In the official photo he is properly wearing the US enclosed in a circle (which is worn by all enlisted personnel). But there was a picture (which I can't find now) which showed him with a circular device on his lapel which is not the above mandatory one.
Now the 'official' photo is on most articles, but the one of him sitting at an angle with a cocky look..seems to have disappeared.
Army usually wears additional metals/ribbons on their uniforms but the AF is known for limiting devices to this which have been awarded. Nothing has been mentioned about him being Awarded anything.
AND, why does his uniform have NO rank on it. .. referred in service as 'slick sleeve' which usually shows the person is just starting basic training.
My question sparking the comment.... What was he awarded? Why no mention?
I just finished Jeff Sharlet’s book before finding this in my email. I think you’re on point about the likelihood of the investigators totally brushing off the racist gun nut qualities as not being a
I had an experience similar to yours, qualifying for a secret clearance back in the 60s. It's hard to believe that process has degenerated so much. It is truly time for some house cleaning.
Apr 28, 2023·edited Apr 28, 2023Liked by Jeff Stein
Something of a coincidence here. In 1965 I was at Fort Holabird in Baltimore and learning to be a CI Special Agent. I was fresh from Texas and loved Baltimore. On weekends I went to DC, New York and walked all over Baltimore. Just great. After Holabird I was sent to Amarillo, Texas and did background investigations. We had strict guidelines and were trained to do the proper interviews. The process is very careful. Then Surprise, I and many of those who were at Holabird with me went to Vietnam. I was with the First Infantry Division, and by the end of my year had an Intel Team (Me, an assistant and a interpreter and a GP Medium tent) at An Loc in December of 67. Just before Tet and I missed that event. However, the CIA hired me to work in the Provinces of Vietnam, and I worked for them for six years; in Vietnam and in training. I was there until April 1975 when we all left. I went back to school and most of those who worked with me were fired in 1978 when Carter was President. Otherwise, I might have been in Iran.
This is one hell of a column. Great job, and thanks for informing us by using your personal experience. I do it a lot in my column because it provides useful context to readers unfamiliar with your and my subject matter, often involving the military.
I had a similar experience when they did my BI in 1963. I had publicly lamented excesses of HUAC. Someone was taking names. Also, an FBI mail cover had noted my name on the return address of a letter I sent to the Socialist Labor Party. During my subject interview I was asked to clarify both. Told them I stood by comments about HUAC. I also told them the SLP correspondence related to my graduate studies in US labor history. I was doing a paper on Daniel De Leon, an early SLP leader. When I discovered the party kept all of his pamphlets in print, I purchased them as “primary source” material - valuable for historical research. Told him if he had more questions, I’d give him a copy of the paper. I got my clearance, stayed in Army MI for 30 years. Given our early experience, I was quit surprises that the Defense Investigative Service missed so many obvious disqualifiers. The DoD needs to take action to identify and weed out the racists and Neo Nazis. I am quite sure that lower level leaders know who they are.
Great comment, Mike, thanks. AF now says the standard protocols were applied in Teixeira's BI. If so, then we have to conclude that the investigators followed the protocols in name only—or more disturbing, saw no problems in Teixeira's high school suspension, racist views and weapons arsenal. A third possibility is that the investigator did their jobs, handed in a negative assessment, but recruiters brushed it aside.
On this Memorial Day I once again perused my copy of Murder in Wartime. I was there, next to but not complicit in those events, and the careful reporting of what happened some 54 years past helps me settle with life-changing experiences obscured in the fog of war. Like SSG Sands, I had one good source (for whom it ended badly) and witnessed the destruction of another senior officer’s career. Two friendly fires and a messy suicide. Some things cannot be pushed far enough into the past. I recommend MIW to anyone with an interest in the political reality of that involvement. Watergate and the more contemporary case of Bradley Manning and Jack Teixeira—et al and et cetera—shows that the military services and political leadership have yet to learn how to control and secure their special intelligence services.
Is anyone surprised that, in contrast to the voluminous coverage of his arrest, Teixeira's guilty plea did not get the same treatment? AP did a good job though:
From a former AF Personnel officer.... Interesting insignia on his lapels.
I agree with you on the length of time for TS....not impossible but improbable.
Intriguing comment. What is so interesting about the insignia? Are you referring to that black-and-white button badge on his left lapel?
In the official photo he is properly wearing the US enclosed in a circle (which is worn by all enlisted personnel). But there was a picture (which I can't find now) which showed him with a circular device on his lapel which is not the above mandatory one.
Now the 'official' photo is on most articles, but the one of him sitting at an angle with a cocky look..seems to have disappeared.
Army usually wears additional metals/ribbons on their uniforms but the AF is known for limiting devices to this which have been awarded. Nothing has been mentioned about him being Awarded anything.
AND, why does his uniform have NO rank on it. .. referred in service as 'slick sleeve' which usually shows the person is just starting basic training.
My question sparking the comment.... What was he awarded? Why no mention?
I just finished Jeff Sharlet’s book before finding this in my email. I think you’re on point about the likelihood of the investigators totally brushing off the racist gun nut qualities as not being a
N issue for the new recruit.
I had an experience similar to yours, qualifying for a secret clearance back in the 60s. It's hard to believe that process has degenerated so much. It is truly time for some house cleaning.
Something of a coincidence here. In 1965 I was at Fort Holabird in Baltimore and learning to be a CI Special Agent. I was fresh from Texas and loved Baltimore. On weekends I went to DC, New York and walked all over Baltimore. Just great. After Holabird I was sent to Amarillo, Texas and did background investigations. We had strict guidelines and were trained to do the proper interviews. The process is very careful. Then Surprise, I and many of those who were at Holabird with me went to Vietnam. I was with the First Infantry Division, and by the end of my year had an Intel Team (Me, an assistant and a interpreter and a GP Medium tent) at An Loc in December of 67. Just before Tet and I missed that event. However, the CIA hired me to work in the Provinces of Vietnam, and I worked for them for six years; in Vietnam and in training. I was there until April 1975 when we all left. I went back to school and most of those who worked with me were fired in 1978 when Carter was President. Otherwise, I might have been in Iran.
This is one hell of a column. Great job, and thanks for informing us by using your personal experience. I do it a lot in my column because it provides useful context to readers unfamiliar with your and my subject matter, often involving the military.
Many thanks, Lucian.
I had a similar experience when they did my BI in 1963. I had publicly lamented excesses of HUAC. Someone was taking names. Also, an FBI mail cover had noted my name on the return address of a letter I sent to the Socialist Labor Party. During my subject interview I was asked to clarify both. Told them I stood by comments about HUAC. I also told them the SLP correspondence related to my graduate studies in US labor history. I was doing a paper on Daniel De Leon, an early SLP leader. When I discovered the party kept all of his pamphlets in print, I purchased them as “primary source” material - valuable for historical research. Told him if he had more questions, I’d give him a copy of the paper. I got my clearance, stayed in Army MI for 30 years. Given our early experience, I was quit surprises that the Defense Investigative Service missed so many obvious disqualifiers. The DoD needs to take action to identify and weed out the racists and Neo Nazis. I am quite sure that lower level leaders know who they are.
Great comment, Mike, thanks. AF now says the standard protocols were applied in Teixeira's BI. If so, then we have to conclude that the investigators followed the protocols in name only—or more disturbing, saw no problems in Teixeira's high school suspension, racist views and weapons arsenal. A third possibility is that the investigator did their jobs, handed in a negative assessment, but recruiters brushed it aside.
On this Memorial Day I once again perused my copy of Murder in Wartime. I was there, next to but not complicit in those events, and the careful reporting of what happened some 54 years past helps me settle with life-changing experiences obscured in the fog of war. Like SSG Sands, I had one good source (for whom it ended badly) and witnessed the destruction of another senior officer’s career. Two friendly fires and a messy suicide. Some things cannot be pushed far enough into the past. I recommend MIW to anyone with an interest in the political reality of that involvement. Watergate and the more contemporary case of Bradley Manning and Jack Teixeira—et al and et cetera—shows that the military services and political leadership have yet to learn how to control and secure their special intelligence services.
Thanks so much, Robert. Glad you found my book useful.
Is anyone surprised that, in contrast to the voluminous coverage of his arrest, Teixeira's guilty plea did not get the same treatment? AP did a good job though:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/pentagon-leak-suspect-jack-teixeira-is-expected-to-plead-guilty-in-federal-court/ar-BB1jhy0E#
Look for more coverage of Teixiera and other troubling leak and espionage cases in Saturday's edition of SpyWeek.
Hah, you are, of course, always an exception.