It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The admiral in charge of Navy intelligence has not been allowed to see military secrets for years

page: 1
25
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+4 more 
posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   
What the heck is going on here?


For more than two years, the Navy's intelligence chief has been stuck with a major handicap: He's not allowed to know any secrets.

Vice Adm. Ted "Twig" Branch has been barred from reading, seeing or hearing classified information since November 2013, when the Navy learned from the Justice Department that his name had surfaced in a giant corruption investigation involving a foreign defense contractor and scores of Navy personnel.

Worried that Branch was on the verge of being indicted, Navy leaders suspended his access to classified materials. They did the same to one of his deputies, Rear Adm. Bruce F. Loveless, the Navy's director of intelligence operations.

More than 800 days later, neither Branch nor Loveless has been charged. But neither has been cleared, either. Their access to classified information remains blocked.
Branch can't meet with other senior U.S. intelligence leaders to discuss sensitive operations, nor can he 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.

In July 2013, he was promoted to become a three-star admiral and director of naval intelligence. But he would soon become hamstrung in the job... has been barred from reading, seeing or hearing classified information since November 2013


www.chicagotribune.com...

Why does he even still hold that position when he obviously isn`t qualified anymore to hold that position?
His security clearance was revoked 4 months after he took the job,if he can effectively do his job without the security clearance than why is clearance one of the job requirements.
If a janitor working in a top secret area has their clearance revoked they would be out of a job so I wonder who or what this guy knows that keeps him from being replaced.
This system is very broken to allow something like this to continue.
Things like this make you lose confidence in the people who are running things and who are suppose to know what they are doing.

edit on 28-1-2016 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



+5 more 
posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Sounds a lot like the situation we have with the president. People controlling information then relaying to him what to say and how to act.

Those who blame Obama or any other president ignore the fact that the president is nowhere near the most powerful position in America, even they get their orders from people who are behind the curtains. There is a shadow government behind the government we see, the government is only a puppet of the shadow government.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

Wow, that is just ..wow..

Option A:

He is kept out of the loop in a case of MASSIVE post 9/11 failure of understanding the importance of intelligence sharing.

Option B:

Someone gains something be keeping him in the dark.
edit on 28-1-2016 by DupontDeux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Shows the Top Brass aren't in charge of jack.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   
As former Navy I have been following this issue since it first happened. The fact is the government is unable to prove anything against Admiral Branch. If they had been able to they would have done so long ago. So instead they hold him in limbo. Why is he still there? because he is a competent administrator with, other than this accusation (and that's all it is), a stellar reputation in the Naval community. So they refuse to engage the issue, and now everyone blames Admiral Branch.

Kind of a nice smear campaign the government has done on him. The other officers and enlisted who were engaged in this situation were disciplined years ago. So why is Branch still there? because they can't prove their case.
edit on 1/28/2016 by schuyler because: (no reason given)


+5 more 
posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I hate to keep repeating my self, but America has been infiltrated by the enemy from the top down holding positions of power.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Well, that makes the most sense.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Says a lot when the heads of intelligence aren't allowed to see any intelligence, ironic really

He's probably still in his job because they have no grounds to fire him, they revoked his clearance but they can't fire him because they can't prove any wrong doings.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Or he is only there to be a placeholder while they conduct illegal activities behind the scenes. If the director of intelligence has no way to see classified information, that gives them a free pass to do as they like.

That's my thought anyways, not saying it's right.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Discotech
He's probably still in his job because they have no grounds to fire him, they revoked his clearance but they can't fire him because they can't prove any wrong doings.


This. Until they have grounds to fire him, and being on a list isn't enough, or restore his clearance, he's marking time in command. They can't really transfer him, because any command position requires access to top secret materials that he wouldn't have, so he stays where he is until it's resolved, or his time in command is up.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Meanwhile Hillary still holds her clearance.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: amicktd

She's a politician. They can do no wrong.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   
As someone said about the POTUS.

The people that 'we the people' think are responsible for things in truth don't really know what's going on themselves.

You know those behind the curtain are grinning every time Obama gets the blame. Same for the top brass.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Is it they want him to resign?



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: amicktd
Meanwhile Hillary still holds her clearance.

Yeah, but, at this point....
What difference does it make?

I wonder if Hillary is still getting intelligence briefings from Sidney Blumenthal?
edit on b000000312016-01-28T11:55:04-06:0011America/ChicagoThu, 28 Jan 2016 11:55:04 -06001100000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: schuyler

Is it they want him to resign?


He's been eligible to retire for several years now. He has been in the Navy since 1975. He is now a Vice Admiral (O-9), but he's not eligible to retire at that rank until this coming July, which puts him at three years in grade, otherwise he would need to retire at one rank lower. But the fact is, because of limitations imposed by Congress at high ranks, his retirement pay would be virtually the same at either rank, about $12K a year, 3/4's of base either way. If those limitations had NOT been imposed by Congress, he could have added about $1500 a month to his retirement, but at that level, I don't see the point.

So my own conclusion is that he's not "holding out" to retire at his current rank because there is no financial incentive for him to do so. He'll be fine either way. There's the matter of honor, so he may be saying to the Navy, "Screw you. If you can prove it, fire me. Otherwise take a hike."

Mandatory retirement for an O-9 is 64. He was born in 1957, so he's not close there. There is also mandatory retirement at 38 years of "active service." If you count being at Annapolis for 4 years "active," then he's getting close. SECDEF can extend this by a couple of years, but I can't imagine they would under the circumstances.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   
They need to give him his clearance back so he can do his job or replace him, because the way it is now is that the tax payers are being cheated,we are paying for a chief of naval intelligence but that`s not what we are getting.
How is it even legal for them to do that?
They give him the title and the pay of chief of intelligence but not the security clearance to do the job,something is really fishy.
Don`t they feel at all guilty for making the tax payers pay for a chief of intelligence and giving us a glorified office clerk instead? I think the navy owes the taxpayers a refund.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
He accepted gifts from the marine company, who was scamming.
The investigation of Branch was considered a non-criminal act, while much of the rest were charged, some senior officers included. just it seems that he was a naughty boy. He won't be getting his clearance back though, and there is a new nominee for his job. So it seems he wasn't endicted at all

"The investigation as to Branch involves a non-criminal accusation of "inappropriate conduct" associated with his acceptance of gifts from Glenn Marine during the time of his Pacific commands, before his appointment as Director of Naval Intelligence. Although Branch remained in his post during the long Justice Department investigation, his security clearance was not restored, relegating him to administrative duties. In September 2015, the Navy formally nominated Rear Admiral Elizabeth Train to succeed Branch as Director of Naval Intelligence."
edit on 28-1-2016 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
It's Obama's use of the Justice Dept to destroy the military.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy
He accepted gifts from the marine company, who was scamming.
The investigation of Branch was considered a non-criminal act, while much of the rest were charged, some senior officers included. just it seems that he was a naughty boy. He won't be getting his clearance back though, and there is a new nominee for his job. So it seems he wasn't endicted at all


No. You are citing as fact what has been an unproven allegation, an allegation over two years old. Rear Admiral Elizabeth Train was nominated to succeed Branch in 2014 and was supposed to have taken over in 2015, BUT THAT NEVER HAPPENED. It's now been over a year since she was nominated.




top topics



 
25
<<   2 >>

log in

join