Based on the trend in this thread where the discussion has shifted from primarily the program to primarily Thomas, it appears that the AFA tactic is working as intended.
Indeed
Based on the trend in this thread where the discussion has shifted from primarily the program to primarily Thomas, it appears that the AFA tactic is working as intended.
Based on the trend in this thread where the discussion has shifted from primarily the program to primarily Thomas, it appears that the AFA tactic is working as intended.
That tends to be how it happens when someone comes forward with half of the information, neatly omiting the bad parts, and another party has to correct it. Thomas' credibility is hurt here.
How many demerits did the following cadet have before being booted? What did they have in common? Were they both snitches?I'm still stuck on the Academy keeping him around when according to their own statement he should have been booted two years earlier ... Why ?!?!? Did they really know about the informants? Their own statement said they were briefed by OSI prior to his disenrollment but that his conduct prior to working with OSI was enough to get him disenrolled ... then why would you keep him around for two more years unless you knew what he was doing?
Is this based entirely on the arguable USAFA Privacy-Act-Violating release of his conduct history? How is that more credible? If the Academy is dumping that hard on Thomas, its because he struck a nerve. If he was really a dirtbag who got what was coming his way anyway, then the Academy would likely not have said much more than "talk to OSI".That tends to be how it happens when someone comes forward with half of the information, neatly omiting the bad parts, and another party has to correct it. Thomas' credibility is hurt here.
How many demerits did the following cadet have before being booted? What did they have in common? Were they both snitches?
http://www.serviceacademyforums.com/showthread.php?t=32160
Is this based entirely on the arguable USAFA Privacy-Act-Violating release of his conduct history? How is that more credible?
And so is the AF, AFA credibility.
Perhaps. When/why did USAFA finally decide to dis-enroll Thomas? If both had more than 200 demerits before the end of their 3rd degree year why would USAFA let either continue? Does anyone have any idea of how many cadets graduate each year with 200+ demerits? These questions (IMHO) go to addressing the following questions in 's post:That cadet final crime occurred during his final semester. Thomas was in trouble before 2 degree year.
Maybe USAFA routinely keeps some cadets longer than they should. Perhaps we should ask why ANY cadet would be kept beyond a certain number of demerits.I'm still stuck on the Academy keeping him around when according to their own statement he should have been booted two years earlier ... Why ?!?!? Did they really know about the informants? Their own statement said they were briefed by OSI prior to his disenrollment but that his conduct prior to working with OSI was enough to get him disenrolled ... then why would you keep him around for two more years unless you knew what he was doing?
It was my redaction. My way of pointing out just one of the flaws in the document. I'm curious who authorized its release. Since it reference the Superintendent and SECAF I would think at least the Academy Chief of Staff. Certainly someone who should know and understand the Privacy a Act.Oh I don't disagree. Remember, I mentioned "hands tied" earlier.
Let me ask you this. Did you add "REDACTED" or did they. If it was the Air Force that redacted it, they redacted the stuff I thought violated the Privacy Act earlier.... the administrative issues. If you redacted it... but I'm not the superstar prior PAO I hoped to be! HAHA!
It was my redaction. My way of pointing out just one of the flaws in the document.
If you have nothing to hide , you have nothing to fear from having an informant in your ranks. Hopefully this will be scaled up to be used in the military writ large.
It's a good way to drum out the people who don't belong in the armed services.
Then maybe we can start using the same system and logic to ferret out those in the Gov't who lie, cheat, and otherwise deceive. Golly gee gosh, DC would be a veritable ghost town, wouldn't it? Go away, its soon study hall period.If you have nothing to hide , you have nothing to fear from having an informant in your ranks. Hopefully this will be scaled up to be used in the military writ large.
It's a good way to drum out the people who don't belong in the armed services.
If you have nothing to hide , you have nothing to fear from having an informant in your ranks. Hopefully this will be scaled up to be used in the military writ large.
It's a good way to drum out the people who don't belong in the armed services.
Ah, the classic "if you have nothing to hide" line.
Fortunately, we have things like the 4th Amendment and the "reasonable expectation of privacy." Perhaps you've heard of them?
Or are you more the fan of "spy on everyone" theories that tend to wind up with things like the STASI, KGB, and the FBI illegally spying on Civil Rights Movement leaders to try to blackmail them or convince them to commit suicide?
The FBI spying on and threatening MLK is fairly well documented, as are the abuses of the Soviet Union and East Germany. Now, if you want to say your very interesting logic about privacy doesn't relate to those abuses, argue away.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.