Talk:United States Army Counterintelligence

Hologram

Question? What is that square in the middle of the Special Agent badge that looks like a small credit card security hologram?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.182.8.28 (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a hologram, intended to make the badge harder to counterfeit. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That seems odd to place it on the front of the badge, shouldn't it be on the reverse side? I've never seen any other federal agent badge with that kind of anti-counterfeit device on the front, it just looks strange, like an afterthought. 2603:8001:5802:BA62:D67B:7865:B5CF:8174 (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Never been a member of the U.S. Peace Corps.

Is that for real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.228.74 (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

If a former member of the Peace Corps joins the U.S. intelligence community, it creates the paradox that nations which have allowed Peace Corps personnel within their borders might suspect that the former Peace Corps member was always a member of the U.S. intelligence community, including the time that they were in that country. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

What's the subject?

I'm not sure it's clear from the article whether it's about the mission or the MOS. If it's about the MOS, then the title should be changed to that of the MOS Counter Intelligence Agent'

Unless the creds/badge and/or the position's MOS clearly stated army CI agents are "special agents" they are CI agents, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:8B00:DFBA:C0F2:B056:F813:54DD (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

List of agents

Both this page and Counterintelligence Corps (United States Army) have lists of notable agents. While the lists overlap, they disagree. User:Cmacauley and I have agreed that the lists should be merged. Should the combined list be in this article, Counterintelligence Corps (United States Army), or a new "List of notable Army counterintelligence agents (United States)?" Comments are requested about the destination and the name of the list. Thanks.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Warrants, Commissioned Warrants, and Commissioned Officers

Regarding this: While warrant officers get a commission upon promotion to CW2 that allows them to exercise authorities like commissioned officers, Army regulations still refer to the two types as "warrant officers" and "commissioned officers." Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

While W-2 thru W-5 indeed hold commissions like O-1 and above do, saying a CW2 is a "commissioned warrant officer" is essentially a colloquial expression in the same way that one might a say a CW2 is a "warrant officer with a commission". Questions for 174.206.2.54 to answer: 1) Can you find us an applicable regulation that defines "commissioned warrant officer" as a formal term? 2) Can you find an applicable regulation that refers to "regular commissioned officers" per your edit here? 3) And if you think W-2 through W-5 should be called "commissioned warrant officers" as a formal term, wouldn't that mean you should be calling WO1's "noncommissioned warrant officers"? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Based on your numerous edits to this page, I am assuming you were either in the Army and possibly even a former ACI SA. If not, your interest is odd as it seems to come from an "I know more than you mentality" given your quick edits/changes to many things without a discussion first (for instance, you started this talk page section while your changes stand, and mine do not, even though my information was first). I would also argue that I have provided the bulk of the information to this page throughout the years, and have seen you change or make edits to my content many times. We often don't agree, as you often make edits not based on factual content, but your own personal preference on how something should look.

That being said, in regards to this specifically, I never said or made an edit calling a warrant a "commissioned warrant officer." However, that would be accurate. What I changed was making the "commissioned officer" section say "regular commissioned officer" simply in response to your edit to make it less confusing. The idea that the only commissioned officers in the Army are the 2LT to General Officer ranks, is a common misconception, which is not true and the Army is trying to change. Creating it here only furthers that misconception if we do not add some clarity. This has been reinforced since 2004 when Army warrant officers were combined with regular officers under the officer corps umbrella (and therefore there was no longer a warrant officer corps). Additionally, while many U.S. Army regulations do distinguish the two by calling them simply "commissioned" and "warrant" officers, there is also a definition in almost all of these which elaborates on this ahead of time or when first referenced. An example of this is in Army Regulation (AR) 135-155 - Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers. In the very first chapter and paragraph (1-1) it states, "This regulation prescribes policy and procedures used for selecting and promoting commissioned officers (other than commissioned warrant officers). Notice the "commissioned warrant officer" statement, which it also later clarifies as CW2 to CW5, because WO1's are actually the only officer appointed by warrant as opposed to commission. Again, the Army calls them all warrants to make it easier to distinguish the two, but in almost every regulation where they are referenced/discussed in detail, there is information indicating the difference. If it is not done here, it is only adding to this misconception, so I am not sure why you are so opposed to a clarification here, other than what I said previously--you just like to edit/change/delete any content I put up. Thanks, PoliceGuy31

Hello, PoliceGuy31. Like all sincere editors who are here to make the encyclopedia be the best it can be, I don't live just to change what put others up; I make my edits based on my best judgments as what I know or believe to be factually correct. Truth in fact, the Army doesn't call commissioned officers "regular officers" or "regular commissioned officers", hence the desire to avoid adding the word "regular". You first implemented that change as seen in your edit here, where you changed the text from "commissioned officer" to "regular officer". You've probably forgotten that, but I must point that out as you've made a point above saying that I'm the one who initiated the change from the original version. That said, I do very much appreciate that you're discussing the matter here instead of moving to revert to insert "regular" again. Back to the topic at hand, have a look at this Army careers page seen here. Slide down past the initial "Officer Careers" video to the two paragraphs below, one titled "Commissioned Officer" and the other "Warrant Officer". Within the warrant officer portion, you'll see that the last sentence ends with "Once they reach the rank of Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2), the President of the United States gives them the same status as a Commissioned Officer." This is a good way to frame the way these concepts are expressed. Yes, CW2 and above hold a commission, but the Army doesn't use terms like "Commissioned Warrant Officer" or "Regular Commissioned Officer", they just call them warrant officers and commissioned officers because it becomes confusing to move away from that convention. Wouldn't it be best if we just stuck with convention here? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)