits. If he/she missuses the system, he could also find himself in hot water.

 

[KPEngineer]

I think you're in luck, because I'm not sure we agree here. Informant programs WORK. That doesn't mean they're good.

Taking personal responsibility is different than working for someone else (my opinion of the difference between a cadet honor concept or code and working as informants for OSI). Clearing, taking ownership is MORE effective than confidential informations (how many people have demerits, conduct and honor offenses v. criminal cases?)

Don't want people breaking rules or laws? There is NO WAY to stop it from happening. So, now that we're past that.... how do you catch it? Develope a culture where it's, to the vast majority, unacceptable? Maybe. Hire people to find it? Um.... maybe.

Consider fraud in the markets. The majority of fraud cases come from tips and actions of individuals, reporting wrong doing (taking personal responsibility to report), while a minority of cases come from Securities and Exchange Commission staff detecting and investigating (hired).

I'm not convinced CIs are the way to go at an academy, and I bet they yield lower results than cadets taking responsibility to report on their own (while allowing that if someone is going to break a rule, they're going to break a rule, and some of them will try to hide it, from fellow cadets and CIs. But NOW cadets may suspect ALL cadets are CIs, and REALLY bury misdeeds.)

You may misunderstand me. I am not opposed at all to the concept of CI programs. This specific case raises some pretty big red flags for me and I have serious concerns about the idea of CIs at Academies in general, but I'm not opposed to CIs as a concept. The devil is always in the details.

 

[LineInTheSand]

You may misunderstand me. I am not opposed at all to the concept of CI programs. This specific case raises some pretty big red flags for me and I have serious concerns about the idea of CIs at Academies in general, but I'm not opposed to CIs as a concept. The devil is always in the details.

Yes, I did misunderstand you.