Dead Men Working

Deported Texas teen Returned

2012-01-07T11:04:00.000-08:00

By JUAN CARLOS LLORCA, LINDA STEWART BALL

DALLAS — A Texas teenager who was deported to Colombia in May after claiming to be an illegal immigrant was back in the United States on Friday and at the center of an international mystery over how a minor could be sent to a country where she is not a citizen.

Her family has questioned why U.S. officials didn't do more to verify her identity and say she is not fluent in Spanish and had no ties to Colombia. While many facts of the case involving Jakadrien Lorece Turner remain unclear, U.S. and Colombian officials have pointed fingers over who is responsible.

Jakadrien arrived in Dallas on Friday evening and was reunited with her family. She was flanked by her mother, grandmother and law enforcement when she emerged from the international gate at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport shortly before 10 p.m.

"She's happy to be home," the family's attorney, Ray Jackson, said, adding that the family would not be issuing any statements Friday night.

He said the family was "ecstatic" to have Jakadrien back in Texas and they plan to "do what we can to make sure she gets back to a normal life."

Immigration experts say that while cases of mistaken identity are rare, people can slip through the cracks, especially if they don't have legal help or family members working on their behalf. But they say U.S. immigration authorities had the responsibility to determine if a person is a citizen.

"Often in these situations they have these group hearings where they tell everybody you're going to be deported," said Jacqueline Stevens, a political science professor at Northwestern University, who is an expert on immigration issues. "Everything is really quick, even if you understand English you wouldn't understand what is going on. If she were in that situation as a 14-year-old she would be herded through like cattle and not have a chance to talk to the judge about her situation."

Jakadrien's saga began when the teen ran away more than a year ago. Jakadrien's family said she left home in November 2010. Houston police said the girl was arrested on April 2, 2011, for misdemeanor theft in that city and claimed to be Tika Lanay Cortez, a Colombian woman born in 1990. It was unclear if she has been living under that name.

Houston police said in a statement that her name was run through a database to determine if she was wanted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement but the results were negative. She was then turned over to the Harris County jail and booked on the theft charge.

The county sheriff's office said it ran her through the available databases and did the interviews necessary to establish her identity and immigration status in the country, with negative results. A sheriff's office employee recommended that an immigration detainer be put on her, and upon her release from jail she was turned over to ICE.

U.S. immigration officials insist they followed procedure and found nothing to indicate that the girl wasn't a Colombian woman living illegally in the country.

An ICE official said the teen claimed to be Cortez throughout the criminal proceedings in Houston and the ensuing deportation process, in which an immigration judge ultimately ordered her back to Colombia.

Standard procedure before any deportation is to coordinate with the other country in order to establish that person is from there, the ICE official said.

The ICE official, speaking on condition of anonymity due to not being authorized to discuss additional details of the case, said the teenager was interviewed by a representative from the Colombian consulate and that country's government issued her a travel document to enter Colombia.

Jakadrien was issued travel documents at the request of U.S. officials using information they provided, the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said. Colombian officials are investigating what kind of verification was conducted by its Houston consulate to issue the temporary passport.

The girl was given Colombian citizenship upon arriving in that country, the ICE official said.

According to the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the girl was enrolled in the country's "Welcome Home" program after she arrived there. She was given shelter, psychological assistance and a job at a call center, a statement from the agency said.

"If she looked like an adult, and she told them she was a 21-year-old Colombian citizen, and she didn't show up in their databases, this was inevitable," said Albert Armendariz, an immigration attorney from El Paso.

Jakadrien's family says they have no idea why she ended up in Colombia. Johnisa Turner said the girl is a U.S. citizen who was born in Dallas and was not fluent in Spanish. She said neither she nor the teen's father had ties to Colombia. Jakadrien's grandmother, Lorene Turner, called the deportation a "big mistake somebody made."

Lorene Turner, a Dallas hairstylist, said she spent a lot of time on the Internet trying to track down Jakadrien.

Ultimately, the girl was found in Bogota by the Dallas Police Department with help from Colombian and U.S. officials.

Dallas Police detective C'mon (pronounced Simone) Wingo, the detective in charge of the case, said she was contacted in August by the girl's grandmother, who said Jakadrien had posted "kind of disturbing" messages on a Facebook account where she goes by yet another name.

Wingo said the girl was located in early November through her use of a computer to log into Facebook. Relatives were then put into contact with the U.S. embassy in Bogota to provide pictures and documents to prove Jakadrien's identity.

Colombian officials said when the government discovered she was a U.S. citizen and a minor, it put her under the care of a welfare program.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the case was brought to the State Department's attention in mid-December.

"We didn't have any involvement at all in this case until it came to light that there may be a problem with an American minor in Colombia, and that — and then we became involved both with Colombian authorities and with folks in Dallas," Nuland said.

Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell Law School, said hundreds of U.S. citizens are wrongfully detained or deported each year.

"There are a variety of legitimate reasons why somebody might not appear to be a U.S. citizen at first glance." he said. "It's the duty of the U.S. federal immigration agency to make sure that we do not detain and deport U.S. citizens erroneously. And this, unfortunately happened in this case."

*******

At least when the professionals make mistakes, they admit and correct them. If only DS could learn that lesson.

Another good reason why we need the Foreign Service

2012-01-05T14:53:00.000-08:00

Dallas runaway, a U.S. citizen, deported to Colombia

By JASON TRAHAN for The Dallas Morning News
Staff Writer
Published: 03 January 2012 11:52 PM

Relatives of an Oak Cliff girl are trying to figure out how the 15-year-old, born in this country, ended up being sent by authorities to Colombia, where she has been living for months under a false name and is now pregnant.

Jakadrien Larise Turner is in the custody of Colombian authorities, who picked her up last month at the behest of American officials who are now trying to unravel a bureaucratic tangle to get the girl home.

“I am just devastated,” Lorene Turner, the girl’s grandmother, said Tuesday. “No one believed me when I said she was in Colombia. I knew I wasn’t losing my mind. I just wanted to find my grandbaby.”

“ICE takes these allegations very seriously,” said Brian Hale, director of public affairs for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Washington. “At the direction of Department of Homeland Security, ICE is fully and immediately investigating this matter in order to expeditiously determine the facts of this case.”

What is known is that in November 2010, Jakadrien, then 14, ran away from her Oak Cliff home. Her family filed a runaway report with Dallas police and the case remains active, although detectives here have been publicly tight-lipped about it. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children’s website also still lists her as missing.

The girl’s grandmother, 63, said she kept up with the girl’s whereabouts through Facebook profiles, which she used to track her to New Orleans.

“I always thought she was part of that human trafficking,” the grandmother said. She said that she became obsessed with finding the girl.

“I’d sleep a few hours and then get back on the computer,” Turner said. “It was the only way I could see her and know that she was alive.”

In August, according to the grandmother, one of the girl’s Facebook pages featuring images of her was traced to an Internet address in Bogotá.

“She’s a very smart girl,” her grandmother said. “I think she was playing a role to survive.”

The grandmother said authorities later told her that the teen’s international trek began with an arrest in Houston, where the girl had managed to travel for unknown reasons.

In April, police there caught her shoplifting at a mall, a Houston police spokesman told WFAA-TV (Channel 8). The girl had no identification and gave a false name. It’s unclear where she acquired the alias, but it belonged to a Colombian who was in the United States illegally, officials said.

Calls to Houston police by The Dallas Morning News were not returned late Tuesday. It is unclear whether authorities there took any additional steps to verify the girl’s true identity, such as matching her fingerprints.

Houston police told WFAA that following their protocol, they turned the teen, whose alias had her as being in her 20s, over to federal immigration officials as part of the Secure Communities program, which is designed to identify and deport illegal immigrants.

Hale, the ICE official, could not say whether federal officials in Houston checked her fingerprints. The name of the person the girl used as an alias does have a criminal history, and therefore fingerprints on file, but Jakadrien had no arrest record or available fingerprints, which could have raised a red flag about her identity.

Nevertheless, Jakadrien, who did not speak Spanish when she left home, wound up in Colombia, 2,400 miles away from her Oak Cliff residence.

“She had never been on a plane before,” Turner said. “She don’t even have an accent. Why would they think she was from Colombia? She doesn’t look Spanish, so I don’t know how she could be mixed up with someone who is Spanish.”

The grandmother said that she felt relief when she was told by U.S. Embassy officials in Colombia that Jakadrien was safe. But her relief evaporated when she learned what it could take to get the child back to the U.S.

“They said we’d have to pay an airline ticket to get her back, that it’d be a little over $1,000,” Turner said. “It just made me feel sick inside. I’ll have to sell a bedroom suite or something out of the house.”

The grandmother said that she was told her granddaughter was issued papers as if she were a Colombian citizen. Turner also learned, looking at photos of the girl online, that she was pregnant, which she said authorities have since confirmed for her.

The girl’s current Facebook profile, under the name TiKa SoloToolonq (Tika Confero), says she is a native of Barbados living in Colombia. It lists her as being in a relationship with a Cuban man who is also living in Colombia. He could not be reached for comment.

It also said she went to Townview Magnet School in Dallas and has a psychology degree from Texas Southern University. But her grandmother disputed that and said the girl’s last school was Kimball High School in Dallas.

Turner said she is at a loss to explain why her granddaughter ran away in the first place. She said the girl caused no problems at home and, to her knowledge, was content.

But the latest Facebook post from Jakadrien, who sometimes writes in Spanish, seems to indicate that she’s found happiness in her new surroundings as well.

The post, from November, says that she is back “in a relationship with same man I broke up with, lol! I love him dearly tho!!!!”

NORAD is ready to track Santa's flight

2011-12-23T07:58:00.000-08:00

From NORAD's website:

PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. -- The North American Aerospace Defense Command is getting ready to track Santa’s yuletide journey! The NORAD Tracks Santa website, www.noradsanta.org, went live today featuring a Countdown Calendar, a Kid’s Countdown Village complete with holiday games and activities that change daily, and video messages from students and troops from around the world. With the addition of Brazilian Portuguese, the website is now available in eight languages: English, French, Spanish, German, Italian, Japanese, Brazilian Portuguese, and Chinese.

Starting at midnight MST on Dec. 24, website visitors can watch Santa as he makes all the preparations for his flight. Then, at 4 a.m. MST (6 a.m. EST), trackers worldwide can talk to a live phone operator to inquire about Santa’s whereabouts by dialing the toll-free number 1-877-Hi-NORAD (1-877-446-6723) or by sending an email to noradtrackssanta@gmail.com. NORAD’s “Santa Cams” will also stream videos as Santa makes his way over various locations worldwide.

NORAD Tracks Santa has truly become a global experience, delighting generations of families everywhere. It is due, in large part, to the efforts and services of numerous contributors. New to this year’s program are Acuity Scheduling, Big Fish Worldwide, Carousel Industries, the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce Military Affairs Council, General Electric, the National Tree Lighting Ceremony, RadiantBlue Technologies Inc., thunderbaby studios, the U.S. Coast Guard Band, the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy Band, Visionbox, and the West Point Band. Returning collaborators include the Air Force Academy Band, Analytical Graphics Inc., Air Canada, Avaya, Booz Allen Hamilton, Colorado Springs School District 11, the Defense Video & Imagery Distribution System, the Federal Aviation Administration, First Choice Awards & Gifts, Globelink Foreign Language Center, Google, the Marine Toys for Tots Foundation, Meshbox, the Naden Band of the Maritime Forces Pacific, Naturally Santa’s Inc., the Newseum, OnStar, PCI Broadband, the Space Foundation, tw telecom, Verizon and UGroup Media.

It all started in 1955 when a local media ad directed kids to call Santa direct – only the number was misprinted. Instead of reaching Santa, the phone rang through to the Crew Commander on duty at the Continental Air Defense Command Operations Center. Thus began the tradition which NORAD has carried on since it was created in 1958.

“NORAD stands the watch protecting the skies of North America 365 days a year, but on Christmas Eve the children of the world look to NORAD, and our trusted partners, to make sure that Santa is able to complete his mission safely,” said General Charles H. Jacoby, Jr., NORAD Commander.

“This mission is a duty to the children of the world and a privilege we've enjoyed for 56 consecutive years, but the effort could not be carried out without the superb assistance of numerous government and non-government contributors. It is the generosity of these contributors, the hard work of the more than 1,200 volunteers who man the NORAD Tracks Santa Operation Center, and vigilance of the Canadian and U.S. forces who work at NORAD that guarantees the program's success each and every year."

BTW: This is based on Google Earth. If you press the plus sign, you can zoom in close enough to see buildings and such, and maybe catch Santa actually going down a chimney

The Sandusky Case is a Metaphore for DS/PSS

2011-12-14T05:41:00.001-08:00

What do the Bureau of Diplomatic Security's Coordinator for Security Infrastructure and former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky have in common?

They look kind of similar.

What else do they have in common?

They've both been doing bad things that destroy innocent lives, and getting away with them for a long time.

The news this month has brought a number of commentaries and insights into why this is so.

The news has not just brought us a Penn State coach who is a pedophile, and an organization that protected him. It brought us news of similar atrocities in both Orthodox Jewish and Conservative Christian communities in the US. All are shocking, not just for the nature of their crimes, but for the degree to which they have remained hidden for years.

All of these cases share certain traits:

They have all occurred in small communities that have each, in their own way, taken pains to separate themselves from others.

These communities see themselves as elite and special, in some ways better than everybody else.

All see themselves as doing God's work, or at least, serving a greater good - so great a greater good that ordinary rules and laws do not apply to it.

These are communities that put the reputation of the community - the good name of Penn State, or the Lord, or DS, ahead of any individual right. Or wrong.

They have an organizational or community-based claim to integrity, and the ability to accuse others of lacking that integrity. They share a belief that they can strip any accusers of credibility at will.

And they use these ideas to justify to themselves the collective hiding of secrets that they believe could hurt their community - protecting the wrongdoers in their own ranks in the name of avoiding an embarrassment to football, to the University, to the Lord, or to the DS team. "We represent" they tell themselves, " the very nature of GOOD, itself. And we cannot even admit to ourselves, much less to others, that there are any among us who are not absolute in that embodiment."

Or worse: "We do so much good (help so many kids) that a few missteps along the way (a few kids sacrificed as a reward to the do-gooders) is an acceptable price to pay."

One by one, their secrets are coming out.

The victims are confronting their abusers, and the facts are becoming clear.

Under its current Coordinator, DS has routinely abused the security clearance system to punish dissidents, silence critics, settle personal gripes, and limit diversity.

It has gotten away with this abuse because it refuses categorically to subject itself to any oversight or to enact any internal control mechanism to ensure compliance with the government-wide rules followed by every other agency.

Like Penn State, and the various Deacons and Rabbis involved, and the Vatican, for that matter - in earlier allegations of child abuse and pedophilia by priests, the State Department has remained aloof, supporting continued abuse through continued silence. The Department routinely signs off on certifications, including an annual certification by the Secretary, that internal controls are in place and being followed. Meanwhile, two key DS functions - security clearance adjudication and PR investigations, remain entirely free even from rudimentary internal oversight.

Any visa issuance, any travel voucher, any housing assignment, any outgoing telegram, receives more scrutiny and oversight than investigations and adjudications that can end people's careers. These functions are virtually the only functions in all of State's operations that have no - repeat no - mechanism in place to ensure compliance with State's own rules.

That has allowed DS to get away with doing metaphorically to FSOs what Sandusky did physically to children.

But the truth will one day be made clear. And CFSO will continue to work towards that goal until it does.

GAO calls DOD Security Clearance Program a Model for Performance Management

2011-12-12T19:15:00.000-08:00

By Ross Wilkers Dec 12, 2011

The Defense Department‘s program for processing security clearances has seen a marked improvement in the past six years, according to the Government Accountability Office, who in 2005 placed the program on its high-risk list.

In a 63-page report published Friday, GAO examined the role Congress plays in helping federal agencies with their performance. In January, Congress updated the nearly 20-year old Government Performance and Results Modernization Act, which requires more frequent performance reviews and reports.

The updated legislation also requires agencies to, among other things, have four-year strategic plans that coincide with presidential terms and submit reports on unmet performance goals.

GAO said it placed the clearance program on its high-risk list, and then kept it there in 2007 and 2009, because of “delays and problems with the quality of investigations and adjudications.”

Congress intially passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act in 2004, which established a goal of processing the fastest 90 percent of clearance applications within 60 days. Congress then held oversight hearings after GAO placed the clearance program on its high-risk list.

In the Intelligence Authorization Act of fiscal year 2010, Congress required annual reports on the number of contractors and federal employees with clearances and the amount of time it takes to process a clearance.

As a result, GAO said, it took an average of 60 days to process a clearance application in fiscal year 2010, largely meeting the goal set in 2004. GAO also credited the Pentagon with implementing quality assessment tools to measure performance in both investigations and adjudications.

As a result, GAO said it removed the clearance program from its high-risk list this year.

*******

Meanwhile, the two longest-running security clearance cases in the history of the United States continue unaddressed at State.

DS/PSS Continues to Violate Laws Governing Security Clearance Adjudications

2011-12-03T18:10:00.000-08:00

This month's regular article in the Foreign Service Journal, by AFSA's State VP Daniel Hirsch, caught our eye:

Text:

The State Department’s Office of Medical Services has been working steadily to improve its handling of mental health issues, including workplace and trauma-induced stress disorders and substance abuse problems. AFSA has been kept apprised of new programs and improvements, and consulted as they are developed. We are very favorably impressed by both the quality and the intent behind these increasingly excellent programs and urge employees who feel they need help to seek it.

AFSA has been asked to help spread the word within the Foreign Service that using these programs will not affect employees’ security clearances. While we consider that the probable consequences of seeking needed treatment are better than those of not seeking it — and strongly recommend that those who need help take advantage of these outstanding programs — we cannot confidently assert that a security clearance will not be affected. Nobody can.

The governmentwide guidelines quoted in the Foreign Affairs Manual contain a unique mechanism that, used properly, should prevent an unreliable or improper factor from leading to a security clearance revocation. They require that mandatory questions be asked about every factor considered, that all available information be weighed and that information used in a decision is reliable and proper. However, AFSA continues to see and hear of cases indicating that this “whole person analysis” is not always conducted or is based on highly questionable information, including cases involving Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder symptoms and substance abuse.

For years, AFSA has recommended the adoption of basic management controls that would indicate whether “adverse action” decisions by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security’s clearance office complied with State’s own FAM regulations and governmentwide procedures. These controls could serve not only as reference tools for attorneys working on the cases of the employees involved, but would also allow the department — and AFSA — to certify that issues like PTSD treatment were not leading to clearance revocations. To our knowledge, such controls have not been implemented.

Without procedures in place to ensure compliance with regulations, adverse action security clearance adjudications are, for all intents and purposes, unregulated.

Currently, there is no mechanism in place to ensure that mental health treatment, or any other prohibited factor, will not improperly form the sole basis for a security clearance revocation at State.

In the absence of management controls to demonstrate compliance with its own rules and promises, the Department relies on the memory of the adjudicators, and points to a September 2006 Office of the Inspector General Review (ISP-I-06-43). That review looked only at closed files already massaged by lawyers and purged of notes, at theoretical timelines, and at whether or not rules were actually on the books. It ignored every lead provided by AFSA, and did not involve any of the procedures described by the basic governmentwide recommendations for quality control in security clearance cases.

An investigation into the conduct of that inspection by the President's Council on Integrity & Efficiency — which investigates claims of wrongdoing by inspectors general — ended with the untimely departure of the State Department inspector general who ordered it.

AFSA would like to see the following controls implemented:

• DS/PSS should use the same standard used by the Office of Personnel Management and other agencies to verify the reliability of information used in a clearance determination. That standard requires that any allegation be supported by at least one piece of evidence that a reasonable person would consider plausible, and that information which does not pass a “reasonable person test” not be used as the basis for a revocation.

• DS/PSS should use a form or template to demonstrate that the whole-person evaluation described above was performed. This would list the required questions, indicate which information in DS’s files was applied to those questions, and summarize the answer to each question.

Where an initial investigation did not obtain information needed to address all of the mandatory whole-person questions, additional investigation or interviews for the sole purpose of answering those questions should be performed.

Documenting a whole-person review would make the basis of any decision clearer and more verifiable.

• The FAM should include the Quality Control mechanisms described in government-wide directives and used by other agencies.

• There should be a clarification of procedures in the FAM, to make all involved understand that the purpose of the exercise is a fair and complete evaluation, not merely a successful adverse outcome.

All of these suggestions are based on governmentwide guidelines and are used by other agencies that conduct security clearance adjudications. Implementing them would go a long way towards enabling AFSA (or anyone) to say with certainty that rules are being followed, and whether employees who need help can get that help without fear of losing their livelihood.

End text.

CFSO would put it more simply: In the majority of cases we have seen, DS has performed no whole-person review at all. That failure to perform the most basic step in a security clearance adjudication violates federal laws and Department regulations. The reason DS refuses to put management controls into place is that those controls would prove routine violations of law by DS/PSS; which are, in turn, routinely rubber-stamped up the chain of command.

Like the OIG report cooked up between IG Cookie Krongard and former DS Assistant Secretary Richard Griffin - both of whom resigned in disgrace following numerous revelations of wrongdoing - these routine violations of law are performed in order to allow State to continue using this process as a back-door mechanism to fire - or harass into resignation - employees who cannot legally be fired by any other mechanism. By definition those are people who have committed no wrongdoing, and perform their work satisfactorally - but who somebody in power - or in DS - wants to see gone. This is a prohibited personnel practice, which internal controls and oversight would force State to abandon.

CFSO believes that part of the problem lies in the comparatively small size of DS/PSS, the office in question; and in the fact that, staffed as it is with CS employees, the turnover in that office is low. The small size means that a handful of people wield inordinate control, and the low turnover means that the bad habits instilled in that staff have become ingrained. It also reduces the willingness of DS/PSS staff members to refuse unlawful orders.

In larger operations, like that of OPM and DOD, size itself ensures greater objectivity. There are thousands of adjudicators, hundreds of supervisors, and the operation is performed independently of internal agency politics.

Moreover, greater diversity within DOD's and OPM's adjudicative staffs help overcome the bias that is exhibited all too frequently in DS/PSS cases. For this reason, we urge Congress to consider removing this authority from State, and transferring it to OPM - where it can be performed fairly and to a government-wide standard.

The two longest-running security clearance suspensions in the history of the U.S. Government (both well into their ninth years) are both current Department of State cases, as is a case generally considered to be among the most obvious examples of antisemitism in a recent security clearance matter.

Whatever nonsense DS spouts about improvements or integrity, those facts alone should give one pause.

Whistleblower Franz Gayl gets his job back

2011-11-27T18:49:00.000-08:00

By Jason Ukman - Associated Press

The Marine Corps has given a well-known whistleblower his security clearance — and his job — back.

Franz Gayl, the civilian adviser who in 2007 criticized military leaders for not fielding heavily armed vehicles known as MRAPs in Iraq, was accused about a year ago of using an unauthorized flash drive in a secure computer. His security clearance was stripped, he was put on leave and, this fall, he was threatened with indefinite suspension.

Gayl denied the accusations and, with the backing of various advocacy groups, appealed, saying he had become the subject of reprisals.

This week, the Office of Special Counsel, the federal agency that protects whistleblowers, said the Navy, after a review, had relented on the threat of indefinite suspension and reinstated Gayl’s clearance, allowing him to go back to work.

In a statement, Gayl said he was “committed as ever to return to my Marine Corps to work hard in support of all Marines in the capacities for which I was hired.”

A senior science adviser for the Marines, Gayl’s persistent push for MRAPs (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles) at the height of the Iraq war raised hackles at the Pentagon. He spoke out publicly, and described the military’s delay in making a priority of the acquisition of the vehicles as “criminal negligence,” given their proven ability to protect troops against improvised explosive devices.

Former defense secretary Robert M. Gates later cited media reports about the effectiveness of the vehicles, largely based on Gayl’s advocacy, in explaining his decision to accelerate production.

Gayl has become something of a hero in the whistleblowing community, and advocates on Wednesday described his reinstatement as a clear-cut victory.

“As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates noted, thousands and thousands of Marines owe their lives and safety to the brave actions of Franz Gayl,” Danielle Brian, the executive director of the the Project on Government Oversight, one of the groups that backed Gayl, said in a statement. “What Gayl has endured is a gross injustice.”

The Marines have declined to comment directly on Gayl’s case, citing privacy laws and regulations.

********

Suspension of security clearances is the number-one method used by Federal agencies to retaliate against whistleblowers and punish dissenters.

The two longest-running security clearance suspensions since current procedures were put into place during WWII are both current State Department cases. Both are nearing the nine-year mark, with no end in sight.

Happy Thanksgiving!

2011-11-24T11:08:00.000-08:00

Today is the most American day of the year.

The 4th of July celebrates the independence of our country from the British. Thanksgiving celebrates who we are. It is the closest thing America has to a traditional folk festival - it is our Oktoberfest, our Tomatina, our Highland Games. No matter where you go in the world, even if people don't know why, they know that Americans eat Turkey on Thanksgiving.

It is the only national spiritual holiday to originate in America. And the one which most stuck in my memory of a childhood spent at embassies overseas. Before the civil rights movement brought us non-demoniational prayer in public events, it was the only day when a Jewish American, a Christian American, A Moslem American, and every American, could share what is, in most religions, the most basic of all prayers: a prayer of thanks.

And the one day when nearly every person in America, no matter what their ethnic or national origin, will sit down to nearly exactly the same meal. The same experience.
The same post turkey stupor.

I would write more, but you see where I am going with this. And i am off to the table, to join America in its feast.

Utah man receives war medals 66 years late

2011-11-13T18:52:00.000-08:00

By JOSH LOFTIN - Associated Press

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — More than six decades after being freed from a Japanese prisoner of war camp, a Utah veteran was compelled to relive the horrors and triumphs of his World War II experience this month when he received a mysterious package containing seven military medals, including the Distinguished Service Cross and Silver Star.

The medals have become a source of pride for retired Army Capt. Tom Harrison, 93, since they arrived in a box with nothing more than a packing slip from a logistics center in Philadelphia on Nov. 4, which happened to be his 65th wedding anniversary. But they have also refreshed painful memories of the Bataan Death March, POW camps and the comrades he lost during the war or in the years since.

Harrison can talk at length about his time as a soldier in the Philippines. But he talks about it much like he talks about golf, focusing on small details — be it the flight of a well-hit tee shot or the day he met Gen. Douglass MacArthur — and the people that surrounded him. He doesn't dwell on his own valor.

After the bombing of Pearl Harbor forced the United States into the war, Harrison spent months fighting the Japanese before American and Filipino troops surrendered at the Battle of Bataan. He eventually survived, without lasting physical injury, the Bataan Death March and three-plus years as a Japanese prisoner of war.

"It brings back memories, but also makes you feel like somebody appreciated your service," Harrison said while sitting in his living room with the medals. "It also reminds me of the people I served with in the Philippines. I'm the only survivor from my unit now. I've lost most of my friends."

About 20 years ago, Harrison "shook the cobwebs loose" on his war experiences by writing a book called "Survivor." That has made it easier — but not easy — to talk about the suffering, the disease and the starvation that defined the years of imprisonment.

The medals prompted new interest from his family about the war, Harrison said, although he is reluctant to talk at length about his personal experiences. Instead, Harrison holds up a Presidential Unit Citation as one medal he was particularly pleased to receive because it recognized the soldiers he served with and trained.

His leadership and bravery earned him two of the Army's highest honors, the Distinguished Service Cross and Silver Star. While those medals are only given for extraordinary acts of selfless valor, Harrison said he doesn't remember — or is reluctant to explain — what he did to earn them.

"I don't like to talk about what makes a hero. It's not something I like to broadcast," Harrison said. "But my kids are impressed, and my grandkids say they (the medals) are 'awesome.'"

It hasn't been uncommon for World War II veterans to receive medals decades later because relatively few were actually given out during or immediately following the war, said retired 1st Sgt. Dennis Meeks, a customer service manager for the South Carolina-based Medals of America, a company that works with military officials to distribute medals to veterans.

Instead, veterans were given ribbons because precious metals such as bronze and silver were needed for more pressing wartime needs, Meeks said. Additionally, a number of medals were granted in the years after service members were discharged.

That means many veterans needed to apply to receive their medals, and a strong majority of them did not.

"The Greatest Generation just put this war to the side when it ended," Meeks said. "They had other concerns, like starting families and careers."

As for Harrison's medals, however, it remains a mystery as to who actually requested them. His son, Peter Harrison, said nobody in the family has taken credit for doing it, although they have celebrated the medals with a family dinner.

Army officials didn't respond to email requests for comment and weren't available on Friday because of the Veterans Day federal holiday.

Eventually, the medals will be displayed in Tom Harrison's modestly decorated but spacious home, which is about 50 yards from the 7th hole of the Salt Lake Country Club. They will serve as reminders of a well-lived life for him, his wife and his family.

"They add excitement to an otherwise sedentary life," he said. "I can still remember it all, even after such a long time. I don't like to bring it up, but I'll talk about it if asked."

Disaster waiting to happen? Oh, wait! It did!

2011-11-09T04:34:00.000-08:00

We have said before that DS's growth (and the percentage of new and poorly trained DS agents) has long been a part of the security clearance problem; and a disaster waiting to happen in other areas. Now Adrienne LaFrance of Honolulu Civic Beat writes this:

WASHINGTON — The federal bureau that employs a 27-year-old special agent charged in a fatal shooting at a Waikiki McDonald's has been plagued with management problems and "experience gaps," according to a 2009 federal oversight report.

The Bureau of Diplomatic Security is the law enforcement and security arm of the U.S. State Department, and its mission is to provide a safe and secure environment for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy worldwide.

But a November 2009 report by the Government Accountability Office described a rapidly growing bureau that has been "hindered by staffing shortages," and has struggled to find "enough qualified candidates."

The result: "Inexperienced staff" who potentially "compromise diplomatic readiness."

A public affairs specialist with the bureau did not immediately respond to Civil Beat's inquiries about murder suspect Christopher Deedy's employment experience with Diplomatic Security.

Deedy is a special agent with the bureau, and was in Honolulu to protect foreign dignitaries during APEC when he was arrested and charged with second-degree murder. According to the GAO report, the bureau employs about 1,585 special agents, who are considered the lead operational employees. The overall Diplomatic Security workforce is about 40,000, including contractors.

"Thirty-four percent of Diplomatic Security’s positions (not including those in Baghdad) are filled with officers below the position’s grade," the 2009 report says. "Diplomatic Security officials stated that these gaps between the experience level required by the position and the experience level of the employee assigned can affect the quality of Diplomatic Security’s work."

The report says that several staffers said that they "did not feel adequately prepared for their job."

Concerns about the adequacy of Diplomatic Security training came up again in June 2011 testimony by the GAO's International Affairs and Trade director, Jess Ford.

Ford said that Diplomatic Security has "some weaknesses" when it comes to ensuring "training requirements are met." One major weakness: Diplomatic Security Training Centers "do not have the capability to track whether personnel have completed all required training."

"Agents are required to pass a firearms requalification every 4 months when they are posted domestically and once a year if posted overseas," Ford wrote in testimony. "However, (training center) systems do not effectively track this requirement, and it is the agents’ and supervisors’ responsibility to keep track of when their next requalification is due."

Ford also testified that the bureau's training centers "cannot say for certain which of its personnel have accessed the training" that is made available to them.

It is not yet clear what level of training Deedy would have been required to complete in order to become a special agent. GAO pointed out that just 3 percent of the bureau's budget went toward training in 2008.

Part of the strain comes from a huge uptick in staffers at the bureau in the past decade. Diplomatic Security funding increased by about $200 million and personnel doubled between 1998 and 2008, according to the 2009 report.

The bureau's budget grew to $1.8 billion by 2008, which GAO attributed to requirements associated with the U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. But those operations have strained the bureau's "ability to provide security" elsewhere, GAO reports.

"As a result of the low level of available staff, Diplomatic Security reported that many posts go for years without updating their security training..." according to the June 2011 report. "In 2005, Diplomatic Security identified the need for a training float — additional staff that would allow the bureau to fill critical positions and still allow staff time for critical job training — but the bureau has not been able to implement one."

The report also found that the bureau opted to shorten basic training requirements as a way to get more new hires. The GAO recommended executive action that would enable the bureau to begin "operating programs with experienced staff, at the commensurate grade levels."

"Although some planning initiatives have been undertaken, neither State’s departmental strategic plan nor Diplomatic Security’s bureau strategic plan specifically address the bureau’s resource needs or its management challenges," the report says. "Therefore, Diplomatic Security’s tremendous growth over the last 10 years has been in reaction to events and has not benefited from adequate strategic guidance."

Yipiay Kayay M%#h#r F*@ker!

2011-11-08T07:42:00.000-08:00

We've said it before and we'll say it again: "Security badly done is bad security."

The DS mentality that routinely allows those who break rules in the process of "getting their man(or woman)," to do so without repercussions, not only allows DS to strip innocent FSOs of their security clearances without due process, but also allows the "strippers" of those clearances to rise through the system unchecked.

Case in point: PB. A former special agent in the office of Professional Responsibility. While in that office, PB had a reputation as a cowboy who routinely lied, cheated and stole his way into achieving - by any means necessary - a "successful adverse outcome" for his target. CFSO complained about him to the OIG. Others complained as well. He was the subject of a complaint written to the FSJ by an outsider so outraged that he not only complained to DS, but also felt the need to write (the letter of complaint to DS can be seen here).

DS did nothing.

Where is PB now?

He's the yipiayay kayay cowboy in charge of State's Bureau of Diplomatic Security's Office of Dignitary Protection.

If that office rings a bell, it's because its been in the news.

One of PB's subordinates shot and killed a man in a McDonalds in Hawaii the other day.

We don't know all the facts. It could have been self defense. The man might have been reaching for his burger.

But we do know this.

The men and women of Dignitary Protection should be (and in many cases are) the best of the best.

They should have the discipline necessary to avoid killing civilians, even in self defense. That's what flesh wounds are for.

And rules.

And oversight.

But when you have cowboys as Office Directors - and DS higher-ups who shrug their shoulders at rule-breaking as long as the desired results are obtained - they may not be conveying that kind of restraint to their troops.

That is security badly done.

Japanese-American Heros Honored

2011-11-02T19:43:00.000-07:00

Washington (CNN) -- Nearly seven decades after the attack on Pearl Harbor, thousands of Japanese-American World War II veterans were honored Wednesday at a Congressional Gold Medal ceremony held at the U.S Capitol.

In a rare moment of unity, Democratic and Republican Senators and members of the House of Representatives praised Japanese-American soldiers of the 442nd Regiment Combat Team and the 100th Infantry Battalion and veterans of the Military Intelligence Service for their contribution to the war.

"Aloha and welcome," said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, at the start of the invitation-only event inside the Capitol's Emancipation Hall. About 1,000 people witnessed the ceremony in person, including several aging Japanese-American honorees and their families who waited years for this day.

When World War II began, Japanese-Americans were not invited to serve. Two years into the war, the U.S. military created an all-volunteer Japanese-American combat team who soon adopted the slogan "Go for Broke." Most of its roughly 20,000 members were born in the United States to Japanese-born parents. They went on to become one of the most decorated American units in the war, yet when they returned home, many faced discrimination.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said Wednesday's "long-overdue honor" is now "bestowed on American heroes." "You fought not only the enemy, you fought prejudice, and you won," Pelosi said.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, said the ceremony "demonstrates the greatest of America, a nation that recognized that it made mistakes, corrected them and moved on to become a stronger country and we are proud to defend the freedoms and ideals that this country represents."

President Barack Obama signed legislation last year approving the creation of a Congressional Gold Medal for Japanese-American veterans.

The medal states in part, "The United States remains forever indebted to the bravery, valor, and dedication to country that these men faced while fighting a two-front battle of discrimination at home and fascism abroad. Their commitment demonstrates a highly uncommon and commendable sense of patriotism and honor."

One recipient, Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, received a standing ovation when he rose to speak at the event. He said the road to recognizing Japanese-American World War II veterans "has been a long journey, but a glorious one. I'm certain those who are resting in cemeteries are pleased with this day."

Inouye, who lost his right arm while leading his men of the 2nd Battalion, 442nd Combat Team in an attack against German machine gun nests in Italy, received the Medal of Honor 55 years later, in 1999.

George Otsuki, now almost 92, who was a sergeant serving in the 442nd, called the recognition "wonderful."

"The public found out what we did," he told CNN, "and that's the main thing."

Frank Mizufuka, who was born in Los Angeles and served as a sergeant in the same unit, said "it was a once-in-a-lifetime, extraordinary event."

Mizufuka, 89, said he spent a year in a hospital recovering from a chest wound he received in combat.

**************

CFSO Note: America is a land of immigrants. Even in times of war, immigrants for "enemy" lands can still be, and prove themselves, loyal Americans.

Sadly, in today's Department of State, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security still has not grasped the concept.

Ye Best Start Believin in Ghost Stories!

2011-10-30T05:06:00.001-07:00

I was listening to a radio story describing a haunted house in Washington DC, and I thought that this Halloween, it might be fun to challenge Foreign Service bloggers to share ghost stories, with the caveat that they must be true, and must involve either the personal experience of the blogger, or of another Foreign Service member.

At the risk of sounding like a kook, I'll start.

My story begins on an ordinary night, in an ordinary apartment, at an American consulate in India.

The apartment was old, and very nice. It was built into a mansion that that had once housed a noble Indian family, and that had been divided into three apartments, and occupied as such, long before it was sold to the American government.

The apartment was large, and the bedroom suite had an anteroom, so there were two sets of interior doors to close at night. And being something of an obsessive/compulsive security freak (years of living in houses with safe havens), I routinely and ritually closed both sets of doors each night before retiring.

On this night, which was no different from any other night, I did the same.

It was a weeknight, and not special in any way. I had not been drinking, or working late. My sleep was not troubled, or fitful, and my dreams were not unpleasant. It was not raining, or storming, nor was it a holiday of any sort. An ordinary night in an ordinary city of 21 million people, in India.

There was a crash! And I woke up enough to hear the outer door to the anteroom jiggling, then slowly creaking open. I stared past my feet at the inner door, which likewise shook momentarily then opened.

There was a figure, hand on the door, entering my room!

A figure composed entirely of greenish-yellow light.

A lady, in a sari, with long hair, and, I thought, a rather shapely form and not at all unattractive in a green-light-ghost sort of way (hey, I'm not the dead one here!), was advancing quickly towards my bed.

Where I lay, lest it needs to be said, wide-eyed and cowering.

She paused at the door, then came slowly over towards the bed. There was a musty smell, and she began to lean forward over me.

Whereupon, I was told later, I screamed loudly enough to wake both sets of neighbors, and my wife - who turned on the light in time to see:

Nothing.

Just me, flailing about like a ninny, squealing like a pig.

"Did you see that!" I screamed.

"What?"

That! There was a lady in green light and she came in and leaned over me and...."

"Go back to sleep," says the wife. You were dreaming.

"But the doors are open!" says I. And they were.

"You must have forgotten to close them."

I did not sleep.

And the next day, when I showed her the knickknacks that had fallen to the floor from the coffee table (causing the crash, no doubt, that had awoken me), the wife blamed the wind.

Needless to say, I was a shaken and tired at my morning staff meeting,and it showed.

And after the meeting, the FSN RSO assistant noted that the guards had heard a scream from my apartment, but, it having been a "one-of" had decided not to disturb me. He hoped everything was alright.

So I told him. And he listened. And when I had finished, he did not call me a kook or tell me it had been a dream. Rather he said, "you saw the lady in white."

"Come with me," he said, and he took me to his office and took some guard logs off the shelf.

"Every few months, for as long as we have had those apartments, the guards have reported a young lady, dressed in a sari, floating around the grounds. We call her the lady in white, because she appears to be made out of light, and it's usually white, but that must be who you saw."

"See here" he said pointing a guard log: "She was in the garden walking through the flower beds."

"And here," pointing to another entry, "crossing the lawn."

"We think she must be someone who died in the house, but we have no idea who it might be. It's a very old house."

He showed me a good dozen entries, and assured me there were more, and that others had seen her too.

"On the other hand, she doesn't normally take an interest in people," he said. "She normally doesn't seem to notice when we are there. You must have sparked her curiosity."

Maybe I did. Maybe my rakish good looks make me attractive to young lady ghosts. But I guess she didn't like screamers. Because in another year and a half in that flat, I never saw her again.

That's my story.

What's yours?

ARMY SEEKS TO PROMOTE CULTURAL LITERACY

2011-10-29T17:02:00.000-07:00

From Secrecy News by Steven Aftergood:

A new U.S. Army publication (pdf) invites American soldiers to ponder the role of cultural factors in shaping perception and action.

Analyze this statement: 'The English drive on the wrong side of the road.'

In some Islamic countries women wear burkas. Who is advantaged and who is disadvantaged by this?

Why do you think major religious traditions tend to have a plain version and a more mystical version?

What do television commercials tell us about American culture?

This is not a purely theoretical exercise, but is intended to support the Army's counterinsurgency role in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

"Soldiers must understand how vital culture is in accomplishing today's missions," the new publication says. "Military personnel who have a superficial or even distorted picture of a host culture make enemies for the United States. Each Soldier must be a culturally literate ambassador, aware and observant of local cultural beliefs, values, behaviors and norms." See "Culture Cards: Afghanistan & Islamic Culture," U.S. Army, September 2011.

Write or wrong?

2011-10-19T12:20:00.000-07:00

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

That is a phrase routinely used by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security to support the suspension and revocation of security clearances of Foreign Service Officers, based on unsubstantiated allegations, in violation of government-wide guidelines.

We hate that phrase. And usually, it is untrue.

So we really get unhappy when someone decides to try to prove it true. As appears to be happening now.

We have been following with interest the blogs and descriptions of the case of Peter Van Buren's book, and we must say, we are becoming increasingly disappointed.

When the case first arose, it seemed open and shut. Mr. Van Buren had written a book, sought Department of State approval, complied with the written procedures, then, after there was no objection during the mandatory time period, submitted it for publication. Months later, after the book was published, the State Department had decided to object, and had contacted the publisher behind Mr. Van Buren's back to accuse him of wrongdoing and ask that the book be recalled.

The State Department clearly looked to be in the wrong. The case raised a number of important issues about how the system worked - or did not. Van Buren looked like a person who had been wronged, and against whom there was a risk of illegal retaliation.

Had the story ended there, and his clearance been suspended, there would have been no doubt. He would have clearly been the victim of retaliation. Which is why, had the matter ended there, there would have been little likelihood of his clearance being pulled, or even, really, a serious disciplinary action.

Since the story broke, however, Mr. Van Buren has been blogging up a storm, using the media exposure to flog his book. And seizing, it would appear, every opportunity to, at the very least, push further the edge of the already-bursting envelope.

In doing so, he has raised real questions about his behavior and suitability, that have nothing to do with his book.

He has blogged, for example, about his improper refusal to participate fully in the investigation of which he is the subject, and about his refusal to identify his contacts - a requirement of all holders of government clearances.

And he has, apparently knowingly, published links to information which the government, for smart reasons or stupid ones, has told employees not to access.

And about how, now that his clearance is suspended (temporarily - while under investigation), he is will be frequenting that and other sites that publish classified materials.

He's like Lindsay friggin Lohan, with fewer redeeming qualities.

In short, he has taken what could have been a clear-cut case of write and wrong (get it?) and turned it into a really good case for the supporters of DS rule-breaking to use to say: "Where there's smoke there's fire." With him fanning his own fires as a means to sell a book.

We may have meant well, in Iraq, but we are not at all sure that Mr. Van Buren means well. And his posturing does not help those of us who are trying to fix systems that truly are broken, in the way DS handles security clearances.

From CFSO

2011-10-02T18:55:00.001-07:00

Concerned Foreign Service Officers was recently mentioned in an article by Matthew Nasuti, a disgruntled former employee and dedicated critic of the U.S. Department of State. We wish to be clear that we do not condone or support the work of Mr. Nasuti, which appears to be aimed at conducting a broad-scale negative propaganda campaign against the State Department and the U.S. Government.

CFSO has legitimate complaints about problems in the conduct of security clearance adjudications by the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, and about the lack of oversight that allows these problems to continue. However, our focus is narrow and limited to that area only.

The State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security has numerous difficult tasks to perform, and performs most of them extremely well. Most DS employees are dedicated and competent, performing necessary work under difficult and often dangerous circumstances.

CFSO seeks by its work to improve one function among many dozens that DS performs. We greatly lament the mischaracterization of our organization's work for propaganda purposes, and denounce Mr. Nasuti's efforts to tarnish the image of the State Department as a whole.

Muslim Advocates Calls for Investigation of FBI Training

2011-09-17T17:51:00.000-07:00

Saturday, September 17, 2011
By William Fisher
A prominent Muslim organization is calling for an immediate investigation into the FBI's use of “grossly inaccurate and bigoted trainers and training materials for its counterterrorism agents and other law enforcement.”

Muslim Advocates filed the complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General.

The organization said that in materials disclosed to Wired magazine, “FBI agents were presented with slides and materials that, for example, stated that zakat, or charity, given by Muslims, is a ‘funding mechanism for combat’," and that the Prophet Muhammad was a "cult leader."

The group said this was “just the latest in a string of reports that the FBI has been using inflammatory and woefully inaccurate materials to train its agents across the country.”

The FBI has thus far either denied that the materials are being used or defended the use of bigots as welcoming a range of opinions. But Muslim Advocates said, “One cannot reasonably imagine the FBI defending the use of David Duke or a white supremacist leader as a trainer”

It added that “an investigation by the government watchdog overseeing the FBI is long overdue. That is why Muslim Advocates today filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Inspector General is tasked with investigating allegations of misconduct by employees of the Justice Department, including the FBI.”

The disclosures regarding the FBI training materials and instructors were unearthed by a journalist, Spencer Ackerman of Wired. He presented his material on a popular television program, The Rachel Maddow Show, on MSNBC, last Thursday. The content was based upon Ackerman’s acquisition of FBI counterterrorism training documents.

Ackerman writes in Wired, “The FBI is teaching its counterterrorism agents that ‘main stream’ [sic] American Muslims are likely to be terrorist sympathizers; that the Prophet Mohammed was a “cult leader”; and that the Islamic practice of giving charity is no more than a “funding mechanism for combat.”

At the Bureau’s training ground in Quantico, Virginia, he adds, “agents are shown a chart contending that the more ‘devout’ a Muslim, the more likely he is to be ‘violent’,” he said.

Maddow said that WorldNetDaily, a right-wing Internet-based journal, is providing some of the trainers who are working with the FBI. The publication has been an outspoken representative of Islamophobia.

Maddow described their FBI mission as essentially “trying to make a buck off the more gullible elements of the conservative base.”

She pointed to some of the group’s previous projects, such as their reports on the need to wage a war on Islam itself rather than on terrorists acting under their own fundamentalist interpretations.

Her guest, Wired‘s Spencer Ackerman, charged that the person behind WorldNetDaily’s reports regarding Islam has been instructing FBI counter-terrorism officers. Ackerman explains:

“What they [the FBI] did tell me is that this was training that agents who had two to three years of experience in counter-terrorism have gone through. And they said to me that this is just the opinions of this one particular author…We’re still trying to find out the extent of this training.”

When asked why someone within or close to the FBI is now offering him this information, Ackerman explained that the training has been “deeply upsetting” to counter-terrorism experts inside the FBI concerned over civil rights of Muslim Americans and the impression this sort of attitude might have on their impression of those meant to protect them and all law-abiding Americans.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) commented: “Seeing the materials FBI agents are being trained with certainly helps explain why we’ve seen so many inappropriate FBI surveillance operations broadly targeting the Muslim-American community, from infiltrating mosques with agents provocateur to racial- and ethnic-mapping programs,” Mike German, a former FBI agent now with the American Civil Liberties Union, tells Danger Room after being shown the documents. ”Biased police training can only result in biased policing.”

In another case, Muslim Advocates has filed a Friend of the Court brief supporting compensation in a computer destruction case. It is supporting Majd Kam-Almaz’s lawsuit, which demands compensation for the destruction of his laptop by the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Kam-Almaz, a U.S. citizen, works in the area of disaster relief services, and had his business computer seized at Dulles Airport during a trip returning home from work travel.

His computer was destroyed while in the possession of border agents, causing him to lose contracts of substantial value.

Muslim Advocates’ claims that travelers across the country have experienced similar improper searches and questioning at the border, including in some cases the destruction of their cell phones and laptops. Their amicus brief argues that individuals whose electronic devices are damaged or destroyed while in the possession of government agents should be compensated for their loss.

Are we there yet?

2011-09-13T18:03:00.000-07:00

September 11 was unquestionably a horror. It was a deeply tragic and shocking event, both for the families of the thousands who died or were injured, and for our country. It deserves to be remembered. And it deserves to be forgoten.

Ten years after 9/11, America is reeling: from the financial effects of two costly and never-funded wars, from the steady deterioration of our personal freedoms, and from the loss of hegemony that our own abuse of our victim status has catalysed.

Bin Laden is dead, and those who regard history as if it were some sort of high-stakes sporting event count that as a victory for our team. That thousands of Americans are unemployed, the Chinese now own trillions of our debt, and the land of the free is now the land of the Patriot Act, well, that's all his fault, I guess.

In Afghanistan, our embassy is being attacked. And in Detroit, some woman from Ohio whose only guilt lies in her middle-eastern appearance, was handcuffed and strip searched because the fact that she sat next to other swarthy-skinned people, who spent too long in the bathroom, made the plane crew nervous.

We REALLY need to reassess our approach to security.

It is NOT about superior firepower, or daily proclamations of our national state of risk, or arresting plane passengers for staying too long in the bathroom.

It is about protecting who we are. Or at least, who we were, before September 11.

Hypocrites!

2011-08-29T16:46:00.001-07:00

An article by Chris Moody in the Ticket today asks "Are Members of Congress paid enough?"

It notes that "A few lawmakers have suggested in recent months that despite a $174,000 annual salary, generous health care and pensions, and perks for things like travel and mail, being one of the elite 435 ain't always what it's cracked up to be. And when you calculate the hours they put in, the pay isn't stellar either, they say.

The Florida Capital News reported last week on a speech Steve Southerland, a Republican representative, gave to a retirement community in Tallahassee in which he complained about some of the parts of his new job:

"He said his $174,000 salary is not so much, considering the hours a member of the House puts in, and that he had to sever ties with his family business in Panama City. Southerland also said there are no instant pensions or free health insurance, as some of his constituents often ask him about in Congress.

"'And by the way, did I mention? They're shooting at us. There is law-enforcement security in this room right now, and why is that?" Southerland told about 125 people in an auditorium at the Westminster Oaks retirement community. "If you think this job pays too much, with those kinds of risks and cutting me off from my family business, I'll just tell you: This job don't mean that much to me. I had a good life in Panama City.'

"...He added that 'if you took the hours that I work and divided it into my pay,' the $174,000 salary would not seem so high."

Southerland, a freshman, ran a family funeral home business in Panama City and earned about $90,000 before joining Congress in January.

His sentiments were not unlike those expressed by Sean Duffy, a Republican representative from Wisconsin, when he said in March it was a "struggle" to pay his mortgage and student loans with his congressional salary. "At this point, I'm not living high on the hog," Duffy, a father of six, said. (Compared to his colleagues, Duffy is one of the least wealthy members of Congress.)

At the height of the debate over a possible government shutdown last spring, Linda Sánchez, a Democratic representative from California, said during an MSNBC interview that she was living "paycheck to paycheck" on her congressional salary. And she wasn't the only one. Renee Ellmers, a Republican representative from North Carolina, was asked if she would forgo her pay in the case of a shutdown. Ellmers declined, saying, "I need my paycheck."

End quotes.

Wow! Welcome to OUR world, Congresspeople!

Left the family home and business behind? We do that!

No instant pensions or free health insurance? Yup, us too!

Long hours? Most Foreign Service members work 12 hour days, six days a week, or more. Sometimes much more.

Struggling to pay a mortgage and student loans? Us again!

Getting shot at? Hello!!! American Embassies and diplomats have been targets for years, and many of us work in some of the most dangerous places on earth.

But while these freshman Congresspeople complain about their 174,000 dollar a year salaries, they want to cut our (lower) salaries by 16 percent!

Forgive me if my heart doesn't bleed for their plight.

Mission Accomplished!

2011-08-05T19:04:00.000-07:00

Way back in the dark ages, when I joined Federal Service, service to the American people was viewed as honorable. So honorable, in fact, that most people who joined the State Department when I did voluntarily accepted lower salaries than they could have made in private industry, and some, who had private industry experience, actually took pay cuts to join up and serve their country.

Most of my colleagues, of my age group, would rather have been patriots than rich.

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!

In subsequent years, that sentiment wained. The generations that entered the workforce in the late 1980s and 90s, increasingly were more interested in earning money than in serving their country.

Then came 9/11, and a new crop of American kids, their patriotism fired up by the outrageous attack against our homeland, joined the government in droves. Their goal: to protect America, to express their patriotism, to give rather than to take.

In the years between 2000 and now, the executive branch civilian workforce has grown by over 350,000 employees, and the government has provided employment to another 3 million more working as contractors supplying goods and services in support of America's defense and the wellbeing of America's citizens.

And those guys are patriots too. A new wave of patriots, whose priorities involve putting their nation ahead of their own interests.

And now there is the Tea Party, and the hard Right Republicans with whom they share the self-acclaimed title: Real America. The Children of Momma Grizzly. And Real America hates government.

Real America, which claims political and moral descent from the very founders of our country, those guys who pound their drums proclaiming American values, views anyone who actually serves their country as a parasite.

We live, they say, off Real Americans' taxes. Our salaries for serving their interests, are paid for by them.

Never mind that we pay taxes too.

Never mind that, in addition to paying taxes, just like they do, we actually dedicate our lives to serving our country.

Never mind that the total salary cost of the total Federal workforce costs each individual taxpayer about a dollar a month.

We are using their money - money that they could be spending to buy flags for their pickup trucks and "Don't Tread on Me" bumper stickers and polymer sculptures of bald eagles and Statue-of-Liberty desk lamps - for things like protecting their security, building their highways, preserving their natural heritage, and keeping them healthy.

And they don't like that.

Yesterday, Sens. Orrin Hatch and Tom Coburn (R-Ok.) introduced legislation that would freeze Federal salaries for another three years, making a total of five years during which Federal salaries will lose ground against the private sector.

Five years duing which anyone who serves the American people will be given the message: the American people (or at least those who claim to be the real ones) don't want your service.

Five years during which it will become increasingly more desirable to get jobs based on taking, than on jobs based on giving.

During which all those young people who joined up to serve their country will be asking themselves: "why?"

The Federal Workforce Reduction and Reform Act of 2011 says:

"Mission accomplished. 9/11 is behind us! Patriots go home!"

Get a real job and stop taking money for serving your country!

Class of 2014, remember this if ever America needs something from you.

Ask not what you can do for your country! Make money, instead.

A blow against over-classification?

2011-08-04T19:30:00.000-07:00

From the August 1 2011 NYT, by Scott Shane:

WASHINGTON — In a rare symbolic strike against unnecessary government secrecy, the government’s former classification czar has filed a formal complaint against the National Security Agency and Justice Department seeking punishment of officials who classified a document that he says contained no secrets.

The former official, J. William Leonard, said that in his 34 years with the federal government he saw routine overclassification of government documents, rarely saw it challenged and never saw it punished. But now that the Justice Department is seeking to imprison government workers for leaking classified information to the news media, Mr. Leonard said, it is especially critical to make sure that only genuine secrets are protected by law.

“If you’re talking about throwing someone in jail for years, there absolutely has to be responsibility for decisions about what gets classified,” said Mr. Leonard, who directed the Information Security Oversight Office from 2002 to 2007.

He said in an interview Monday that he filed a formal complaint on Saturday with his former office, seeking to force the two agencies to take disciplinary measures against officials who violated classification rules. Under the executive order governing classification, the punishment could include dismissal, suspension without pay, reprimand or loss of a security clearance.

The document Mr. Leonard singled out was an N.S.A. e-mail entitled “What a Success” that was among classified material Thomas A. Drake, a former senior N.S.A. official, was accused of illegally storing at home and disclosing to The Baltimore Sun. Before Mr. Drake’s scheduled trial in June, prosecutors dropped the major charges against him under the Espionage Act. Mr. Drake admitted to a misdemeanor, got no prison time and paid no fine. The judge, Richard D. Bennett of Federal District Court in Maryland, berated prosecutors for how they handled the case.

Mr. Leonard had agreed to testify for the defense without pay as an expert in government classification, saying the e-mail should never have been classified. The N.S.A. declassified the e-mail before trial, but its contents are still protected by court order. Mr. Leonard was allowed to read the e-mail but cannot disclose its contents other than to say it contained no secrets.

“I’ve never seen a more deliberate and willful example of government officials improperly classifying a document,” he said.

Even after the criminal case against Mr. Drake collapsed, Mr. Leonard said, he was outraged by the fact that the document had been classified in the first place and then used as the basis for a felony charge. He petitioned Judge Bennett for permission to use the still-protected e-mail in his complaint to the Information Security Oversight Office, and Judge Bennett agreed to allow that in a court order on Friday.

Spokeswomen for the N.S.A. and the Justice Department declined to comment.

According to the information security office, officials classified nearly 77 million documents last year, a 40 percent increase in one year, though the office said the jump resulted in part from improved reporting by government officials.

Many government veterans agree that far too much information is classified.

“Depending on who you ask, overclassification is either very widespread or extremely widespread,” said Steven Aftergood, an expert on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. “Everybody from the director of national intelligence to President Obama has acknowledged the problem.”

The Obama administration’s crackdown on leaks has hugely raised the stakes for whistle-blowers. Mr. Drake is among five people charged with disclosing secrets to the news media under Mr. Obama, compared with three under all previous presidents.

While bureaucrats regularly get in trouble for failing to classify information their bosses think should be secret, Mr. Aftergood said he had never heard of anyone being punished for unjustified classification. He praised Mr. Leonard’s complaint as an effort to restore some balance.

Under Mr. Obama’s 2009 order on classification, all agencies are supposed to review secret material by next June to see what can be declassified. But Mr. Aftergood said there was little evidence that agencies were working hard toward that goal.

“My hope is that Mr. Leonard’s complaint will lend some impetus to the process,” he said.

******

CFSO Note on Cast of Characters: Bill Leonard was, for a 5-year term, the highest ranking classification official in the US Government. He was in charge of all classification policy and all security clearance policy, and helped write the rules. Steve Aftergood is one of a very tiny number of "secrecy scholars" in the United States. His website is the source of several policy documents on DS's website.

Always Leave a Tidy Desk

2011-07-14T18:18:00.001-07:00

Almost two years ago, we wondered what kind of a DS Director Jeff Culver would be. On the whole, we have been very impressed. Among other things, during his tenure, DS has cleaned up a significant portion of its security clearance act. On the other hand, there is a long way to go. When he leaves the State Department late next month, he will be missed. But he will leave behind, unresolved, the two longest-running security clearance suspensions in the history of the U.S. Government. It would be nice if, before he left, he would clean those off his plate.

Pretending WikiLeaks Doesn’t Exist - From the ACLU

2011-06-12T17:20:00.000-07:00

June 10, 2011 from the ACLU Blog:

Yesterday, the ACLU filed a lawsuit after the State Department failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking the declassification of 23 State Department cables disclosed by WikiLeaks and widely disseminated online and in the press. The cables we seek reveal the diplomatic cost of policies that the Bush and Obama administrations have tried to keep secret from the American public.

Several of the cables describe high-level efforts by the government to pressure Spain and Germany into dropping investigations of the CIA's torture of detainees. The cables show that the U.S. expended significant diplomatic resources in order to try and guarantee impunity for officials responsible for the abduction and torture of victims including Khaled El-Masri, an entirely innocent German citizen. At home, the Bush and Obama administrations have invoked legal fictions such as the "state secrets" privilege to prevent U.S. courts from addressing cases of innocent people tortured and rendered by the CIA; these cables reveal the secret ways in which the government worked to defeat accountability abroad. We believe the American people have a right to know about the government's efforts to shield from liability those officials who violated domestic and international law by engaging in abduction, rendition, and torture.

Other cables requested by the ACLU reveal the government's paradoxical efforts to coordinate the resettlement or prosecution of Guantánamo detainees in foreign countries, even as the United States refused to resettle or prosecute those same detainees in the U.S. Still other cables describe the strains on our relationships with other countries caused by U.S. rendition flights and drone strikes. This information should never have been secret in the first place. Its continued classification illustrates how the government all too often uses secrecy not to enhance national security, but to hide embarrassing and difficult facts from the public.

In spite of the cables' widespread availability, the government has continued to maintain that documents released by WikiLeaks and published by national and international newspapers are classified. The government's decision to cling to a legal fiction rather than conform its secrecy regime to reality has led to absurd consequences. Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysts are blocked by the Library of Congress from using these widely available documents, even as Congress relies on CRS reports to inform new legislation. The Air Force blocked the entire websites of the New York Times and other major media outlets that posted the leaked cables. Perhaps the most troubling consequence of the government's adamant refusal to incorporate common sense into its secrecy regime is that lawyers for Guantánamo detainees have been barred from reading or discussing leaked documents concerning their clients, even though these documents are posted on the websites of major national and international newspapers and available to anyone in the world. The government has gone so far as to claim it is unable to comply with a court order that it provide guidance to lawyers representing Guantánamo detainees regarding how the lawyers may use those documents that are already publicly available.

The ACLU's lawsuit comes on the anniversary of another famous leak. On Monday, June 13, 2011, the United States will release the declassified Pentagon Papers — 40 years after they were first leaked. The fact that for 40 years after their original release the government maintained the pretense that release of the Pentagon Papers would cause damage to U.S. national security shows just how divorced from reality the U.S. approach to secrecy has become. Americans should not have to wait 40 more years for the government to declassify vital information that the whole world is already discussing.

********

Yes, we understand the rational behind neither confirming nor denying. But when the cat is out of the bag, it is often better to control the spin than to let it get out of hand.

A Thank You Message From Daniel Hirsch

2011-06-03T05:00:00.000-07:00

From DanielMHirsch.com:

The votes have been counted and the unofficial results are in. I am pleased to announce that all 21st Century AFSA Slate members were elected. This is a significant victory towards continuing to make AFSA more responsive to the active duty Foreign Service.

I would like to thank those who voted for me, and especially those who campaigned for me. A few in particular - and you know who you are - deserve my deepest gratitude for your commitment to the vision of AFSA we share.

I want to begin by assuring you of my continued strong commitment to an AFSA that supports FS members of all cones and specialties, and that recognizes that the burden of FS work is borne primarily by those serving in the mid-level ranks. Helping FS members of all ranks have satisfying and productive careers, enabling you to carry out America's mission, raise your families, stay healthy, stay safe and stay productive is my number one priority.

I am very much aware that more than half of our members are specialists, and a significant number of those are in DS. I am committed to continuing the struggle for better career paths, training opportunities and opportunities for advancement for all specialists. This includes more transparent assignments and promotions.

And I am committed to increasing fairness and adherence to due process in disciplinary and security clearance processes.

In addition, I am committed to advancing the reforms to AFSA's elections process which were stymied by our opponents during the past two years.

This includes, first and foremost, a bylaws amendment regarding term limits. Nobody should ever again be allowed to regard AFSA as his personal playground, nor reach the point where they are willing to embarrass and damage AFSA as part of a campaign to hold on to their self-identified "iconic" role. As a first step, I pledge now my intention not to run again in 2013. But more importantly, I pledge my efforts to develop, with member input, a referendum to limit terms of service for all AFSA officer positions, including committee officers. AFSA is not a model train set. It is not a hobby. It is not a club. It is your voice, and we should ensure that the voice of AFSA is yours.

This also includes electronic voting. That is a harder objective, because our membership is not all equally able to access the Internet, but it is doable, and will be done before the next elections.

To those who voted for Elise Mellinger, I have heard you. Somewhere along the way, AFSA has lost your trust. We will do better - I will do more - to make AFSA relevant to you. But a bylaws amendment that would give the State Department unlimited veto power over AFSA officers is not the answer.

AFSA is entering a new era, in service to a very different Foreign Service than even the one I joined a quarter of a century ago. I am very excited to help lead it through the next two years, and ask for your continued support to take it in the direction you want it to go.

Very best regards,
Daniel

This Memorial Day, remember the diplomats, too

2011-05-27T19:54:00.000-07:00

From the Dallas Morning News:

WASHINGTON — They are the proud, the few and the unarmed. They dodge bullets in the mountains of Afghanistan and brave the deserts of Iraq. They serve as America’s face to the world, from violence-ridden Mexico to the financial hubs of Asia to the capitals of Europe. They promote American business and protect American citizens abroad. They are the men and women of the U.S. Foreign Service.

On Memorial Day, we rightly pause to remember those who serve our nation in military uniform. But we should also recognize the more than 12,000 members of the American diplomatic corps who serve in Washington and in 271 missions across the globe.

“They are the ones out there on the front lines trying to advocate and explain [American] policies, regardless of which administration they are serving,” said Karen Hughes, former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy under President George W. Bush.

She praised the Foreign Service as “a very dedicated group of public servants” who “work and make sacrifices around the world in some very difficult assignments.”

You may think of diplomats as tuxedo-wearing statesmen sipping cocktails at summits in Switzerland, but American diplomats are deployed in places like war-torn Africa and Afghanistan, where they often face the same dangers as members of the military. One diplomat I spoke to said he has been shot at five times in the line of duty.

Yet, even as America’s engagement with the world is growing more crucial, budget hawks are circling over the State Department. Speaking to the National Conference of Editorial Writers this month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned, “There’s a huge gap between perception and reality … and people think that we can balance our budget on the back of our foreign operations.”

The continuing resolution passed to fund the government cut $8 billion for the State Department and USAID — while increasing the Defense Department’s budget by $5 billion. The demands on the State Department are growing, but the budget isn’t. “It is so out of whack with what we have to be doing,” Clinton lamented.

Part of the problem is that many Americans misunderstand diplomats’ role. Diplomacy isn’t about throwing money at the world. Yes, foreign aid — which accounts for only about 1 percent of the total federal budget — is a useful diplomatic tool. But too often diplomacy is dismissed as wasteful global charity or useless hemmin’ and hawin’ at the United Nations. Whether working to secure access to natural resources (like oil), leading reconstruction in Afghanistan or screening hundreds of thousands of visa applicants, diplomats are producing concrete results. They are the facilitators of globalization.

In an interconnected world, diplomacy is becoming ever more relevant to the daily lives of Americans, especially when it comes to the economy. Diplomats pave the way for American businesses to make profits at home by expanding overseas.

“If companies want to grow, if we want to grow our GDP, if we want to be competitive on a global basis in the 21st century, people really have to step up to export and export more, because that’s where the growth opportunities are,” said Lorraine Hariton, U.S. Special Representative for Commercial and Business Affairs.

Texas definitely enjoys the dividends of diplomacy. According to the latest figures from the International Trade Administration and Bureau of the Census, in 2009 the Dallas-Fort Worth area exported $19.9 billion worth of merchandise. And because of the Open Skies agreements liberalizing international air travel,Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport will see “billions of dollars in new business,” Clinton said this month.

Members of the Foreign Service play a crucial role in making that kind of lucrative international agreement possible, part of a government-wide campaign to help American businesses increase exports.

“We need to set up partnerships and relationships all around the world so we can understand the market needs in Kenya as well as the market needs in Fort Worth,” Hariton said.

Indeed, to maintain America’s global competitiveness and to capitalize on the opportunities globalization creates, we need a well-funded diplomatic corps.

“Diplomacy used to be thought of as the quiet, behind-the-scenes, government-to-government communications,” Hughes told me.

It’s now so much more than that. “In order for America to enact the kinds of policies we want to enact around the world,” Hughes explained, “we have got to build a public case for those policies, for our values and for our interests.”

Our diplomats are out in the trenches doing just that, often at great personal danger — remember the Iranian hostage crisis? Foreign Service officers have also been the targets of drug violence, insurgent attacks and kidnappings. Yet they man their posts, safeguarding American interests and protecting U.S. citizens overseas.

This weekend, as we salute our military, we also owe a tribute to America’s diplomats, many of whom are in conflict zones riding in the same Humvees as the troops. The only difference is that they can’t shoot back.

*Clayton M. McCleskey is a contributing writer for The Dallas Morning News based in Washington. His email address is letters@claytonmccleskey.com.*

Only One More Week Till AFSA Election Votes are Counted!

2011-05-26T05:16:00.000-07:00

Given Tex Harris's focus in both the current and last AFSA Governing Board election campaigns, a lot of people ask me (as if I would know) why it is that Tex Harris is so focused on security clearances, and what lies behind his obsessive, virtually fetishistic attacks on Daniel Hirsch.

I don't know.

But if I had to guess, it has to do with Tex Harris's image of himself, with the fragility of the AFSATex persona he has carefully crafted, and with his knowledge of a deep dark secret: that Franklin Allen (Tex) Harris is not the person he claims to be.

By all accounts, Tex Harris is, at best, a mediocrity, and at worst, an outright fraud. And his campaigns in the past two elections demonstrate those facts.

Tex Harris's Foreign Service career was not outstanding. It was not bad, but it was not outstanding. Despite his claims, he never made it into the Senior Foreign Service. Despite identifying himself in print as our former ambassador to Argentina, he was never an Ambassador. He was never a DAS. He was never the director of a Washington Office. The highest position he ever held in a career of almost 40 years was as Consul General in Durban. And the greatest achievement of his career, by his own admission, was a dissent channel cable he wrote as an entry level officer.

He likes to claim that he paid a terrible price for that cable, but he didn't. He was not curtailed from post, he was not disciplined, he did not lose his security clearance or even fall under investigation. He was not assigned to bad jobs. Nothing happened to him as a result of his "dissent."

Part of the reason (and the reason that "dissent" is now in quotes) is because his "dissent" channel message said nothing that was not already in the press. It did not reflect some great discovery on his part. It merely supported a position that the USG opposed, but that many other countries, including France, Spain and England, already supported. Within a year, America's position had changed, not in response to Tex's message, but in response to media and international pressure. And Tex's "dissent" was, at best, prescient, and at worst, moot.

And it would have gone into obscurity were it not for Tex's incredible zeal and talent for ceaseless self-promotion.

Tex was then what he is now, a teller of tall tales, and a generally jovial fellow, the life-of-the-party, whose outsized personality earned him many friends. Among them, the so-called "young Turks" who played a significant role in making AFSA what it is today.

One by one, the other "young Turks" became ambassadors and moved on. The youngest, Tex (arguably more of a hanger-on than a member) never made it that far. So he was entrusted, as it were, with taking care of AFSA. With the support of his more-successful friends, he was made into, became, and has lived his life as, the AFSATex.

The one thing he is known for. The one thing that is his. The one thing that defines him to himself and to others.

And now he is losing it.

Until 2009, part of what the AFSATex did was control the gates of AFSA. If you wanted to run for AFSA office, you needed his support. If he gave it to you, he would campaign for you, and you would win. If not, he would, in his own words, "crush you."

In 2009, that ended. The CLEAN Slate, led by David Firestein and Daniel Hirsch, ran without his permission, was opposed by everything Tex could muster, and was not crushed. Firestein lost the presidency by a narrow margin, but Hirsch was elected, and half the CLEAN Slate was seated next to half of the slate Tex promoted.

The only possible explanation in Tex's mind? Somebody had cheated. In fact, in order to defeat the AFSATex himself, somebody must have actually broken the law! How else could such a thing happen?

Tex Harris, and Tex alone, appealed the result of the election to the Department of Labor, claiming not only that CLEAN Slate had broken the law by "stealing" email addresses from a list AFSA had given out in the 2007 election, but also that the FSJ editorial staff had colluded with Daniel Hirsch regarding the timing of publication of an article written by Hirsch, allowing the article to run during the campaign. And that both the CLEAN slate and the FSJ had violated the rules, by publishing in the FSJ a campaign advertisement marked "ADVERTISEMENT" at the bottom, rather than at the top. He asked the Department of Labor to remove from AFSA's Board all CLEAN Slate members, or failing that, to declare the election null and void, and force a redo.

The Department of Labor investigated his claims. They found minor acts of campaign rule violations on both sides, and one violation of law: by Tex Harris himself. However, they did not find any cause to believe that these acts had significantly influenced the outcome of the election, nor any reason to declare the election void. They wrote to AFSA, essentially saying the above, and invited AFSA to discuss the matter with them further.

AFSA Executive Officer Ian Houston and General Counsel Sharon Papp, accompanied by AFSA President Susan Johnson (of Tex Harris's slate), State Vice President Daniel Hirsch (of CLEAN Slate) and Retiree VP Robert Houdek (of Tex Harris's slate), met with the DOL. The outcome was that DOL certified the election, but in a bow to Tex Harris's objections, stated their intention to supervise the 2011 election.

The 2009 Board was seated, and except for Tex Harris, who began then to claim that a conspiracy of some sort had been involved in seating the board, came together as a viable working group.

Harris spent the next two years writing treatises on the duplicity of Daniel Hirsch, on the invalidity of the 2009 elections, and so alienating his friends that not a single member of the AFSA Board agreed to run with him in the current election. In fact, except for Elise Mellinger, a recently tenured FS-03 political officer with a whopping five years of experience in the Foreign Service, no one at all, of the many people Tex approached, agreed to run with him.

Which brings us to now.

The AFSATex, the "diplomat's diplomat," the "defender of the dissenter," is well on his way to becoming completely irrelevant to the FS of the 21st Century. But he is unable to move on, having sadly built for himself nothing at all to move on to.

Hirsch is the problem! Not only did Hirsch campaign successfully against Tex Harris's slate, but Hirsch is what Tex is not - but what Tex always wanted to be. Hirsch is a whistleblower - recognized by Congress and chastised by the State Department for revealing flaws in State's version of the Security Clearance adjudication process. Hirsch paid the price for his whistleblowing when his clearance was suspended - longer than any other in the history of the State Department. Hirsch had an outstanding career - more than a dozen awards and a much faster rise than Harris's. And Hirsch had a following, who elected him to AFSA.

If he could only defeat Hirsch, Franklin Harris could still be the AFSATex.

Hence his campaign against Hirsch. Not on the merits of Hirsch's work, nor on the merits of what Tex himself could bring to the table, but on the one thing that he thinks is Hirsch's Achilles heel, the security clearance issue.

Hence his worry, expressed in this last email, that Hirsch could run again in 2013, and 2015, and so on, without end, becoming, in the process, the AFSADan.

And hence his petition to amend AFSA's bylaws to prohibit anyone without an active clearance from serving on AFSA's board. Not because it is necessary - AFSA's work is by definition unclassified. Not because it is needed - everyone except Tex agrees that there has been no need for it ever in the past. Not because it is otherwise harmless - it would, in fact, give the State Department unlimited and unappealable veto power over AFSA's board, and arguably would violate sections of both Title 5 and 22 of the U.S. Code. And, ironocally, it would stifle dissent, something that Tex claims to support staunchly. Because it is unassailable in court, security clearance suspension is the tool most-frequently used by the Federal government to stifle dissent and punish whistleblowers.

So why this petition?

Because it would prevent the rise of the AFSADan. And hopefully, keep the AFSATex in AFSA.

Crazy? Yes.

But nobody ever claimed that the AFSATex was sane.

Vote For Tex Harris and Elise Mellinger. Preserve the AFSA monicker for the AFSATex!

New Campaign Message from 21st Century AFSA - includes retort to Tex Harris's/Harry Blaney's bylaw amendment request

2011-05-16T09:55:00.000-07:00

A new message from Susan Johnson and the 21st Century AFSA Slate calls the Tex Harris/Harry Blaney bylaw amendment unnecessary, and points out that it will give the State Department un-appealable veto power over AFSA Board members.

Text:

This election is one of the most crucial in AFSA’s history. In it, you have a choice between two very different models for AFSA. Among the questions involved:

Should AFSA’s lobbying efforts return to models developed in the 1980s and 90s, or involve new strategies tailored to today’s political and budget realities?

In real life there are no do-overs, and success depends on doing it right the first time. Doing it right is not always synonymous with doing it the way we used to do it in the past. Doing it right means more than reacting more vociferously and forcefully to a threat – it means developing a well-considered approach with full understanding of the political realities and the overall framework under which decisions are being made. It also means identifying difficulties, coordinating efforts and mobilizing support, sometimes quietly - rather than merely encouraging greater activity and pursuing a more-and-louder approach.

The threat to OCP in the 2011 budget was the single most important challenge that the AFSA Governing Board faced. The Board developed a strategy specifically tailored to the current Congress, and to the reasons why this Congress targeted OCP.

That process involved discussions with experienced staffers and FSOs serving on the Hill, with current and former AFSA lobbyists, with senior-most officials in the State Department, and with a professional political consultant, among others. Our intensive and strategically-coordinated implementation of that strategy, led by AFSA President Susan Johnson with the support of all AFSA Vice Presidents and the Governing Board, involving member input and targeted meetings on the Hill, succeeded in preserving the 16 percent OCP already implemented, and preserving the option for the other 8 percent in the future.

A similar strategic approach will be most effective in dealing with the current 2012 budget process as well. In addition to mobilizing broad support with active participation of the membership, our strategy will sustain and build upon our current effort to build understanding of and support for diplomacy and development in alliance with a broad range of partners; and will focus on members of congress who are most in a position to influence the 2012 budget. Preserving OCP is among our highest priorities.

Should AFSA continue its forward momentum to become a more responsive, effective and modern organization, or return to a decades-old model created when AFSA first became a bargaining unit?

A professional, and professionally-run, organization should be able to do more than simply throw people and resources at the topic du jour. It should be able to act as needed to respond to events, and guide them, while continuing to advance a full range of other issues important to our members. Our efforts will be facilitated by the vastly improved outreach AFSA developed in the past two years, with a new state-of-the-art new website, use of twitter, Facebook and YouTube and increased number of speaker series, book talks and panels to access a bigger audience of potential supporters.

Should AFSA truly represent all members of the 21st century Foreign Service, of all cones and skill codes, and represent younger retirees as well as older ones?

The current board is the most diverse in AFSA's history, and has addressed numerous issues that previous boards ignored. The members of the 21st Century AFSA slate are committed to continuing that progress. While salaries are extremely important, the lives and careers of our members involve a great deal more than simply collecting a paycheck. We believe that AFSA should advocate for our members regarding as many as possible of the factors affecting FS lives – career paths, family issues, safety, morale, and others – and do so for all of our members.

What are the priorities involved in improving AFSA?

Certainly not an unnecessary bylaws amendment that would give the State Department un-appealable veto power over AFSA's governing boards! Reform should address real issues and should improve rather than hamper AFSA's operations. The current Board has started the process of reform. The 21st Century Slate commits to working closely with our members to make AFSA’s operations – and future elections – more efficient, transparent, representative and responsive.

With these questions in mind, we ask for your vote for the 21st Century slate.

For an active duty President with a proven record of lobbying success - preserving the 16 percent OCP and lobbying hard for the rest; organizational improvement – through reorganized and more-accountable staffing; and better outreach – to Congress, communities and the media.

For an active duty State Vice President who has dramatically broadened AFSA’s focus as a bargaining unit, improving opportunities for specialists, leveling the playing field for employees with disabilities, addressing family issues, and improving liaison with key Department decision makers, in addition to all other functions of his office.

For a diverse group of active-duty representatives in touch with your realities in the field, who share your career concerns and your perspectives.

For retiree representatives who understand the Foreign Service in which we work today and the realities which will confront those retiring in the future.

For a team that has worked with dedication to strengthen AFSA's representation and build its capacity to protect and promote your interests.

Please visit www.21stcenturyafsa.com to see our platform, bios and AFSA Town Hall statements. PLEASE VOTE!

Foreign Service Retirees Seek to Grant Employer Control Over Foreign Service Union

2011-05-07T15:44:00.000-07:00

From Concerned Foreign Service Officers:

Foreign Service Retirees Seek to Grant Employer Control Over Foreign Service Union

WASHINGTON, May 7, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A group of retired Foreign Service Officers led by a seventy-four-year-old retired former president of the American Foreign Service Association, Franklin Allen (Tex) Harris, is petitioning the American Foreign Service Association to amend its bylaws to allow the State Department unlimited veto power over the actions of the union representing that agency's Foreign Service employees. The petition, which would require all serving AFSA Board members to hold a State Department security clearance, would make AFSA the only Federal employee bargaining unit to grant the agency employing its members authority to remove members of its Governing Board at the sole discretion of the agency.

AFSA is both the professional association of the American Foreign Service and the sole Federal employee bargaining unit representing Foreign Service employees. Mr. Harris, who was AFSA's president between 1993 and 1997, is an outspoken critic of AFSA's increasing focus on its active-duty bargaining unit function. He is campaigning on a return-to-roots platform in AFSA's current governing board elections, hoping to become the first retired Foreign Service Officer ever to serve as AFSA's president. The petition is seen as an effort by his supporters to ingratiate Mr. Harris to State Department leadership.

Security clearance suspension and revocation is the most common tool used by the Federal government to punish dissenters and whistleblowers within its ranks. While employer veto of bargaining unit activities is a prohibited unfair labor practice, a security clearance decision cannot be challenged in court, rendering such veto power incontestable under current laws.

Concerned Foreign Service Officers is an association of over 300 active duty and retired State Department employees seeking to increase fairness and compliance with government-wide regulations in security clearance decisions by the U.S. Department of State.

Don't Be a Passhole!

2011-04-26T06:43:00.000-07:00

Diplopundit has a good article today about the AFSA elections entitled "Don't be a Passhole." I must confess that I had never heard this word before, but according to Diplopundit it means: "someone who opts out of participating in a decision, but then complains bitterly about the outcome."

One thing for certain: retirees vote disproportionately high compared to their numbers in AFSA, and active-duty members vote disproportionately low. Daniel Hirsch has told us that the biggest challenge for this election is to get active duty members to become involved and vote.

Tex Harris claims that this is a pivotal election, and he is right.

Last election active duty voters told AFSA with their votes that they wanted change.

They wanted AFSA to stop focusing nearly exclusively on the needs of the senior-most members of the service, to stop acting like a private club for those who retired at the ambassadorial ranks, and to pay attention to the real-life issues facing mid-levels, specialists, Office Management Specialists, DS Special agents, disabled or MED Class 2 employees, and all those other groups, which Tex Harris dismisses as "special interest groups," that make up over 90 percent of our service.

The current AFSA board took that to heart. They have done more for the mid-levels, more for specialists, more for families, more for EFMs, more disabled FS employees, more for singles, more for most of the Foreign Service, than any AFSA board in history.

The current board is also the most diverse in AFSA's history, in part because, as vacancies arose, Daniel Hirsch nominated a diverse group of people to fill them. Those members of the current Board running with Susan Johnson and others on the 21st Century AFSA Slate are running on a platform of preserving that forward momentum.

This year, unhappy with the attention that AFSA, and particularly Daniel Hirsch, has paid to the "special interest groups" described above (and furious that his single-handed efforts to overturn the last election and derail the activities of the current board did not work), Tex wants to take AFSA back.

He is running to become the first-ever retiree President of AFSA, and to be able to personally select for us a new State VP who (according to him) he will appoint from among those untainted by (unelected by) the 2009 election.

Under his scheme, you can vote out the current State VP by writing in the only active-duty candidate who agreed to join Tex, and she will serve as your State VP, while taking full-time courses at FSI (how hard can it be?), until Tex can find someone he likes willing to do the job. He calls that "choice," meaning: "his choice."

And his campaign strategy, which was largely successful in the last election, is to make the election campaign so ugly and so confusing that Active Duty voters will sit the election out.

To divert attention away from the real issues, and focus it where it he thinks it belongs, on Daniel Hirsch, who had the audacity to get elected without his permission.

In the process, to embarrass AFSA, and turn off active duty voters. If enough actives do not vote, his backers among the oldest and least-plugged-in retirees (Tex is 74 and describes himself as the youngest member of his age-cohort) will elect him, simply because the others didn't vote.

So he is running what most people consider to be, by far, the dirtiest campaign ever run for an AFSA position: an all-libel-all-the-time campaign to bring back an all-SFS-all-the-time AFSA. And any passhole who sits back and lets him do that deserves what they get.

21st Century AFSA Slate Fact Checker

2011-04-25T05:06:00.000-07:00

Interesting Fact Checker from the 21st Century AFSA Slate website.

LOBBYING FOR OCP

Did AFSA's current Board “miss the boat" in lobbying for OCP?

No. We successfully protected the 16% already implemented and kept the 8% remaining on the table for the future. OCP has been and is a top priority for the AFSA Board which decided to consult and strategize carefully before acting. AFSA President Susan Johnson, State Vice President Daniel Hirsch and other agency Vice Presidents met with key Congressional staff, Department players and FS members working on the Hill to develop an effective strategy. We then approached Members in both houses, including Representative Reed, and mobilized AFSA members, who in turn generated over 450 letters to 105 Representatives and 78 Senators covering 39 states. The 16% was retained despite the current incredible difficult budgetary environment.

How is AFSA's lobbying being done, who is responsible?

AFSA's lobbying efforts are the collective responsibility of the Governing Board, led by the AFSA President, Susan Johnson, aided by AFSA's Policy Director and Legislative Assistant position, currently filled on a temporary contract basis by a former AFSA legislative Director. With counsel from the AFSA Governing Board, AFSA’s President coordinates a collaborative effort involving AFSA's President, Vice Presidents, other interested groups such as AFSAPAC and the American Academy for Diplomacy, and individual AFSA members.

2009 AFSA ELECTIONS:

Were the 2009 AFSA elections invalid?

No. They were certified by the AFSA Election Committee and the Department of Labor.

Why is the Department of Labor involved in the current election?

Because one individual* challenged the results of the 2009 election, the Department of Labor reviewed the situation, certified the Board elected in 2009 and decided to oversee the next election in 2011.

NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN ON THE SECURITY CLEARANCE ISSUE:

Is any aspect of AFSA's work classified?

AFSA's work is by definition unclassified and all negotiations with member agencies are unclassified. The laws pertaining to the classification of information, the protection of classified information, the relationships between bargaining units and agencies and the privacy provisions of applicable labor laws would all preclude classifying any aspect of the relationship between AFSA and a Foreign Service agency, with the exception of cases involving the attorney-client privilege.

Wouldn’t a suspended security clearance prevent an AFSA VP from discussing the safety of FS members in Baghdad, Kabul and elsewhere?

No. The classified details involved in protecting our embassies in Baghdad, Kabul and elsewhere have not been relevant to discussions with management on these issues. AFSA is not and never has been in a position to discuss the technical aspects of countermeasures. We discuss big-picture issues such as the need for employees to be able to travel outside the green zone, or concerns that they be protected from attacks against their residences.

Has there been any downsizing of the State VP Position?

No changes have been made to the State Vice President’s responsibilities .

HOW ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE AND DIVERSITY OF THE 2009 AFSA GOVERNING BOARD?

The 2009 AFSA Governing Board under the leadership of Susan Johnson, who is seeking re-election as AFSA president, has been one of the most active AFSA Governing Boards. For the accomplishments of AFSA during 2009-11, please click here.

This Board has been the most representative in the history of AFSA. Including those added due to rotation out and subsequent appointment, it has included: Political, Consular, Management and Public Diplomacy Officers (both active duty and retired), GSO and HR Specialists, OMS, Security Technical Specialists, Security Engineering Officers, and DS Special Agents. It has included male and female specialists and generalists, married and single, gay, lesbian and straight; Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, and Asian ethnicities, ranging in rank from FS-04 to FE-MC.

We are committed to preserving such diversity in the 2011 Board.

*******

We added the asterix above to be clear that the only person who challenged the results of the 2009 AFSA election to the Department of Labor was Tex Harris. Tex Harris and Tex Harris alone is responsible for the DOL involvement in the current AFSA election.

Daniel Hirsch's 2011 AFSA Town Hall Speech

2011-04-19T04:09:00.000-07:00

Daniel Hirsch's Town Hall Speech from www.danielmhirsch.com

Speeches of the other 21stCentury AFSA Slate members can be seen here.

Video of the April 8 Rally to Serve America

2011-04-08T13:30:00.000-07:00

C-Span has the entire rally here.

Rally in Triangle Park

2011-04-06T13:14:00.000-07:00

AFSA will hold a rally at the Edward J Kelly Park near the 21st Street Entrance of the State Department on Friday April 8, 2011, at noon. The theme will be "Let Us Serve America!" This is an opportunity to turn out and help AFSA protest Government shutdown.

Another Message to CFSO Members From Daniel Hirsch

2011-04-05T15:18:00.000-07:00

Again, we are sharing a message from www.danielmhirsch.com:

21st Century AFSA response to Tex Harris's Statement

As candidate running for re-election as AFSA President with the 21stCentury AFSA slate, I am addressing this e mail in support of State VP candidate for re-election, Daniel Hirsch. Daniel has been the target of election campaign statements by retiree candidate for the AFSA Presidency, Tex Harris, calling into question Daniel’s suitability and credentials as State VP.

It remains my hope, however, that this election campaign for the 2011-2013 AFSA Governing Board will focus on our agenda and performance and avoid acrimony and bitterness.

Daniel Hirsch is the State VP candidate on the 21st Century AFSA slate because I and other members of the current Board appreciated his strong and positive contributions to the work of the Board as an active and responsible team player.

Daniel is a well-respected FS-01 Management officer with extensive and diverse service overseas and in Washington.

He has been decorated with four Superior Honor Awards, five Meritorious Honor Awards, the Department of State's GSO of the Year award, and the National Cold War Certificate, in addition to MSIs and other commendations.

With 25 years of experience in three regions overseas, and in three functional bureaus in the Department, Daniel has brought to the VP position close and collegial personal relationships with AFSA’s senior interlocutors in the department including the directors of HR, MED, DS, OBO, as well as with FLO and the OMS Coordinator. As the incumbent State VP, he has helped forge a closer relationship between AFSA and DS leadership. As with other AFSA agency VPs, he frequently accompanies me on visits to the Hill, and is an active participant in formulating and drafting AFSA policies and in our work to defend overseas comparability pay.

As regards the issue of security clearance, today AFSA’s work is transparent and unclassified. There has been no instance during the tenure of the current board that any issue requiring a security clearance has arisen.

The State Vice President of AFSA manages AFSA’s labor management office, which represents individual members in matters before the Department. As a management officer, having addressed many of the issues involved from the management perspective, Mr. Hirsch brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to that task. Daniel has indeed assisted a number of“single interest groups,” including among others:

Working with management to reduce the 5% low-ranking rule to 2% thereby eliminating both inequity and inefficiencies.
Incorporating language into the Core Promotion Precepts to reduce bias against technical specialists and those assigned to domestic positions.
Preventing the elimination of out-of-cone assignment opportunities for IMTS employees.
Advocating for better career paths for OMS and STS employees.
Correcting asystemic error which had caused several dozen DS Special Agents to be underpaid.
Advocating for measures that enable disabled employees to compete for assignments and promotions on a more level playing field.
Seeking to eliminate Time In Class limitations for Diplomatic Couriers.
Urging OBO to buy or build more earthquake resistant housing for people in posts with seismic concerns.
Extending the scope of Language Incentive Pay for speakers of hard languages.
I urge you to vote for Daniel and for all members of the 21stCentury AFSA slate. I hope that you will give us the opportunity to build on the achievements of the current board for which we have received very encouraging and positive feedback. We remain dedicated to continue our work to defend and strengthen the Foreign Service during challenging and difficult times.

I invite you to visit our website at www.21stCenturyafsa.com. You will also find our platform and campaign statement with the paper ballots mailed on March 28. Let me take this opportunity to thank retiree VP candidate Bob Houdek and retiree representative candidates Janice Bay, Molly Williamson and Ed Marks for their endorsements for my candidacy for AFSA President.

Susan Rockwell Johnson
Candidate for President
Statement on behalf of 21stCentury AFSA Slate

The original can be seen here.

Thank you for your support!

2011-04-04T06:23:00.000-07:00

Daniel Hirsch has asked us to pass this along to our members:

From Daniel Hirsch's campaign site.

Thank You for Your Support

I just want to post a quick note to the many supporters who wrote me this weekend with regard to Tex Harris's libelous emails. Yes, his actions are contemptible. There is a reason no member of the current board agreed to run with him. But more importantly, his motive is to turn off or confuse voters, so they simply won't vote.

We need, now more than ever, to reach out to friends and colleagues and set the record straight. People need to vote, and they need to vote for a team that is composed of good people working well together.

Thank you for your support, and please get out the vote!

2011 AFSA Governing Board Elections - Please Vote

2011-04-03T10:27:00.000-07:00

AFSA Governing Board Election ballots have been mailed, and are beginning to arrive in mailboxes. This is a pivotal election, enabling you to choose between a slate that will continue to advance AFSA towards greater efficiency, inclusiveness and transparency, and a tiny group of self-serving individuals attempting to maintain Tex Harris's 43-year dedication to keeping AFSA as a personal club for his chosen sycophants.

As you consider the AFSATex's claims that he will make AFSA more inclusive, more modern, etcetera, remember that he has, by virtue of decades of year-round campaigning and self-promotion, managed to maintain a leadership role on the AFSA board over a 43 year period, serving as an officer of the Board during the decades when AFSA was widely seen as a private ex-Ambassadors club, focusing solely on the issues of the most senior Foreign Service (eg promoting OCP for SFS while ignoring everyone else) and during the development of all of the "deeply rooted problems" (opacity, back-room deals, ineffectiveness, lack of professionalism) in AFSA management that he now claims that he intends to fix.

He has had 43 years and numerous opportunities to address these issues, but has not done so. Why? Because he created them, he and his SFS retiree supporters have personally benefited from them, and he liked things the way they were.

Hence his protest of the results of the last election, which broke his stronghold and allowed others to break through his machine.

Hence, also, his obsessive, visceral hatred of Daniel Hirsch, and his persistent smear campaign to libel the person he perceives to be the architect of what Tex sees as his defeat.

Why else would a candidate for AFSA President campaign, not against his rival for the AFSA President position, but against the incumbent State Vice President, a position for which Tex is unable even to vote?

While others look forward to a better, stronger AFSA, Tex and his allies run a false-flag campaign based almost solely on attacking the person he perceives to be most responsible for taking his sandbox away from him.

Nobody should be allowed to dominate AFSA for decades, especially a long-ago-retired compulsively self-promoting fraud, who claims to be a former ambassador to Argentina (when he was not), now claims to be a founding leader of the "Young Turk" movement (when he joined that group only after it had done the things he now takes credit for) and, despite the fact that AFSA's work is, by definition, unclassified, makes a big deal over security clearances (when he himself does not have one - as a retiree who has not worked for the Government for many years, his clearance lapsed a decade ago).

As for DOL involvement in the 2011 election, DOL became involved solely because, in a pique of desperation to maintain control of the board, Tex and Tex alone contested the results of the 2007 election (his being the only protest of the election results), obliging DOL to step in and costing AFSA both a great deal of embarrassment and loss of credibility.

This despite the fact that, the only previous time that DOL became involved in an AFSA election, it became involved due to election improprieties by - you guessed it - Tex Harris.

Your vote for the 21st Century Slate will be a vote for continued improvement. Your failure to vote, or your vote for Tex Harris or his allies, will be a defacto vote for a return to the status quo ante, returning AFSA to what it was before 2007.

Please see www.danielmhirsch.com for more information.

Please do not sit out the election. Please vote. For an AFSA that is representative of you, and not just some personally-molded monument to Tex Harris's much-aggrandized glory days.

Never Stop

2011-03-23T06:41:00.001-07:00

P.J. CROWLEY AND THE LIMITS OF OPENNESS

2011-03-14T13:17:00.000-07:00

From Secrecy News by Steven Aftergood

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley resigned yesterday facing an Obama Administration backlash against his remarks declaring the treatment of suspected leaker Pfc. Bradley E. Manning "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid."

The conditions of Private Manning's detention became the subject of controversy when his lawyer complained that Manning was being involuntarily forced to surrender his clothing to his Quantico military guards each night, supposedly in order to protect him from self-injury. Neither Manning, his attorney, nor any competent medical authority had requested any such "protection." Instead, the compulsory nudity was widely perceived as a punitive measure, prompting protests from Amnesty International, among others. (We urged the DoD Inspector General to investigate the matter, to no known effect.)

Mr. Crowley, an uncompromising critic of leaks of classified information, is no friend of Private Manning who, he said, "is in the right place" (i.e., in jail). It was the gratuitous abuse of the prisoner that he deemed "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid."

He was right. In America, the pre-trial detention of any person who has not been convicted of a crime should be beyond reproach. In the Manning case (and in too many others), it hasn't been.

Though in criticizing Defense Department detention policy Mr. Crowley was clearly outside of his bureaucratic "lane," he deserves credit for speaking out on a matter of principle. In an intelligent system of government, such views would be freely aired and honestly attended to. But it seems that there is not much place for such speech in the current Administration.

To its credit, the State Department did publish Mr. Crowley's non-retraction on its website. "My recent comments regarding the conditions of the pre-trial detention of Private First Class Bradley Manning were intended to highlight the broader, even strategic impact of discrete actions undertaken by national security agencies every day and their impact on our global standing and leadership," Mr. Crowley said. "The exercise of power in today's challenging times and relentless media environment must be prudent and consistent with our laws and values."

That is to say, the exercise of power today is not always prudent or consistent with our laws and values. Sadly, Crowley's departure under these circumstances makes corrective action more difficult.

However, the Defense Department reportedly rescinded its forced nudity policy towards Manning. "On Friday, officials said they are again providing him with sleeping garments," the Washington Post reported.

*******

The State Department's entire press release can be seen here.

More info can be found at Life After Jerusalem and Diplopundit.

King: Maladjusted

2011-01-16T15:16:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas

2010-12-24T08:17:00.000-08:00

Don't be alarmed if you look out your window and see federal agents swarming around your house this evening.

According to the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) Command Center in Colorado, an individual codenamed Santa will overfly the United States in an unregistered aircraft loaded with packages.

In order to ensure your safety, the Department of Homeland Security will be sending personnel to every neighborhood in his path, to inspect whatever packages he leaves behind.

Portable scanners will also be made available to any homeowner who wishes to see Santa naked.

Proud To Be Irish

2010-12-09T04:40:00.000-08:00

I never thought I would ever agree with Sarah Palin about anything, but I am dismayed to say that I agree with her on this: Julian Assange is anti-American.

I am reassured, however, that I disagree with her statement that Assange is a traitor. Being a citizen of Australia, not America, he cannot, by definition, be a traitor to America.

But here's the thing: Australia has produced a number of Anti-American activists, journalists and politicians, like John Pilger, Leigh Hubbard and David Hicks (who trained with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan).

And here's the other thing: Australia is one of a number of countries that allow its citizens to hold dual citizenship and the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security has issued security clearances to American citizens who also hold Australian passports.

Same thing with Ireland. There is a car that parks regularly in DS's parking garage in Rosslyn Va, that has a bumper sticker that proclaims: "Proud To Be Irish." Not: "Proud to be an Irish-American," not: "Proud to be an American of Irish ancestry," but simply "Proud to be Irish." As in the country that boasted the IRA, which trained at PLO training camps, hijacked American aircraft, and, as recently as 2006, supported al-Qaeda. There are, in fact, a number of FSOs who hold TS clearances from DS, who also carry Irish passports.

DS has also granted granted clearances to holders of British passports, Greek passports and Indian passports. Among others.

It can do that, because, in general, a dual-national can still be eligible for a clearance unless they have recently sought to actively "use" the other citizenship (for example, traveling on a foreign passport, voting in a foreign election or buying property that only a citizen of that other country can buy.)

But here's the thing: citing Pollard (a straight-up US citizen until long after his arrest), DS does not extend that concept to holders of Israeli passports. It does not grant clearances to holders of Iranian passports, or even Latin-American passports. Although Philippino citizens are allowed by specific agreement to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces, DS revoked the clearance of an entry-level DS agent because he had the right to Philippino citizenship based on his ancestry. They also withdrew a clearance from an American citizen of Persian decent - whose family emigrated to America when Iran was our friend, to escape the wrath of the current regime - even when that employee offered to legally and officially renounce his Iranian citizenship.

I wonder if Sarah Palin can see DS's objectivity from her window.

WikiLeaks and Whistle-Blowing

2010-12-05T05:53:00.000-08:00

Even as the furor over the last batch of WikiLeaks dies down, a number of well-respected media continue to refer to WikiLeaks.org as an online "whistle-blower" organization. This is a gross distortion of fact, and a dangerous insult to whistle-blowers.

As the name implies, WikiLeaks is about leaking, not whistle-blowing. There is an important difference.

A whistleblower is a person who raises a concern about alleged wrongdoing occurring in an organization. Usually this person is a member or employee of that organization and has either personally experienced or carried out, or been asked to carry out, some misconduct by that organization. The alleged misconduct may be a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption.

Whistleblowers nearly always seek internal resolution or correction before, as a last resort, going public. They usually talk to other people within the accused organization before going to regulators, law enforcement agencies, lawmakers, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues.

Many legitimate government whistle-blowers take enormous care to avoid exposing classified documents, for example seeking to show them only to lawmakers or oversight officials who routinely deal with classified documents from the agencies involved.

Most importantly, the goal of whistleblowing is to correct a specifically identified act or process involving specific misconduct which could damage a group of people. Their purpose is to do good, and they are usually motivated by true patriotism, loyalty, and/or a desire to improve a malfunctioning system.

Leaking is different. Leaking is almost always motivated by a self-serving public- relations goal, which may be political, advertising, promotional, or deliberately malicious. The goal of leaking is to garner media attention.

WikiLeaks describes itself as a media organization, and that is what it is. Whatever else WikiLeaks does, it's purpose is to promote itself. It has an editorial policy, stated on its website, that limits submissions to documents "of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical interest." That policy would exclude most of what whistle-blowers expose right off the bat.

As their latest leaks show, the documents WikiLeaks publishes are not narrowly focused on a specific act of misfeasance, nor even, necessarily, on any misfeasance. In the wake of the release of State Department documents, many reviewers concluded that, far from demonstrating misfeasance, the documents actually document the good and honest work being done by American diplomats to protect the American people and advance America's interests. In other words, they prove that American diplomats are doing well the job they were hired to do.

Provided by a single disturbed hacker with a massive trove of criminally-obtained sensitive documents, WikiLeaks has merely taken advantage of its good (for WikiLeaks) fortune to seize an opportunity to attract media attention to itself, under the guise of doing some unidentified good by exposing some unidentified bad. That has much more in common P.T. Barnum than with Karen Silkwood.

CFSO considers Wikileaks publication of classified U.S. Government documents to be a criminal act, unmitigated by any higher ethical purpose. We strongly condemn WikiLeaks for that act, and hope that its perpetrators will be brought to justice.

We urge responsible media to reject any association of Wikileaks.org with the unfortunately often-necessary act of whistle-blowing.

Closing the barn door, again.

2010-12-01T19:30:00.000-08:00

OMB: M-11-06
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

FROM: Jacob J. Lew, Director

SUBJECT: WikiLeaks - Mishandling of Classified Information

Our national defense requires that sensitive information be maintained in confidence to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, and our homeland. Protecting information critical to our nation’s security is the responsibility of each individual who is granted access to classified information. Any unauthorized disclosure of classified information is a violation of our law and compromises our national security.

The recent irresponsible disclosure by WikiLeaks has resulted in significant damage to our national security. Any failure by agencies to safeguard classified information pursuant to relevant laws, including but not limited to Executive Order 13526, Classified National Security Information (December 29, 2009), is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

Please note the following immediate instructions:

• Each department or agency that handles classified information shall establish a security assessment team consisting of counterintelligence, security, and information assurance experts to review the agency’s implementation of procedures for safeguarding classified information against improper disclosures. Such review should include (without limitation) evaluation of the agency’s configuration of classified government systems to ensure that users do not have broader access than is necessary to do their jobs effectively, as well as implementation of restrictions on usage of, and removable media capabilities from, classified government computer networks.

• The Office of Management and Budget, the Information Security Oversight Office, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence will stand up processes to evaluate, and to assist agencies in their review of, security practices with respect to the protection of classified information.

Welcome to the 21st Century!

2010-11-28T15:02:00.001-08:00

The recent leak of a quarter of a million State Department documents on Wikileak has already embarrassed State, and exposed a number of trends in diplomatic tradecraft which State certainly would have wanted to keep out of the public eye.

For CFSO, the leaks underscore an opinion we have held for many years: that the entire security clearance process is outdated, and that there are far better ways to protect national security information.

In this case, the anachronistic clearance process (in which adjudicators with a limited and sheltered world view make decisions about the intentions and mindset of a person often very different from them) failed to detect the warning signs which would have prevented the hacking.

Then, over-emphasis on the security benefits of the clearance process allowed a disgruntled hacker free access to the classified online internet world of SIPRNet.

And, of course, the fact that this person was able to gather so many documents indicates a lack of attention to the real first line of defense in the modern world: barriers to limit access to information to those who have a real need to know it, and tripwires to call attention to the kind of broad gathering of information that the perpetrator, Pfc. Bradley Manning, engaged in. SIPRNet, of course, has such barriers and such tripwires. But they were relaxed in Iraq, and apparently poorly monitored, and clearly, they failed.

As long as security clearance adjudicators are selected from among the most conservative members of security organizations, they will fail to catch the Mannings, Ameses, or Hansons of the world. On the contrary, the only way to understand the motivations and mindsets of subjects of clearance adjudications is to engage adjudicators who resemble their subjects - who come from similar mental backgrounds and are thus able to detect the bad apples among their own.

And as long as a clearance remains the primary key to access information, those bad apples will relatively easy access to information.

It's time to bring security into the 21st century, to upgrade the security features of SIPRNet and its relatives, and to put the WWII/cold-war ideas of a security clearance into the history books, where they belong.

Trashing Our Values In The Name of Protecting Them

2010-11-14T07:56:00.000-08:00

One of the mantras of post-9/11 security professionals is that all things are allowable in the name of national security. For State's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, this takes the form of: "So what if we bend or break the rules regarding security clearance adjudications! We are only doing it to protect America's secrets!"

The mantra is not new. It fell into well-deserved disfavor for many years, as most Americans agree that trashing our national values is not a good way to protect them.

But during the years surrounding the end of WWII, the same mantra was very much alive.

One result: that after WWII, the US imported hundreds of Nazi officers, and hundreds more lesser Nazis and their Eastern European counterparts, in exchange for Nazi information on the Soviet Union. It also imported Nazi scientists, experts on rocketry and submarines, and SS Officers (for their strategic experience).

In order to fight the evils of communism, the U.S. provided safe haven to some of the worst war criminals in history; in many cases bankrolling new lives, new futures, and dummy companies to ensure them a pleasant life in America.

The operation was overseen by former OSS and CIA official Frank Wisner, who shot himself in 1965, shortly after news of the "Wisner Group's" exploits first came to light.

These included the establishment of "private companies" headed by Nazi war criminals, the establishment of "independent groups" funded by the CIA, such as the Assembly of Captive European Nations (ACEN) and the Latvian Daugavas Vanagi Alliance, headed by Nazi collaborators from Eastern Europe, and the use of former SS officers as "plausibly-deniable soldiers" in covert operations and assassinations.

That these things were done has been known or speculated about for decades.

This week, the contents of a secret Justice Department report, which provided greater insight into how these criminals were imported into the US were described by the New York Times.

Among other things, the report details the degree to which the OSS and CIA were aware of the crimes of their proteges, the lengths they went to to entice them to America, methods used to "import" them, and some of the uses to which they were put.

The NYT story is based on an unredacted draft of a report, released by the DOJ in highly redacted form, in 2006.

A 2007 reply to the 2006 release of a redacted version of the same report can be seen here.

Thank You For Your Service

2010-11-11T05:16:00.001-08:00

To be stripped of one's security clearance is to be stripped of one's nationality. It is a statement by those who see themselves as the official definers of loyalty and patriotism that a person does not meet the mark: cannot be trusted to be a loyal American.

Too often, the definers of loyalty define a patriot as one who is exactly like them: white, christian, straight, narrow-minded, bigotted and frequently appallingly ignorant of the most basic principles on which the United States of America was founded.

So each year, on Veterans' Day, CFSO likes to highlight American Veterans - American Patriots - who are as different from the definers of loyalty as diamonds are from dog manure.

This year, we salute the 442nd Infantry Regimental Combat Team, the fighting "Budda Heads." The Budda Heads, the most decorated fighting unit in the history of the American Armed Forces, was composed of Americans of Japanese descent, who fought for the United States in a war in which Japan was a leader of the enemy forces. By the standards of today's Bureau of Diplomatic security as administered by its current staff, not one of them would have received a security clearance.

The 442nd Infantry, formerly the 442nd Regimental Combat Team(RCT)of the United States Army, was self-sufficient fighting force, fighting with distinction in Italy, southern France, and Germany. The unit became the most highly decorated regiment in the history of the United States Armed Forces, including 21 Medal of Honor recipients.

Most Japanese Americans who fought in WWII were Nisei, Japanese Americans born in the U.S. Nevertheless, shortly after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Japanese American men were categorized as 4C (enemy alien) and therefore non-draftable.

On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, authorizing military authorities “to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion.” Although the order did not refer specifically to people of Japanese ancestry, it set the stage for the internment of people of Japanese descent, including many relatives and family members of the men in the 442nd.

In March 1942, Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt, head of the Western Defense Command, issued the first of 108 military proclamations that resulted in the forced removal of more than 110,000 people of Japanese ancestry on the West Coast from their homes and placed in guarded concentration camps behind barbed wire, or (as the government euphemistically referred to them) relocation camps.

In Hawaii, martial law, complete with curfews and blackouts, was imposed. A large portion of the population was of Japanese descent (150,000 out of 400,000 people in 1937) and internment was deemed not practicable, mostly for economic reasons.

When the War Department called for the removal of all soldiers of Japanese ancestry from active service in early 1942, General Delos C. Emmons, commander of the U.S. Army in Hawaii, decided to discharge those in the Hawaii Territorial Guard, which was composed mainly of ROTC students from the University of Hawaii. However, he kept the more than 1,300 Japanese American soldiers of the 298th and 299th Infantry regiments of the Hawaii National Guard.

Despite this, the discharged members of the Hawaii Territorial Guard petitioned General Emmons to allow them to assist in the war effort. The petition was granted and they formed a group called the Varsity Victory Volunteers, which performed various construction jobs for the military. General Emmons, worried about the loyalty of Japanese American soldiers in the event of a Japanese invasion, recommended to the War Department that those in the 298th and 299th regiments be organized into a “Hawaiian Provisional Battalion” and sent to the mainland. The move was authorized, and on June 5, 1942, the Hawaiian Provisional Battalion set sail for training. They landed at Oakland, California on June 10, 1942 and two days later were sent to Camp McCoy, Wisconsin. On June 15, 1942, the battalion was designated the 100th Infantry Battalion (Separate)—the “One Puka Puka”.

The 100th performed so well in training that, on February 1, 1943, the U.S. government reversed its decision on Japanese Americans serving in the armed forces, and approved the formation of a Japanese American combat unit. The U.S. Army called for 1,500 volunteers from Hawaii and 3,000 from the mainland. An overwhelming 10,000 men came forth. About 3800 were inducted. President Roosevelt announced the formation of the 442nd Infantry Regimental Combat Team (the Go For Broke regiment), famously saying, “Americanism is not, and never was, a matter of race or ancestry.”

As a regimental combat team, the 442nd RCT was a self-sufficient fighting formation of three infantry battalions (originally 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Battalions, 442nd Infantry, and later the 100th Infantry Battalion in place of the 1st), the 522nd Field Artillery Battalion, the 232nd Engineer Company, an anti-tank company, cannon company, service company, medical detachment, headquarters companies, and the 206th Army Band.

Although they were permitted to volunteer to fight, Americans of Japanese ancestry were generally forbidden to fight in combat in the Pacific Theater. No such limitations were placed on Americans of German or Italian ancestry who fought against the Axis Powers in the European Theater, mostly due to practicality, as there were many more German and Italian Americans compared to Japanese Americans. However, many men deemed proficient enough in the Japanese language were approached, or sometimes ordered, to join the Military Intelligence Service (MIS) to serve as translators/interpreters and spies in the Pacific, as well as in the China Burma India Theater. These men were sent to the MIS Language School at Camp Savage, Minnesota to improve their language skills and receive training in military intelligence.

The 442nd Combat Team, minus its 1st Battalion, which had remained in the U.S. to train Nisei replacements, sailed from Hampton Roads, Virginia, on May 1, 1944, and landed May 28 at Anzio and joined the 100th Battalion in Civitavecchia north of Rome on 10 June 1944, attached to the 34th Infantry Division.

The unit continued in the push up Italy, now attached to the 88th Infantry Division, before joining the invasion of southern France, where the 442nd participated in the fight to liberate Bruyères, and was next attached to the 36th Infantry Division, originally a Texas National Guard outfit.

The 442nd famously rescued the "Lost Battalion" at Biffontaine. Pursuant to army tradition of never leaving soldiers behind, over a five-day period, from October 26–30, 1944, the 442nd suffered the loss of nearly half of its roster—over 800 casualties, including 121 dead—while rescuing 211 members of the 36th Infantry Division's 1st Battalion, 141st Infantry, which had been surrounded by German forces in the Vosges mountains since October 24.

Following the Vosges, the 442nd was sent to the Franco-Italian border on November 28 to relieve the soon-to-be-disbanded 1st Special Service Force. The 442nd remained there, refitting and training, until March 25, 1945, when it returned to the Fifth Army in Italy and was attached to the U.S. 92nd Infantry Division.

On the Italian front, the 442nd had contact with another segregated American unit, the 92nd Infantry Division, as well as troops of the British and French colonial empires (West and East Africans, Moroccans, Algerians, Indians, Gurkhas, Jews from the Palestine mandated territory)and the non-segregated Brazilian Expeditionary Force which had in its ranks ethnic Japanese.

The 442nd returned to heavy combat, seizing Monte Belvedere on April 7 and Carrara on April 10. The 522nd Field Artillery Battalion remained in northern France and joined the push into Germany in 1945. Scouts from the 522nd were among the first Allied troops to release prisoners from the Dachau concentration camp - or, more specifically, from one of its 169 sub-camps, where more than 3000 prisoners were held.

The 442nd RCT became the most decorated unit in U.S. military history for its size and length of service, with its component 100th Infantry Battalion earning the nickname “The Purple Heart Brigade”. The 442nd RCT received 7 Presidential Unit Citations (5 earned in one month), and its members received 18,143 awards, including:

21 Medals of Honor first awarded posthumously to Private First Class Sadao Munemori, Company A, 100th Battalion, for action near Seravezza, Italy, on April 5, 1945; then to:

Barney F. Hajiro
Mikio Hasemoto
Joe Hayashi
Shizuya Hayashi
Daniel K. Inouye
Yeiki Kobashigawa
Robert T. Kuroda
Kaoru Moto
Sadao Munemori
Kiyoshi K. Muranaga
Masato Nakae
Shinyei Nakamine
William K. Nakamura
Joe M. Nishimoto
Allan M. Ohata
James K. Okubo
Yukio Okutsu
Frank H. Ono
Kazuo Otani
George T. Sakato
Ted T. Tanouye

52 Distinguished Service Crosses (including 19 Distinguished Service Crosses which were upgraded to Medals of Honor)

1 Distinguished Service Medal

560 Silver Stars (plus 28 Oak Leaf Clusters for a second award)

22 Legion of Merit Medals

15 Soldier’s Medals

4,000 Bronze Stars (plus 1,200 Oak Leaf Clusters for a second award; one Bronze Star was upgraded to a Medal of Honor. One Bronze Star was upgraded to a Silver Star.)

9,486 Purple Hearts

The members of the 442, like all American veterans honored today, made the highest sacrifice to this country. More information on the 442nd can be found here.

We thank them, and all American veterans, for their service.

A New Policy on Controlled Unclassified Info

2010-11-05T19:14:00.000-07:00

From Secrecy News by Steven Aftergood:

November 4, 2010

The White House today issued an executive order to establish a uniform policy for handling "controlled unclassified information" (CUI), which is information that is restricted from disclosure because it involves personal privacy, proprietary data, law enforcement investigations, or for certain other reasons besides national security.

The new CUI framework will replace the multiplicity of agency markings such as "sensitive but unclassified," "for official use only," and over a hundred more. By prohibiting the use of such improvised markings and by adopting a standard CUI marking which is subject to external approval and oversight across the executive branch, the new policy is expected to facilitate information sharing among agencies without fostering new secrecy.

CUI policy had been an open, unresolved item on the government's information policy agenda for nearly five years, ever since President Bush directed agency heads to "standardize procedures for sensitive but unclassified information" in a December 16, 2005 memorandum.

Significantly, the executive order on CUI does not create any new authority to withhold information from disclosure. It limits the use of the CUI marking to information that is already protected by statute, by regulation or by government-wide policy. Furthermore, it requires agencies to gain the approval of the CUI "Executive Agent" before using the CUI marking on any particular category of information. And it mandates that all such approved categories are to be made public on an official Registry.

In short, the CUI program seems well-crafted to streamline information handling in the executive branch without creating any new obstacles to public access.

But it almost turned out very differently, and one of the most important secrecy policy stories of recent years is what did not happen in the lengthy deliberative process over CUI. What was poised to happen -- but didn't -- is that CUI nearly became an adjunct part of a vastly expanded national security classification system.

As recently as last summer, the proposed CUI concept had all of the essential attributes of classification. Under a July 2010 draft of the executive order (pdf), agencies would have been permitted to impose CUI controls using a loose, undefined standard ("compelling need"). Access to CUI would have been conditional on a form of "need to know." And unauthorized disclosure of CUI would have been subject to administrative or criminal sanctions.

In every significant respect, CUI would have constituted another level of classification, by another name. It would have overwhelmed efforts to rein in and reduce official secrecy.

Fortunately a different path was chosen. To an unusual extent, the Obama Administration consulted with public interest groups on the emerging CUI policy. In response to their comments, the attributes of classification that appeared in previous drafts were not merely modified but were eliminated altogether. The result is a tightly focused executive order that clearly articulates a problem and advances a sensible solution to it.

New FISA Rules Published

2010-11-04T05:38:00.000-07:00

From Secrecy News by Steven Aftergood:

SURVEILLANCE COURT ISSUES NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which reviews government applications for domestic intelligence surveillance, issued new rules (pdf) on Monday to govern its proceedings. The new rules differ only slightly from the draft rules that were issued for public comment in late August ("FISA Court Proposes New Court Rules," Secrecy News, September 2, 2010). In general, the rules update past Court procedures to reflect passage of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which expanded government surveillance authority.

In one modest editorial change suggested by FAS, the Court altered a line requiring that "classified information" be protected to specify that only "properly classified information" must be protected (Rule 62a). Another new provision in the final rules indicated that not only the government but also the Presiding Judge of the FISA Court "may provide copies of Court orders, opinions, decisions, or other Court records to Congress" (Rule 62c2).

In lengthy comments (pdf) submitted to the Court last month, the ACLU proposed several other substantive changes: the rules should require public release of Court opinions and order that address significant or novel legal questions, including those that affect personal privacy; the Court should release legal briefs that address such questions; and the Court should clarify that it is the final arbiter of what information is to be released and what is to be redacted.

"The public has a right to see judicial rulings that define the scope of the government's most intrusive surveillance powers and affect the rights of all Americans," said Melissa Goodman of the ACLU National Security Project. "Secret law is inconsistent with the basic principles of democracy and makes informed public debate about the government's surveillance powers nearly impossible."

These specific changes were not adopted in the final rule, but new releases of Court records were not precluded either. Rule 62a explains that a Court order or opinion may be published at the direction of the Presiding Judge, following a declassification review by the executive branch if necessary:

"Before publication, the Court may, as appropriate, direct the Executive Branch to review the order, opinion, or other decision and redact it as necessary to ensure that properly classified information is appropriately protected pursuant to Executive Order 13526 (or its successor)."

At first glance, the instruction that the Court "may, as appropriate" seek declassification review of opinions and orders prior to release seems to be permissive, not mandatory. By contrast, the previous version (pdf) of the Court rules stated that opinions (though not orders) "must be reviewed" by the executive branch prior to publication.

Based on this change in language some observers inferred, happily or unhappily, that declassification review of Court opinions by the executive branch was now optional, and that the Court had reserved the right to release classified information on its own authority without such review.

But that appears to be a erroneous reading. The Court's Rule 3 states unequivocally that "In all matters, the Court and its staff shall comply with... Executive Order 13526, 'Classified National Security Information'." That Executive Order does not permit unilateral disclosures of classified information or records without the prior review of the agency that classified them.

State joins the rest of the Government, at least where software is concerned

2010-11-03T18:43:00.000-07:00

From today's issue of Washington Technology:

•By David Hubler

Apptis Inc. will provide software and solutions engineering services to the State Department under a two-year contract worth $8 million.

Under the department’s Security Information Management System (SIMS) contract, an Alliant vehicle, Apptis will develop a comprehensive Web-based system to support the personnel security clearance process, according to an Apptis statement today.

The SIMS contract will cover the entire spectrum of clearance processing from initial entry through adjudication, replacing the more manual-oriented clearance and background investigation systems, the statement said.

The new system will provide vital support to more than 800 field investigators in the United States and at 270 diplomatic posts abroad.

SIMS, a high-priority initiative for the department, is the primary software application that will automate the personnel security clearance process from end-to-end for State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Security Infrastructure, Office of Personnel Security and Suitability.

From NPR - The Kojo Nnamdi Show

2010-10-18T18:32:00.000-07:00

A CFSO supporter sent us this today. It is a good summary of a number of aspects of the security clearance process. However, some of it does not apply to the State Department, which, in an era of standardization, is intent on being different.

From NPR: The Kojo Nnamdi Show

Transcript for: The Security Clearance Conundrum

MR. KOJO NNAMDI: Welcome to "The Kojo Nnamdi Show," connecting your neighborhood with the world. It's like gold in Washington and if you lose one or it's taken away, getting it back could mean months of employment limbo, expensive lawyers and a trial. Security clearances, those confidential, secret and top-secret designations that are required for many federal workers and contractors are hard to get and even harder to keep. A recent study by the Washington Post found that 854,000 Americans have top secret clearances, nearly a third of them work for private contractors.

Since September 11th, the number of jobs that require -- September 11th, of course, being 9/11, the number of jobs that require clearances, from janitors to analysts, has increased sharply, but so has the government's scrutiny of its clearance holders. Credit card trouble or even giving your child a foreign-sounding name can be grounds for revoking or denying a clearance. So what do you do when that happens? And what are the new rules for getting and keeping these coveted clearances?

Joining us in the studio is Jenna Greene. She's the senior reporter for The National Law Journal. Jenna, good to have you here.

MS. JENNA GREENE: Thanks for having me.

NNAMDI:Also with us is Pam Stuart. She's an attorney in private practice here in Washington and a former federal prosecutor. Pam, thank you for joining us.

MS. PAM STUART:It's great to be here.

NNAMDI: You can join this conversation by calling 800-433-8850. Are you applying for a security clearance? Have you run into any hurdles? If so, what? Have you ever had your security clearance revoked or denied? Why? Call us at 800-433-8850. Go to our website kojoshow.org. Send us a tweet at kojoshow or an e-mail to kojo@wamu.org.

NNAMDI:Jenna Greene, before we talk about the challenges of getting and keeping a security clearance, can you tell us non-governmental types about the different kinds of clearances and why they're so valuable to workers and to the economic health of our region?

GREENE:Sure. There are three basic levels of clearance. There is confidential, secret and top secret. The Post reported -- what was it? 800,000 have top...

NNAMDI:854,000...

GREENE: Total clearances is actually a bigger number, about three million federal workers and military personnel, according to the Defense Department, hold some level of clearance. And about a million government contractors also have clearances. Of those numbers, most of them are with the Defense Department. Clearances, really, are a valuable commodity. Employees who have clearances are rewarded. According to the website, clearance.jobs.com, the average pay for a government contractor employed with a security clearance in the D.C. area is almost $100,000.

And government contractors have said they'll pay a 15 to 25 percent salary premium to hire employees that have clearances. One said in testimony before Congress, we give them special bonuses and incentives, treating them like a whole different class of citizen.

NNAMDI: If you're an employee or a government contractor and you are not granted a security clearance or if your clearance is revoked, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals is one place where you go to protest. You write in a September article in The National Law Journal that that court's docket has increased 25 percent in the last ten years. Why?

(CFSO Note: State direct hire employees cannot use DOHA)

GREENE:The lawyers who practice before it have a fairly simple answer. They say it's a result of 9/11 and that many, many more jobs require clearances. Now, not necessarily intelligence jobs, but you could be a tarmac worker at an airport or doing data entry in a computer system. Just the sheer number of jobs that require clearances has grown so much and so, too, have the number of people who are getting their clearances denied and then are going to this court to try to protest the denial.

NNAMDI: Pam Stuart, when an application for security clearance is denied, is it usually for people who are first-time applicants or people who have held those jobs or jobs in the federal government or with contractors for many years?

STUART: It can be any one of those. It typically will happen to somebody who is a first-time applicant if they say something that is not truthful on their application form or they give some sort of indication to the investigators that they raise a question in terms of their allegiance to the United States or if they spent a lot of time abroad. If they have a lot of friends with foreign background or family with foreign background, if they have had problems in the past with criminal behavior or drug use or that sort of thing.

But this can happen throughout life. And so when someone is re-investigated, which happens once every five years, questions on the same lines can be raised.

NNAMDI: If during the course of those five years somebody finds themselves in a whole lot of credit card debt or have their homes foreclosed, is that a factor also?

STUART: Yes. Unfortunately even in these economic times, the investigators are looking for a reason why someone might be subject to undue influence from someone who is seeking classified information that belongs to the United States. If you are subject to being pressured or bribed or anything of that sort, even though you may think you're not, they may think that you are because of excessive debt.

NNAMDI: There are some 13 different standards for denying a security clearance. Jenna Greene, what's the most common reason these days that applicants seem to be denied a security clearance?

(CFSO Note: For State, it is failure to comply with reporting requirements)

GREENE: These days, it's financial. We did an analysis of the court's decisions to date this year, it's about 1,000 decisions and we found that financial considerations were flagged in 63 percent of the decisions. It might not have been the sole reason that someone was denied a clearance, but it was at least one factor.

NNAMDI: I suspect that before 1995, when President Clinton developed a system, when it was more arbitrary and before the Aldrich Ames episode, that financial considerations were not as much a factor, right, Pam?

STUART: Well, I don't think that's really the case. I think the Aldrich Ames case certainly highlighted that and also Robert Hanson, the FBI agent who had some mistresses on the side, as I recall, and lived outside his means as well. But the standards certainly for investigation were enhanced after those incidents and certainly after 9/11.

NNAMDI: Could you tell us a little bit, Pam, about the investigative process that applicants for security clearances go through?

STUART:Yes. Typically, if they are employed by a contractor, there will be a security agent or a security officer at their company who really coordinates this and will inform the applicant of what he or she has to do. That involves filling out either an electronic form or what's called an SF86, which is an application for a security non-ordinary type position. I'm sorry.

NNAMDI: Anything out of the ordinary...

STUART: Well, something that requires a clearance. And so there are quite a number of questions that are asked on that form and some of them call for some sort of judgment in answering them. And if you slip up, then that's a problem. Once you have filled out the forms, then the matter goes to an investigator. Typically, the investigator is either employed by the U.S. government or by a government contractor.

STUART: And the investigator will take the forms that you've filled out and interview your past employers, your family, your friends and an increasing circle of friends beyond that to find out what they need to know.

NNAMDI: It's a conversation we're having on security clearances and the denial of security clearances. We're talking with Pam Stuart. She's an attorney in private practice here in Washington and a former federal prosecutor. Jenna Greene is a senior reporter for The National Law Journal. We're taking your calls at 800-433-8850. Would you hire a lawyer to gain a security clearance for your job? You can also send an e-mail to kojo@wamu.org. Here is Owen in Alexandria, Va. Hi, Owen.

OWEN: Yes, Kojo. If you had a security clearance and got a physical illness, then no problem. But if you had a security clearance and got a mental illness, then the fear out there of getting treated is so widespread among those with security clearances that they simply won't get them. They won't even take advantage of the employee assistance programs offered by organizations. And that means that fear is so medieval that you have a whole bunch of people with basically mental illness walking around with security clearances. I encourage you to do a program just on this subject alone and I'll take your answers off the air.

NNAMDI: Well, thank you very much for your call, Owen. It is my understanding, Jenna Greene, that before 1995, if you were simply getting mental health counseling, you could be denied a security clearance. Our caller seems to suggest that, in a way, that is still in effect.

GREENE: My understanding is that they have gotten better about it and certainly reading decisions from the court that hears these cases, The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, there are a number of cases where they have people with fairly significant mental illnesses, bi-polar, for example, or depression. But if they are getting treated, they will talk to the doctor, for example. But the court does seem willing, in many cases, to approve clearances, but I certainly can understand the concern.

(CFSO note: State is far more stringent on this than DoD or OPM)

NNAMDI: Pam Stuart, what has been your experience with mental health counseling?

STUART: Well, it is very, very important to understand that the process has become much more sophisticated when it comes to mental health issues. And just as Jenna suggested, having an illness, a diagnosed illness, is no longer a complete barrier to gaining a clearance. What it simply does is raise an issue that, as she suggested, involves reviewing the type of issue involved.

If it's simply a situational disorder brought on, say, by a stressful divorce or death of a family member or something like that, those are fairly easily dealt with. If it is a condition that is chronic, then the investigators will want to know and talk with the doctor to make sure that the applicant is being treated, has the appropriate medication and perhaps most important, is compliant in taking the medication regularly so that it becomes a means of deciding that that person is appropriate for a clearance.

NNAMDI: Thank you very much. On to the phones now again, here is Alexi in Washington, D.C. Alexi, your turn.

ALEXI: Hi, I would like to -- my clearance was suspended recently, quite abruptly, without any explanation. And I was told that I cannot know the reason why it was suspended until it's going to be revoked. So I know that that's the situation in -- been a specific case, when a person's clearance was revoked for seven years. So my first question is do I have a right to know why? Question number...

NNAMDI: Do you have a right to know why it was suspended?

ALEXI: Why it was suspended.

NNAMDI: Before it is revoked?

ALEXI: Yes, before it is revoked, yeah, because, you know. The second is many people suggested to me to hire a lawyer. They say only a lawyer can prevent me from further trouble. The other people tell me that no, a lawyer is going to make the situation much more complicated because it's going to generate a parallel paper trail, paper process, which is going to make my situation worse and besides, I'm going to antagonize the people who are working on my clearance. Could you, please, give me any suggestions?

NNAMDI: The first part of the question, Jenna Greene, do you have any idea whether there is any law or any rule that says that Alexi has to know why his clearance was suspended before it is and it would seem to be ultimately revoked?

GREENE: I don't actually, but Pam probably does.

NNAMDI: Yeah, Pam, I was going to ask the second part of the question (unintelligible).

GREENE: I can answer the second one better than the first.

NNAMDI: Indeed.

STUART: There...

NNAMDI: Would a lawyer complicate -- well, then before Anna answers, will a lawyer complicate matters for Alexi?

GREENE: No. I don't think a lawyer will complicate matters. You know, you're going to have pay a lawyer. But from what I saw reviewing the courts decisions, people who hire lawyers are more likely to be successful. That's not to say that lawyers don't still lose plenty of cases and sometimes people who represent themselves are sometimes successful. But all in all, your odds are going to be better hiring a lawyer. It's no guarantee. And overall, it's tough to -- it's tough to win one of these cases. Analyzing the courts decisions to date this year, the people were successful about 27 percent of the time. So it's not easy to get -- once a clearance has been taken away, it's not that easy to get it back.

NNAMDI: Here now is Pam Stuart, the lawyer.

STUART: Well, it probably will not surprise you that I would recommend that you get a lawyer in this case. And I would certainly go to your security officer and ask for what's called a statement of reasons. You are entitled to a statement of reasons as to why the security office that is dealing with your case feels that it -- at this time, it is not clearly in the national interest for you to continue to hold your clearance.

STUART: A lawyer would be able to then analyze your situation in a confidential consultation and act as a buffer between you and the people who are trying to deny your clearance. It's really, I think, very important in your case to get a lawyer. And sometimes, if you work for a contractor, the contractor will pay for the legal services required.

NNAMDI: Alexi, thank you very much for your call.

ALEXI: Thank you.

NNAMDI: We're going to take a short break. When we come back, we'll continue this conversation on security clearances, their approval and denial and the process involved. But you can still call us, 800-433-8850. Do you think the system for getting a security clearance is fair? 800-433-8850 or go to our website, kojoshow.org. I'm Kojo Nnamdi.

NNAMDI: We're having a conversation about security clearances and how they are approved and denied. Inviting your calls at 800-433-8850. We're talking with Pam Stuart. She's an attorney in private practice here in Washington and a former federal prosecutor. Jenna Greene is a senior reporter for The National Law Journal. On to John in Great Falls, Va. John, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

JOHN: I am a one-person company. I am the owner. I would like to know if I can personally apply for security clearance. What is the process and how much is it going to cost me?

NNAMDI: Jenna, have any idea?

GREENE: I'm not sure how it works if it's your own company. I mean, I know if you're an individual person, you can't apply for a security clearance. Your company has to do it for you. And my understanding is that they're not charged to get the process -- for the clearance. It's -- the government pays for the cost of the investigation. In your case, I'm not sure how it works if you're -- if it's your own company. Maybe, Pam knows.

NNAMDI:Pam?

STUART: Well, if you have your own company and you're applying to be a contractor, I believe that you can, through a contractor that will hire you as a sub-contractor, apply for a clearance. But I would consult with a company that is in the same field that you are to see whether or not you can strike up such an arrangement.

NNAMDI: Thank you very much for your call, John. Let's get back to the financial issues for a second here. Because when a client comes to you with a security clearance denial, Pam, for being in debt, how do you mitigate that before a court?

STUART: Well, actually, Kojo, what it comes to me as, is not quite a denial, but it is generally after the person has been issued, what I mentioned before, a statement of reasons, which indicates reasons why, based on the investigation, the government thinks that, at this time, it is not clearly in the national interest to grant that person a clearance. At that point, the applicant has the opportunity to notify the agency that is conducting the investigation, which for a contractor would be the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals or for some other agencies, it might be internal, say, at the CIA or the National Reconnaissance Organization and others, to notify the agency that you intend to take advantage of the appeal procedures.

STUART: And at that point, a lawyer would look at the reasons that are listed in the statement of reasons and interview the client and decide whether or not it is worthwhile to even pursue an appeal.

NNAMDI: Before we go any further, we've been talking a lot about cases brought by the employees of the defense -- defense contractors and those are heard before the DOHA. But what about federal civilian employees and members of the military, who hears their appeals when they're denied clearance?

STUART: Well, as I indicated, some agencies do their own clearance process. But some government employees also may go before the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, typically military employees or those connected with the defense department. Others may have an investigation within their own agency. For example, sometimes an investigation by the inspector general of an agency may raise a clearance issue. And those investigations may be combined.

NNAMDI: And if it's not the Defense Office of Hearing and Appeals, it's my understanding that you go through the same process assembling evidence and building a defense, but sometimes you have an additional opportunity where that you can accept or decline to have a personal appearance.

STUART: Yes. That's correct. And in my view, people should always accept that opportunity because it really is an opportunity to explain further why you ought to have a clearance. And for the agency officials who are going to be involved in the -- at least, first time -- first line of decision-making to, as I say, eyeball you and decide whether or not you're a truth-telling person.

NNAMDI: Do most people now take that option?

STUART: A lot of people don't, but those are probably the ones who don't come to me for guidance.

NNAMDI: Thank you for you call, John. Here now is Ebin in Springfield, Va. Ebin, you're turn. Go ahead, please.

EBIN: Hello, Kojo, can you hear me?

NNAMDI: Yes, I can.

EBIN: Real quickly, I have served the nation since June 19, 1975. In 1980, I got a top-secret clearance. In 2005, my ex-wife began a divorce proceeding. As part of that, she called a complaint with my agency, which is a non-military federal agency. There was a lengthy investigation. My security has come up for renewal and I was told that during the interview with the OPM investigator that I appeared to be evasive regarding issues with the divorce.

Now, the largest issue with the renewal of my clearance is credit. I got stuck holding the bag for a mortgage, for joint credit cards, for my credit cards and it was literally more per month than I made. And until the time that I was thrown out of the house, my credit was impeccable for 25 years. What are my options? I've gotten a letter that says I've got some explaining to do and there's basically nothing more to say then, do the math.

When you make this much money a month and your tax pay is twice that much, something's got to give. So your first need is shelter, food, parking, gas in your car to go to your job. I'm in a trick back here.

NNAMDI: That's the situation Ebin finds himself in right now, Pam Stuart.

STUART: Well, fortunately, Ebin, you have a record of exemplary service to the nation. So my guess is that your supervisors and employers are very anxious to assist you in this process. I would suggest that you get counsel and it -- that counsel will probably assemble the records involving your divorce, get you to a financial counselor and make arrangements so that it will be clear to the next level of review that you've taken steps to assure that you will be able to shoulder these unwanted and unexpected responsibilities in the responsible way that you have conducted yourself throughout your career.

NNAMDI: What happens, Pam Stuart, when the shoe, so to speak, is on the other foot? We got this from Tom in Falls Church, Va. His wife has a secret clearance. She held it before they got married. He has high credit card and IRS debt. Can that prevent her getting future clearances?

STUART: It can. And this is -- this is why within the intelligence community and those who hold clearances, you certainly want to investigate carefully before you fall in love. It's a real problem. I once represented somebody who married a Frenchman. And in his interview process, the investigator asked him whether he knew any communists. He said, of course. Well -- and that's because in France, everybody knows communists. Well, she lost her clearance because of that. It was terrible.

NNAMDI: In Europe where communist parties are very often still alive and well, we don’t have the same view of them in this country as they do in Europe. Thank you very much for your call. Speaking of which, we got this from somebody who sent it by e-mail and it's a kind of laundry list question, Jenna Greene. "Do any of these things affect the application process, dual citizenship or having parents or family overseas?"

GREENE: Oh, yeah. That's a big one. The -- for the most part, you're not going to get a clearance if you have -- if you hold two passports. To get a clearance, you'll need to surrender one of the pass -- well, surrender the non-American passport. They don't like dual citizenship. And having relatives overseas can also be a real problem, especially if you actually call them or see them or have contact with them. It seems it's a little easier if you're completely estranged from them. But if you have a lot of ties overseas, especially to countries like maybe Iran or Afghanistan or China, but even sometimes western Europe or countries that are allies, that can be a problem.

Because they are concerned that you might have either a foreign preference or foreign influence and that they might be able to -- someone could -- I think, as one lawyer put it to me, you know, say, give us the goods or off with Mom's head. And so there -- they don't want a person who has access to top secret information that -- and top secret by definition would mean that disclosure would cause exceptionally grave danger to the United States. So if there is a risk of that, they're going to think twice about granting a clearance.

NNAMDI: Having a bachelors degree from Beirut, Lebanon and including the Arabic language on your resume as one of your languages -- as one of your languages, yes.

GREENE: I would think they'd like the language part.

NNAMDI:I thought that would be more of an...

GREENE: But…

NNAMDI:...asset than a deficit in that situation, right, Pam?

STUART: Yes, it is. But, of course, they want to know the circumstances under which you became an Arabic speaker. And if I might follow up on the question to Jenna. They've gotten a little bit more lenient on the issue of having dual passports these days. If you have an exceptionally good reason and can make arrangements with your security officer to hold the foreign passport until such time as you really need it to travel and they've determined it's a really good reason, then sometimes a dual citizenship and dual passport applicant will not be denied a clearance. But that's a relatively recent development.

NNAMDI: On to Bill in Harpers Ferry, W.Va. Bill, you are on the air. Go ahead, please.

BILL: Yeah, I had a quick question and a comment. One was the -- I was curious how the candidates' engagement in social media, such as Twitter, Facebook, et cetera, would affect their application process. And the comment is -- or another question perhaps, is that it seems like there's been a huge politization (sp?) of what is being cleared and does that have an impact on the number of clearances that are required for things that maybe should not be in -- under the umbrella of clearance?

NNAMDI: When you say a politization -- whatever that word is, the politicizing of the clearance process, exactly what do you mean?

BILL: Well, it seems recently some of the documents that should be open to public discourse have been stamped clear -- clearance or top secret or secret when, in fact, they really did not have a -- did not present a grave danger to the U.S. simply were -- it was politically expedient to do so.

NNAMDI: I guess, the difference between documents that are classified and shouldn't be and the process for getting clearance is what our caller is making a relationship between. Is that relationship, Jenna Greene, obvious in the security clearance process at all?

GREENE: Not so much to me, except maybe just the general trend of requiring more clearances for employees and keeping more things confidential.

NNAMDI: How about social media? Have you covered any cases at all where social media were a factor in clearance or denial?

GREENE: Not where it's a specific factor. But I don't doubt that they would look at it. I mean, the OPM standard to grant a clearance is you need to be reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct in character and of complete and unswerving loyalty to the United States. And when they're doing the investigations, much of it is done electronically. So I would imagine that social media would be one of the things that they might find if they are doing searches of you on the Internet or other kinds of investigation. And so comments you make on social media might be viewed, you know, through that prism.

NNAMDI: I'm pretty sure, Pam Stuart, that they do look at social media these days.

STUART: I am certain that they do, although I have not had a case involving this. But think about it. If you have merely an application form that's 10 pages long and you list six friends, but on your Facebook page you have 330, this is sort of like having a cornucopia of friends from which to chose for the investigator. And certainly they would be able to look and see who your friends are and if there's anybody with a foreign sounding name or an address. You can probably be sure they'll be questioned.

NNAMDI: Which brings me to this. And you can stay on the line for a second, Bill, because I’m going to get back to social media. But we got this e-mail from Beth in D.C. "What on Earth is a foreign sounding name? Sven, Heidi, Jorge, Chang, Beth, Kojo?"

STUART: Well, as I've said sometimes, you need to have come over on the Mayflower to definitely get a clearance these days. So if your name is something like Elliott or Miles Standish, you probably are in better shape than if you...

NNAMDI: Oh, Barack, maybe.

STUART: Yeah.

GREENE: Yeah.

STUART: Or have a name, like, Barack Obama or have relatives that live in Kenya. Fortunately, he got to his top security clearance the difficult way. And probably...

NNAMDI: Even though...

STUART:...didn't even get investigated.

NNAMDI: ...even though there's still haters and doubters. But Beth in D.C. says, "I don't get that at all." And back to the issue of social media, Bill. Apparently, it is not everything that one does as a young person on a college campus that might be considered imprudent will result in a denial because Jenna Greene has found some interesting example of people -- examples of people who had, for instance, used drugs, but one was granted security clearance and one was denied. Could you tell us about those cases?

GREENE: Sure. There are -- sometimes in reading through these decisions, you can find summaries that seem flatly contradictory. And in this case, two applicants who smoked pot over the last couple years, both kind of maybe a dozen times, and one also true hallucinogenic mushrooms. Well, the mushroom guy got a clearance and the other guy didn't. So the question is why? What's the difference?

Well, the mushroom guy was 23 years old. And when he smoked pot, he was, you know, 19, 20, 21. And there -- and he described it as a juvenile mistake. And there is some recognition on the part of judges that maybe you don't have great judgment when you're 19 or sometimes you do make bad decisions. And they are sometimes willing to forgive that. In this case, you know, he said he was very sorry and he would never do it again.

In the case of the other person, he was 58 years old and he smoked pot with his children. And he explained it as sort of wanting to be in touch with them and, you know, he had reason why he thought it was appropriate.

NNAMDI: At another level.

GREENE: Yeah. But the judge really did not like that at all and said that basically he was old enough to know better and that he was in effect condoning his children's illegal drug use and he did not get the clearance.

NNAMDI: Thank you very much for your call, Bill. But Pam, tell us about one of the more interesting cases you've tackled before the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals and how you built the defense in the case of a woman who apparently bought or appeared to have bought an apartment in Seoul, South Korea.

GREENE: Well, that was a very heartwarming case for me because it ended up well. She was the daughter of a gentleman who was deceased, but he had been a officer in the Korean military. And fortunately for me, during the Korean War, he had worked with the American military and was awarded an honor at Fort Sill in Oklahoma. And it turned out, as I interviewed her more thoroughly, it was really the dream of her parents for her to come to the United States and to work.

STUART: And she had the opportunity in Seoul to work with a defense contractor. And when their project was up, they invited her to the United States, And she, being a very entrepreneurial sort of person, started up her own business, which included providing services to the State Department and she needed a top-secret clearance. Well, during the investigation, they discovered that her now widowed mother had put an apartment in Seoul in the name of her daughter who was seeking a clearance.

Well, it really is usually a no-no for you to own any property in a foreign nation to get a clearance. Well, I interviewed the mother and had her explain that in Korea, it is impossible -- nearly impossible to own two pieces of property legally. And so she put this second piece of property, which she viewed as a part of her wealth that she would give to her children, in the name of her daughter. And that, even though in theory the daughter was the owner, it was really the mother who was the owner.

And once I included the picture of the father getting his award at Fort Sill in the application package, or the appeal package, her clearance was granted and she continues to provide very important security services to the State Department.

NNAMDI: And you actually had to get her mother to testify?

STUART: Yes. By way of affidavit that had to be translated by a certified translator here in the United States.

NNAMDI: And that's sometimes how difficult the process is, but in this case, it ended up with that individual getting the clearance. We're going to take a short break. If you've called, stay on the line. We're discussing security clearances, how they are approved and denied. And taking your calls at 800-433-8850. I'm Kojo Nnamdi.

NNAMDI: We're talking about security clearances, the denial and the process by which you may be able to get a security clearance if it has been initially denied. We're talking with Jenna Greene, senior reporter for the National Law Journal, and Pam Stuart, who is an attorney in private practice here in Washington and a formal federal prosecutor.

NNAMDI: We got this Facebook comment from Mark Zaid, a lawyer who works on these issues. "There is no formal appeal, right or due process attached to suspensions which are actually not viewed as adverse actions. Instead, the government views it as a temporary measure in order to allow further investigation for the particular agency to determine whether or not the clearance will be denied or revoked and a statement of reasons is issued.

Unfortunately, a clearance suspension oftentimes has the practical effect of a denial or revocation, particularly because of the length of time that it might take to resolve, months and even years, and the likelihood that a contractor will be terminated, in the interim, by their employer." Despite, however, that and the fact that this seems pretty dim hopes for those who are actually appealing their security clearance denials, Jenna Greene, you said only about 27 percent of people after get clearance after they appeal. How much access does the public have to Defense Office and Hearings and Appeals decisions?

GREENE: They publish them online, which, to me, is fascinating because, you know, for -- both as a journalist and also, I think, for the applicants, the security process can be kind of a black box. But this court, DOHA, publishes its opinions. And my understanding is also you can even go to the hearings, assuming the people involved agree to it. And so this is really kind of a rare window into the process. The only other agency that publishes decisions is the Department of Energy. Also for contractors, but it's a much smaller number of decisions.

NNAMDI: Pam Stuart, how useful are these public decisions for your practice?

STUART:I find them extremely useful because the guidelines that are used by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals apply essentially throughout the government. They might be called something different, but they're essentially the same guidelines. So if, for example, you're doing a case at the Central Intelligence Agency, you can refer to the cases decided by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals for some precedent or guidance as to how the CIA ought to decide a particular case.

(CFSO Note: The State Department is one of very few government agencies that do not use DOHA decisions as a precedent.)

NNAMDI: On to the telephones again, here is George is Manassas, Va. Hi, George.

GEORGE: My question was if you've let a security clearance drop, do you have to start the procedure entirely over again?

STUART:Yes.

NNAMDI: In a word, George, yes. Here is Elise in Bramble Town, Va. Elise, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

ELISE: Hi. I'm one of those sort of federal employees who is in clearance purgatory. I held a high security clearance for many years. As a result of an EEO action that involved some illegal behavior, retaliations went against my security clearance which ended with me having an administration -- an administrative denial of access to information, which led to me being put on leave, which then, despite my lawyers best efforts, led to me suddenly being put on leave without pay when my lawyer was called up to the reserves and sent overseas.

Which then led to my former agency refusing to comply with the judge's decision that they had to pay me and do some other things. OPM interceding telling them that they had not complied and could not deny my clearance. I never had any actual revocation, but ended up sort of in this black abyss where nobody will answer any questions.

Had recently been tried to be hired again by people, because I have an interesting specialty, and in the process of this, my former agency retroactively canceled my health insurance, which led to some financial problems which have been straightened out or are being dealt with by another attorney. In the meantime, in this recent process, I was -- someone tried to hire me.

We started again, did the 72-page application, got a DOHA thing to please answer the questions that I had already answered. Could I testify that what the investigator said six years ago was correct? Responded to them with an extension of time and then got like a denial because I had not responded and that they were not acknowledging that I had an extension. So at this point, it's been several years. ELISE13:51:02This has gone back and forth. I no longer cry about it. The question is, would it behoove me to actually get an attorney or am I just, as they say, SOL and never going to be able to work in my profession again?

NNAMDI: Pam Stuart?

STUART: Well, I wish you had retained an attorney years ago...

NNAMDI:In the first place.

STUART:...although it sounds like you did have an attorney, at some point. But in a case like this, I hate to say this, but there are some cases when the government, for some reason, just gets a bee in its bonnet and decides, sometimes for improper and discriminatory reasons, that they don't want you to have a clearance. They didn't like you when you were there and they don't want you back. Now, there are, of course, reasons that you can take them to court and you have to be very aggressive about it. It sounds like you have been given the runaround to the nth degree.

NNAMDI: When you say you can take them to court, it's my understanding that security cases...

STUART: Oh, I'm sorry.

NNAMDI:...like the ones being discussed, cannot be heard in any other court besides these agency panels.

(CFSO Note: You cannot appeal a security clearance decision in court, but you can appeal an agencies failure to follow its own rules, or the law).

STUART:That is correct. But the discrimination aspect of it...

NNAMDI: Okay.

STUART:...may be. But the problem with that is in the area of discrimination, the Supreme Court has watered it down and the time limits are so fierce that it's often difficult to bring these cases. But if they continue to retaliate against you for having filed a claim of discrimination, that starts the clock running again and you should pursue it.

NNAMDI: Elise's case is a good example, Jenna Greene. But what kind of havoc do these denials generally reap for those who have held a job for years and then suddenly can't pass their clearance?

GREENE: I mean, it usually it means they're out of a job. In the case Elise mentioned, this is something -- wasn't a focus of my reporting, but some lawyers did mention concerns that the government might use revoking a security clearance as kind of an easier way to take HR action. That sometimes it might be simpler to yank a security clearance as opposed to trying to fire someone because of civil service protections. And there has been certainly some concern among lawyers that this is something that could happen.

NNAMDI: Elise, thank you for your call. We move onto Anne in Fairfax, Va. Anne, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

ANNE: Yes. Hi. I had a question. My husband went through a security clearance process for his federal government job. And in the course of the interviews, he was told he had to give his parents' social security numbers and my parents' social security numbers, as well as my social security number. And I just wondered if that's routine and if there's any way -- you know, that seems, in this age of identity theft, to be a problem and a little bit of an invasion of privacy. But is that routine or is there any way he could have said no, is my question.

NNAMDI Any knowledge of that, Pam Stuart?

STUART: Well, I don't have specific knowledge of whether they ask this sort of thing, but I am not the least bit surprised. Because as I mentioned earlier, an investigation will include not only you, your immediate family, your friends, your friends' friends, anybody who might know anything about you, but certainly but if your parents are living, they will also look into whether or not any ties you might have to them raise any security concerns.

So I'm not surprised that that question was asked and I would not be concerned providing that information to a government investigator whom you have satisfied yourself is an investigator hired by the government.

NNAMDI: Speaking of satisfying yourself as to the investigator, we got this e-mail from someone who said, "I was applying for a clearance and they were asking for records from my psychologist. The psychologist refused to send records, saying that under Virginia law she couldn't until someone with a badge came and asked specific questions. Do you or your guests know what the rules are? The government decided to withdraw my application, at that point." Do you know what the rules in that case, Pam?

(CFSO Note: The APA has its own rules regarding releasing information to security clearance investigators.)

STUART: Well, I do know that mental health information is very, very carefully protected. Here in the District of Columbia, for example, a doctor cannot provide information without a release from the patient and there are certain procedures that must be gone through in order to protect that information. And I'm not familiar with the Virginia rules are, but I would not be surprised.

However, it seems to me that it was an erroneous decision to give up simply because a psychologist said, I require somebody appropriately credentialed to ask for this information. I would certainly inquire of your security officer whether or not that's the case and see if you can revive your application.

NNAMDI: Thanks for you call, Anne. Here is Roger is Alexandria, Va. Roger, your turn.

ROGER: Yeah, hi. I just want to let you know that I work for a government contractor. And when I applied for a top-secret clearance with the investigator, when we were talking, I had mentioned that I had a problem with depression. And I said, my co-workers know about it, my friends know about it, my family all know about it. And it almost became a non issue. She was only concerned if that knowledge could be used against me. And since it was out there, the clearance went through and there was no problem whatsoever. Unlike -- please, go ahead.

NNAMDI: Oh, no. I was going to ask Pam Stuart, as we are running out of time, on the one hand, there's the issue of whether that knowledge can be used against you. On the other hand, I guess there's a concern about how it would affect your performance.

STUART: Well, obviously, this gentleman has a circle of friends who know about it. He's probably undergoing medical treatment, such that he performs in a manner just like anybody else. Depression is an illness much like any other illness. And once you take the medication, it shouldn't affect your performance at all.

NNAMDI: Thank you very much for your call, Roger. And finally, we got this e-mail from Jeff in Arlington. "Where does the contracting boom fit into this mess? My roommate works for an IT consulting business. They've done work for government agencies, agencies that do a lot of secret work, therefore he's applied and been granted a clearance. He'd be the first person to tell you that as a 25-year-old still fresh out of college computer geek, he has no business doing top-secret anything.

I assume as much for a lot of people who work for contractors and not for the government." Have you heard that before, Jenna Greene?

GREENE: It sounds a little bit alarming, actually. You know...

NNAMDI: They gave me a top-secret clearance, but they shouldn’t.

GREENE: Yeah. Like, I have no business knowing this stuff. You would -- I mean, I think that the investigators are supposed to look at -- well, they say the whole person and decide, basically, are they a safe bet or not. And this case...

NNAMDI: The investigator obviously had a higher opinion of him than he has of himself.

GREENE: Than his roommate.

NNAMDI: Jenna Greene is a senior reporter for the National Law Journal. Jenna, thank you very much for joining us.

GREENE: Oh, thank you.

NNAMDI: Pam Stuart is an attorney in private practice here in Washington and a former federal prosecutor. Pam Stuart, thank you for joining us.

STUART: You're welcome.

NNAMDI: And thank you all for listening. I'm Kojo Nnamdi.

CFSO Supporter Ann Wright Among Honorees in Art Show

2010-10-05T06:14:00.000-07:00

Sunday, October 03, 2010 by Katherine Rushworth

ANN WRIGHT, retired army colonel, foreign diplomat and anti-war activist and peace advocate, resigned from foreign service after almost 30 years because she couldn't support the U.S. invasion of Iraq. She said if you strongly disagree with the administration in which you serve, you must resign if you wish to speak out.

To speak the truth can be a daunting task, especially when what you have to say challenges established beliefs and practices, or those in power. The brave hearts who dare take a stand run the risk of being ostracized, marginalized or even penalized for the right to speak their convictions.

A thought-provoking exhibition of 28 portraits depicting a cross-section of "Americans Who Tell the Truth," is on view at ArtRage: the Norton Putter Gallery, on Hawley Avenue in Syracuse. The show, which runs through Oct. 23, presents the faces and stories of some of America's great speakers of the truth. Some of the names and faces are familiar; but many are not, which proves change can come about without headlines or sound bites.

This selection of works by Maine-based artist Robert Shetterly was culled from a collection of 150 portraits, which the artist began "nearly three years ago as a way to channel (his) anger and grief" following the devastating events of Sept. 11, 2001. He was looking for something good to come from all of that destruction. Some of the subjects he selected were critical voices in the post- 9/11 lead up to the Iraq War; but others spoke their minds at earlier times, for different, but no less controversial and/or vital causes.

In this series of portraits, Shetterly marries words with imagery to create works that indelibly link his subjects to their legacies -- some past and others present. The portraits are strong, unsentimental likenesses of men and women who have made a difference in some aspect of American life ... social, political, religious, etc.

To bring the person to life, Shetterly scribes a few sentences or choice words back into the paint either above or below the portrait. The words are carefully selected, designed to capture the essence of what the person stood or stands for. Beside each 30- by 36-inch portrait hangs an 8½- by 11-inch biography of each subject and few statements in his/her words.

"The greatest bulwark of capitalism is militarism," spreads like a headline across the top of Emma Goldman's portrait. Goldman -- anarchist, feminist, labor advocate -- seems to emerge from the dark background like a figure stepping out of the shadows. Her look is intense, focused and her gaze is riveting.

I'm told by show organizers that Shetterly worked from photographs for many of the portraits, but there were a few subjects he actually met, talked with and photographed. Once of those subjects was the great political columnist, Molly Ivins, who died of breast cancer in 2007. Ivins was about truth and humor and Shetterly captures her wearing a broad grin and laughing eyes. She told the artist during his visit with her that the "Best way to get the sons of bitches is to make people laugh at them." Those words are etched into the paint at the top of the painting.

Ivins' humor and political wrath were not unlike that of the great American political humorist, Mark Twain, who is also represented in this exhibition. This is one of the least convincing portraits in the show, painted almost in a cartoon style, but there's no denying it's Twain. The quote, "It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress," captures the humorist's acerbic political wit.

Then there's Lateefah Simon, a chronic shoplifter at the age of 15, who now helps young women at risk in San Francisco. Her portrait shows a young, relaxed, African-American woman smiling broadly at the viewer. She's an unknown face doing life-changing work.

Other known subjects include Helen Keller, Muhammad Ali, Eugene V. Debs and Noam Chomsky. But there are dozens of names you won't know and their stories are just as compelling as those of the famous.

What that tells us, or the hope it engenders is that the ability and need to speak up can and does happen quietly and that every and any one of us can make a difference if we step up and speak our minds.

Katherine Rushworth, of Cazenovia, is a former director of the Michael C. Rockefeller Arts Center (State University College at Fredonia) and of the Central New York Institute for the Arts in Education. Reach her at features@syracuse.com.

© 2010 syracuse.com. All rights reserved.

They're Ba-aaack!

2010-10-03T09:51:00.000-07:00

Blackwater Wins Piece of $10 Billion Mercenary Deal
By Spencer Ackerman October 1, 2010

Never mind the dead civilians. Forget about the stolen guns. Get over the murder arrests, the fraud allegations, and the accusations of guards pumping themselves up with steroids and cocaine. Through a “joint venture,” the notorious private-security firm Blackwater has won a piece of a five-year State Department contract worth up to $10 billion, Danger Room has learned.

Apparently, there is no misdeed so big that it can keep guns-for-hire from working for the government. And this is despite a 2008 campaign pledge from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to ban the company from federal contracts.

Eight private security firms have won State’s giant Worldwide Protective Services contract, the big Foggy Bottom partnership to keep embassies and their inhabitants safe. Two of those firms are longtime State contract holders DynCorp and Triple Canopy. The others are newcomers to the big security contract: EOD Technology, SOC, Aegis Defense Services, Global Strategies Group, Torres International Services and International Development Solutions LLC.

Don’t see any of Blackwater’s myriad business names on there? That’s apparently by design.

Blackwater and the State Department tried their best to obscure their renewed relationship. As Danger Room reported Wednesday, Blackwater did not appear on the vendors’ list for Worldwide Protective Services. And the State Department confirms that the company, renamed Xe Services, didn’t actually submit its own independent bid.

Instead, they used a blandly named cut-out, “International Development Solutions,” to retain a toehold into State’s lucrative security business. No one who looks at the official announcement of the contract award would have any idea that firm is connected to Blackwater.

Blackwater’s “affiliate U.S. Training Center is part of International Development Solutions (IDS), a joint venture with Kaseman,” according to an official State Department statement to Danger Room. “This joint venture was determined by the Department’s source-selection authority to be eligible for award.”

Last year, a Blackwater subdivision, the Blackwater Lodge and Training Center, changed its name to U.S. Training Center. Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin (D-Michigan) blasted Blackwater in February for setting up shell companies in order to keep winning government security contracts despite its infamy.

According to State’s statement, the contracting process for the new Worldwide Protective Services deal included a “review” to ensure that companies met “minimum criteria” for eligibility. “This review included a process to determine whether any offerors had been suspended or debarred from the award of federal contracts,” it said. Despite Blackwater guards killing 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad’s Nisour Square in 2007, killing two Afghan civilians on a Kabul road in 2009, and absconding with hundreds of unauthorized guns from a U.S. military weapons depot in Afghanistan using the name of a South Park character, federal contracting authorities have never suspended or debarred Blackwater.

It’s not yet clear what the U.S. Training Center–International Development Solutions–Kaseman “joint venture” will do for the State Department. Worldwide Protective Services is actually a bundle of contracts in one, each governing specific duties for a firm to handle in a given country. Only two of those component contracts have been awarded so far.

One of them is to guard the huge U.S. embassy in Baghdad. That’s gone to SOC, which has ousted Triple Canopy, the incumbent security provider (which will still be part of the overall Worldwide Protective Services deal). If SOC remains the contract holder in Baghdad for the full five years — there’s an annual review — it stands to make nearly $974 million.

But because that so-called “task order” is specifically for on-site security around the gates of the Baghdad embassy, it’s not clear if SOC will also provide the 6,000 to 7,000 security guards the State Department estimates it needs to protect diplomats on the move around Iraq or its other outposts around the country. Last year, the Iraqi government barred Blackwater from doing business in Iraq in response to Nisour Square. But it’s not clear whether this new “joint venture” is eligible to operate in Iraq.

The other task order issued under Worldwide Protective Services is to protect the U.S. Embassy in Kabul. That contract’s gone to EOD Technology, a global firm which has in the past guarded the British and Canadian embassies in the Afghan capital. And that means ArmorGroup North America — last seen with its guards taking tequila shots out of each others’ butts and engaging in extracurricular sex trafficking — has lost a contract worth nearly $274 million over five years.

According to a different statement from the Department of State, the new Worldwide Protective Services contract comes with new safeguards to prevent abuse. Those include mandatory cultural awareness training, the addition of interpreters on all protection missions, financial penalties for poor performance, and a formal ban on alcohol. (Yes — after years of alcohol-related contractor incidents.) Despite these new protections, the department still sees fit to continue business with the most infamous member of the private-security world.

Meet the new mercs, same as the old mercs!

2010-10-03T09:49:00.001-07:00

Despite Clinton Pledge, State Dept. to Pay Out Billions More to Mercs
By Spencer Ackerman September 29, 2010

Get ready to meet America’s new mercenaries. They could be the same as the old ones.

A new multibillion-dollar private security contract to protect U.S. diplomats is “about to drop” as early as this week, say two State Department sources, who requested anonymity because the contract is not yet finalized and they are not authorized to speak with the press.

So much for Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s one-time campaign pledge to ban “private mercenary firms.”

Neither source would say which private security firms have won the four-year contract or how much it will ultimately be worth. The last Worldwide Protective Services contract, awarded in 2005, went to Blackwater, Triple Canopy and DynCorp. Rough estimates place that contract’s value at $2.2 billion.

This one is likely to be even more lucrative. That’s because this time, the reduction and forthcoming withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq is causing the State Department to splurge on private security.

A senior department official told the congressional Wartime Contracting Commission in June that the department requires “between 6,000 and 7,000 security contractors” in Iraq, up from its current 2,700 armed guards. And that doesn’t even take into account those needed to guard the expanded U.S. civilian presence in Afghanistan.

Mo’ mercs, mo’ money. And mo’ danger: This year, for the first time, U.S. contractor deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeded troop deaths, ProPublica found.

But the mercs involved could be the same ones as last time. In a nod to open-government practices, State has pledged to pick six security companies to receive the Worldwide Protective Services contract, double the current three. But that doesn’t mean the firms who won the last time around can’t potentially re-up — including Blackwater.

The deadline to award the contract is Thursday, Sept. 30, but it’s unclear whether the department will meet its long-announced goal. State is finalizing the contract right now, so if it doesn’t drop Thursday — the last day of the fiscal year — it’ll be soon afterward.

A State Department official confirmed in April that “any company, including Xe Services [another name for Blackwater] and its subsidiary companies, [may] submit a proposal in response to an acquisition process established on the basis of full and open competition.”

Despite the slayings of civilians at Nisour Square in Iraq in 2007 — which got Blackwater de-certified by the Iraqi government — and on the road in Kabul in 2009, no federal acquisition official has ever recommended that Blackwater be barred from bidding on government contracts. That means it would violate federal law to prevent Blackwater from entering a bid.

A company spokeswoman told me last year that Blackwater intended to bid on the next round of Worldwide Protective Services, although it does not show up on the contract solicitation’s list of current vendors under any of its myriad business names.

And while the contract may almost be in place, its oversight won’t. Last week, the contracting commission’s co-chairman told a House panel that even if the State Department can afford its merc surge in Iraq, “it is not clear that it has the trained personnel to manage and oversee contract performance of a kind that has already shown the potential for creating tragic incidents and frayed relations with host countries.”

In other words, expect more wasted money — and the possibility of more Nisour Squares.

Heartless

2010-10-02T06:32:00.000-07:00

U.S. apologizes to Guatemalans for secret STD experiments
By Brett Michael Dykes

Fri Oct 1, 1:04 pm ET
U.S. scientific researchers infected hundreds of Guatemalan mental patients with sexually transmitted diseases from 1946 to 1948 -- a practice that only came recently to light thanks to the work of an academic researcher. On Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a formal apology to the Central American nation, and to Guatemalan residents of the United States.

"Although these events occurred more than 64 years ago, we are outraged that such reprehensible research could have occurred under the guise of public health," said Clinton and Sebelius in a joint statement. "We deeply regret that it happened, and we apologize to all the individuals who were affected by such abhorrent research practices."

The discovery of the long-ago experiments stems from another, far better known episode of federal tampering with test subjects to study sexually transmitted diseases: the long-running "Tuskegee experiment," studying 399 poor black men from Macon County, Ala., who had been diagnosed with syphilis but never informed of their condition. Federal scientists simply told the men they had "bad blood" and researchers compiled a four-decades-long study monitoring "untreated syphilis in the male Negro." Researchers never treated the illness over its usually fatal course, even after the simple remedy of penicillin was shown to be an effective syphilis treatment; participants received only free meals and medical exams, together with federal funding of their funeral expenses after they died. The study began in 1932, continuing right through to 1972, when it was exposed in media reports.

One of the better-known experts on the Tuskegee scandal is Susan Reverby, a professor of women's and gender studies at Wellesley College who has published two books on the subject. As she was researching her most recent book, Reverby learned of the Guatemalan project, in which researchers from the U.S. Public Health Service conducted experiments on 696 male and female patients housed at Guatemala's National Mental Health Hospital. The scientists injected the patients with gonorrhea and syphilis -- and even encouraged many of them to pass the disease on to others.

"It was done in conjunction with the Guatemalan government," Reverby told The Upshot in a phone interview Friday morning. "They had permission from the Guatemalan government."

Reverby explained that she learned of the Guatemala study purely by accident.

"I was in the archives of the University of Pittsburgh looking at the papers of the surgeon general at the time," Reverby said. "And the papers there were also the papers of a man named John Cutler, who had also been involved in the Tuskegee study. When I opened the boxes of the Cutler papers, there was nothing in it about Tuskegee, but there was everything about this Guatemala study."

Reverby -- who was instrumental in getting former President Bill Clinton to offer an apology for the Tuskegee experiment in 1997 -- told us that she informed Dr. David Sencer, the former head of the Centers for Disease Control; Sencer then passed the discovery up the chain of command in the U.S. government.

"As with many of these things, it was just pure serendipity," Reverby said. "I was the right person in the right place at the right time."

Mental Health Treatment Still a Security Clearance Issue at State Department

2010-09-10T15:24:00.000-07:00

From Concerned Foreign Service Officers

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Yesterday, presumably in response to a series of articles in the September issue of the Foreign Service Journal, Secretary of State Clinton issued an internal statement urging employees needing mental health treatment to get it, stating quite clearly that no Foreign Service Officer had ever lost a security clearance due to having sought mental health treatment. Concerned Foreign Service Officers wants to set the record straight.

Executive Order 12968 provides guidelines for the granting or revocation of a clearance. There are only thirteen criteria under which a security clearance can be revoked, and "seeking mental health treatment" is not one of them. Therefore, it is obvious that no official record would provide "seeking mental health treatment" as the justification for a revocation. Instead, the clearance would have been revoked under a guideline such as "mental disorders" or "personal conduct" and the record would reflect that fact. DS revocation letters are short, and unlike those of other agencies, rarely provide details. But there have been well-documented cases where the unmentioned "cause for concern" under the official guideline was the simple act of seeking mental health treatment and the biased reaction to it by DS adjudicators.

Concerned Foreign Service Officers believes that people who need mental health treatment or counseling should get it. But as long as DS continues to adjudicate security clearances without a real whole-person review, without verification of the facts, and without any real oversight, they do, and will continue to revoke security clearances of employees who obtain mental health treatment.

Who cares what is right! Do what we can get away with!

2010-09-10T12:48:00.000-07:00

A controversy surrounding a publicity-hunting pastor in Florida, who planned to burn copies of the Quran in a video-taped bonfire, highlights a mindset shared by the Department of State in its handling of security clearance adjudications.

Pastor Terry Jones, head of a tiny church in Gainesville, Florida, centered his fifteen minutes of fame around a plan to demonstrate his hatred of the world's roughly 1.5 billion Muslims by burning copies of their holy book. Presumably, that would teach roughly one fifth of the total population of the world a lesson for believing in the same religion as the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. His proposal has, predictably, outraged not only the one-fifth of the world's population for whom the books are sacred, but also many others of many faiths, who abhor the bigotry, disrespect, and contempt for any religion, other than his own, that Jones's act would represent.

Equally importantly, it has sparked protests from senior government and military leaders who fear the political backlash of such an act, which would predictably result in attacks against American troops and interests, and would, beyond question, provide a recruitment boon to Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations.

It is, beyond question, a morally reprehensible, dangerous, and wrongheaded act. The vast majority of Americans would certainly argue that it is an act which runs contrary to basic American ideals. Many Christian leaders, including the Pope, have condemned it as running against Christian ideals as well.

But it is an act which is, apparently, not illegal. Pastor Jones has a right to do it, no matter how wrong it is, what damage would occur, or how many American deaths would result.

Throughout the controversy, Reverend Jones has displayed a mindset which can be summarized as: "I plan to do it because I can get away with it, and I don't care how many people consider it wrong."

That is the same mindset used by the Department of State when it adjudicates security clearance cases contrary to Government-wide norms, and refuses to consider the body of precedent (DOHA) used by other agencies in adjudicating their cases.

It is wrong. It is illegal. It runs contrary to the American ideas of justice and fairness. But they do it because they can get away with it, and because, until now, nobody has moved to stop them.

CFSO commends Secretary Clinton for condemning the plans of Pastor Jones, whos heinous act would doubtlessly endanger American diplomats as well as American troops. We ask her, however, to take a look at her own agency, and to ask it to adjudicate clearances in accordance with what is right, and legal, rather than what it can get away with.

Put some eye holes in that hood!

2010-09-07T18:08:00.000-07:00

It is estimated that between 1882, when the first reliable record of a Southern lynching was written, and 1968, when the so-called Jim Crow system was (officially) eliminated, more than 3440 black men, women and children were lynched in the American South. Yet there is almost no known case in which the official records of the authorities in charge reflect the event as a crime of racial hatred against an innocent victim.

The official records will almost always show that the lynching victim was guilty of a crime (more than 2/3 of lynched men had been accused of rape) and will usually reflect that the victim had either committed suicide, or been accidentally killed while resisting or fleeing arrest, or perhaps had simply died of natural causes.

In the few cases where the record will reflect the lynching as a crime, the police will have done their duty. The record will show that evidence was collected, witnesses were interviewed, crime scenes were investigated, but unfortunately there was insufficient evidence to identify with certainty, or convict, any individual or individuals who may have been involved.

Similarly, after the passage of the fifteenth amendment to the US Constitution in 1870, no African American was ever denied the right to vote based on his race. Although for the next hundred years many African Americans were routinely prevented from voting, none were ever officially turned away from a polling place simply for being Black.

The records will reflect, in accordance with local regulations, that the prospective voter did not own sufficient land in the electoral district, had not payed the proper taxes, had insufficient knowledge on which to vote responsibly, or perhaps was an individual of known ill-repute. Or maybe (being inexplicably intimidated by large numbers of thugs and dogs lounging near the polling-house door) he or she had simply chosen not to show up.

Wherever oversight is lacking, official records of official actions almost always reflect that the actions were conducted in full compliance with relevant law or regulation. That is why journalists, historians, civil rights attorneys and others who investigate such events go beyond such records, to interview those who were there, to review private journals, read articles from independent newspapers, and occasionally even disinter bodies to discover whether the "heart attack" actually left rope marks.

Today, presumably in response to a series of articles in the September issue of the Foreign Service Journal, Secretary of State Clinton issued an internal statement urging employees needing mental health treatment to get it, stating quite clearly that no Foreign Service Officer had ever lost a clearance due to having sought mental health treatment.

That statement is undoubtedly true. There are a limited number of criteria under which a security clearance can be revoked, and "seeking mental health treatment" is not one of them.

The clearance would have been revoked under a criterion such as "personal conduct" and the record would reflect that fact. Revocation letters are short, and they list only the official criterion for revocation, usually declining to provide any specifics. But the unmentioned "conduct" issue, the unprovided specific "cause for concern" under the official provided criterion, would have been mental health treatment and the biased reaction to it by DS adjudicators.

As with old police records of lynchings, the official DS records will reflect an "official" reason that legitimizes the act, but as long as DS continues to adjudicate security clearances without a real whole-person review, without verification of the facts, and without any real oversight, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will continue to lift the clearances of employees who obtain treatment.

So yes, Madam Secretary, quite a number of FSOs have lost their clearances for seeking treatment. Some cases are described in the FS Journal. Others are described elsewhere. And covering it up is simply dishonest.

Concerned Foreign Service Officers believes that people who need mental health treatment or counselling should get it. But not from MED, and preferably, not with MED's knowledge. Do not lie about it to DS if asked. But do not volunteer it unnecessarily.

Not if you value your job.

Who is Robert Ogburn?

2010-09-02T17:27:00.001-07:00

And why is he, or someone posing as him, vandalizing wikipedia bios of American diplomats?

Embarrassing Secrets? David Tenenbaum and the State Secrets Privilege

2010-07-30T19:53:00.000-07:00

By Scott Amey and Alex Bland, published July 30, 2010 by the Project On Government Oversight (POGO):

"When properly invoked, the state secrets privilege serves important goals. History shows that where it is abused, there are serious consequences." Senator Patrick Leahy, D-VT, (2009)

Is the state secrets privilege still being abused? POGO has witnessed government actions to thwart litigation, to seemingly conceal environmental crimes, or to cover up embarrassment (as in the Sibel Edmonds battle). But another case is raising similar red flags—a religious discrimination case. David Tenenbaum falls into this unfortunate group, but his case is not yet closed.

The government invokes the state secrets privilege in cases to prevent disclosure of alleged sensitive national security information relevant to the claims and defenses at issue. When invoked, the evidence is removed from the case, and in most cases, the privilege summarily prevents the case from moving forward. Simply stated, the case never reaches the merits—it is dismissed based on government claims that it cannot proceed without jeopardizing national security.

In 1995, David Tenenbaum started working on an unclassified program to upgrade vehicles’ armor at the Army’s Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) under the Department of Defense (DoD). In the fall of 1996, the DoD started investigating Tenenbaum for espionage, telling him that the intrigue was just a security clearance test.

The investigation included submitting him to an unrecorded polygraph test in which he was asked directly about his personal faith, and later accused of admitting to crimes he could not have possibly committed. On February 14, 1997, he was accused of spying for Israel, had his security clearance revoked and was placed on administrative leave. The next day the FBI raided his home. The raid came out empty-handed, and the following months of constant surveillance also failed to produce any evidence indicating Tenenbaum was a spy. His security clearance was restored and upgraded to “Top Secret” in 2003—proof that the government knew Tenenbaum didn’t disclose classified information.

Tenenbaum filed a civil rights case against the DoD, arguing that he had been illegally discriminated against because he was Jewish. Despite overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing, the case was thrown out when John Ashcroft and Paul Wolfowitz signed affidavits supporting the argument that the case fell under the state secrets privilege and a court case would be damaging to national security. Like so many other cases when the privilege is invoked, Mr. Tenenbaum never got his day in court.

A subsequent government report, however, reopened the halls of justice for Tenenbaum. In 2008, the DoD Inspector General (IG) found that Tenenbaum was subjected to an improper counterintelligence investigation. The IG report stated that “We believe that Mr. Tenenbaum was subject to unusual and unwelcome scrutiny because of his faith and ethnic background, a practice that would undoubtedly fit a definition of discrimination, whether actionable or not.” In addition to this report, an internal email sent to the IG in January of 2008, stated that “[b]asically, TACOM did not have a reasonable basis for concern that David Tenenbaum was committing espionage.” That finding corroborated the IG’s interim report finding that stated that “TACOM did not have a reasonable basis for concern that David Tenenbaum was committing espionage.” (p. 40) The report also stated (p. 9):

In lieu of those new claims that Tenenbaum was discriminated against, Tenenbaum filed a second case in 2009. Once again, the trial court dismissed the case because it stated that government defenses were precluded based on the fact that litigating the case would disclose harmful national security information. Tenenbaum appealed and the Federal Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit heard (audio clip of the case) the appeal on June 15, 2010.

Tenenbaum’s argument was based on the fact that the recent trial court erred by not allowing his case to proceed as a result of the DoD IG’s finding that discrimination, not danger to the national security, resulted in his termination. Based on this report, he argued that the Court should overturn the decision to allow the government’s original invocation of the state secrets privilege. The Court’s decision is forthcoming.

This case is important test of the Obama Administration’s tough new stance on government assertions of the privilege. Attorney General Eric Holder released a memo late in 2009 on “policies and procedures governing the invocation of the state secrets privilege,” designed to “provide greater accountability and reliability in the invocation of the state secrets privilege in litigation.” The Holder memo specifically bans the privilege from being used to “prevent embarrassment to a person, organization or agency of the United States government.”

For this Administration to be true to its word and policies, a review of DoD’s state secrets claim must be conducted immediately because this certainly looks like a ruse to hide a potentially embarrassing civil rights violation. In this case, the privilege might prevent the introduction of some evidence, but it shouldn’t be able to prevent an entire claim against the government and restrict the people’s access to the courts.

Myers Sentenced

2010-07-16T20:00:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON, July 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Walter Kendall Myers, a former State Department official, and his wife, Gwendolyn Steingraber Myers, have been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole and 81 months in prison, respectively, for their roles in a nearly 30-year conspiracy to provide highly-classified U.S. national defense information to the Republic of Cuba.

The sentences, handed down today by Judge Reggie B. Walton in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, were announced by David Kris, Assistant Attorney General for National Security; Ronald C. Machen Jr., U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia; Shawn Henry, Assistant Director for the FBI's Washington Field Office; and Ambassador Eric J. Boswell, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security.

On Nov. 20, 2009, defendant Kendall Myers, 73, aka "Agent 202," pleaded guilty to a three-count criminal information charging him with conspiracy to commit espionage and two counts of wire fraud. His wife, Gwendolyn Myers, 72, aka "Agent 123," and "Agent E-634," pleaded guilty to a one-count criminal information charging her with conspiracy to gather and transmit national defense information. The defendants, both residents of Washington, D.C., were arrested on June 4, 2009, by FBI agents and have remained in custody ever since.

Both defendants have agreed to the entry of a monetary judgment against them in the amount of $1,735,054. The assets that will be forfeited to the government towards satisfaction of that judgment include the proceeds from the sale of the defendants' apartment and vehicle, and various bank and investment accounts.

"For nearly 30 years, this couple proudly committed espionage on behalf of a long-standing foreign adversary. Today, they are being held accountable for their actions. Their sentences should serve as a clear warning to others who would willingly compromise our nation's most sensitive classified information," said David Kris, Assistant Attorney General for National Security.

"Kendall and Gwendolyn Myers were brought to justice not because they were careless, but because of an extremely well-planned and executed counterintelligence investigation that required the unprecedented cooperation of multiple agencies of the U.S. government tasked with protecting our national security," said Ronald C. Machen Jr., U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. "Others like the Myers who are presently betraying the trust that this country has placed in them should know that they are not safe from prosecution regardless of how careful they think they are being. As with Kendall and Gwendolyn Myers, they will be caught and brought to justice."

Shawn Henry, Assistant Director of the FBI's Washington Field Office, said: "The Myers made a conscious decision to betray the United States and its citizens. The FBI, along with its partners in the U.S. Intelligence Community, will continue to aggressively pursue anyone who seeks to cause the same harm."

"Walter Kendall Myers betrayed his country. By committing acts of espionage Myers grievously violated the confidence placed in him by the U.S. Department of State and the American people. Today, he has been rightfully sentenced for crimes against our nation," said Assistant Secretary for State for Diplomatic Security Eric J. Boswell.

Background

According to the sentencing memorandum, plea agreements and other documents filed in court by the United States:

Kendall Myers began working at the State Department in 1977 as a contract instructor at the Department's Foreign Service Institute (FSI) in Arlington, Va. After living briefly with Gwendolyn in South Dakota, he returned to Washington, D.C., and resumed employment as an instructor with FSI. From 1988 to 1999, in addition to his FSI duties, he performed work for the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR). He later worked full-time in INR and, from July 2001 until his retirement in October 2007, was an intelligence analyst for Europe in INR where he specialized on European matters and had daily access to classified information through computer databases and otherwise. He received a "Top Secret" security clearance in 1985 and, in 1999, received access to "Sensitive Compartmental Information."

Gwendolyn Myers moved to Washington, D.C., in 1980 and married Kendall Myers in May 1982. She later obtained employment with a local bank as an administrative analyst and later as a special assistant. Gwendolyn Myers was never granted a security clearance by the U.S. government.

Recruitment

In December 1978, while an employee of the State Department's FSI, Kendall Myers traveled to Cuba after being invited by a Cuban government official who had made a presentation at FSI. That Cuban official was an intelligence officer for the Cuban Intelligence Service (CuIS). This trip provided CuIS with the opportunity to assess or develop Myers as a Cuban agent. Myers kept a diary of his two-week trip to Cuba in which he explicitly declared his affinity for Fidel Castro and the Cuban government. The diary was recovered by the FBI in the investigation.

In 1979, Kendall and Gwendolyn Myers were visited in South Dakota by the same Cuban intelligence officer who had invited Kendall Myers to Cuba. During the visit, the Cuban intelligence officer recruited both of them to be clandestine agents for Cuba, a role in which they served for the next 30 years. Their recruitment by CuIS as "paired" agents is consistent with CuIS's past practice in the United States. Afterwards, CuIS directed Kendall Myers to pursue a job at the State Department or the CIA to gain access to classified information. Kendall Myers, accompanied by his wife, returned to Washington, D.C., where he pursued a position at the State Department.

During the time frame in which Kendall and Gwendolyn Myers were serving as clandestine agents for Cuba, the CuIS often communicated with its clandestine agents in the United States by broadcasting encrypted radio messages from Cuba on shortwave radio frequencies. Clandestine agents in the United States monitoring the frequency on shortwave radio could decode the messages using a decryption program provided by CuIS. Kendall and Gwendolyn Myers communicated with CuIS by this method. The shortwave radio they used to receive clandestine communications was purchased with money provided by CuIS. The shortwave radio was later recovered by the FBI.

Undercover Operation

According to the court documents, in April 2009, the FBI launched an undercover operation against the pair. Kendall and Gwendolyn Myers met four times with an undercover FBI source, on April 15th, 16th and 30th, and on June 4, 2009. The meetings were all video- and audio-taped.

During the meetings, Kendall and Gwendolyn Myers made a series of statements about their past activities on behalf of CuIS, including how they used code names and how they had transmitted information to their CuIS handlers through personal meetings, "dead drops," "hand-to-hand" passes, and in at least one case, the exchange of shopping carts in a grocery store. The couple also stated that they had traveled to meet Cuban agents in Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Mexico, Brazil, Ecuador, Argentina and other locations.

When asked by the undercover FBI agent if he had ever transmitted information to CuIS that was classified higher than "Secret," Kendall Myers replied, "oh yeah…oh yeah." He said he typically removed information from the State Department by memory or by taking notes, although he did take some classified documents home. Gwendolyn Myers admitted she would process the classified documents at home for delivery to their CuIS handlers. In the final meeting with the FBI source, Kendall Myers disclosed "Top Secret" national defense information related to sources and methods of gathering intelligence. He also admitted that he had previously disclosed the information to CuIS.

Corroboration

The admissions by Kendall and Gwendolyn Myers were corroborated by other evidence collected in the investigation. The FBI seized a shortwave radio in their apartment and confirmed overseas trips by the couple that corresponded to statements they made. The FBI also identified encrypted shortwave radio messages between CuIS and a handler for the couple that were broadcast in 1996 and 1997.

Furthermore, an analysis of Kendall Myers' State Department computer revealed that, from August 22, 2006, until his retirement on Oct. 31, 2007, he viewed more than 200 intelligence reports concerning the subject of Cuba. Of these reports concerning Cuba, the majority was classified and marked "Secret" or "Top Secret." The FBI also located handwritten notes by Kendall Myers reflecting the gathering and retention of "Top Secret" information which he intended to provide the CuIS, but never did.

Finally, since at least 1983 and until 2007, Kendall Myers made repeated false statements to government investigators responsible for conducting background investigations which determined his continued suitability for a "Top Secret" security clearance. By not disclosing his and his wife's clandestine activity on behalf of CuIS and by making false statements to the State Department about their status as clandestine Cuban agents, he defrauded the United States whenever he received his government salary. Based on these false representations and promises, Kendall Myers obtained at least $1,735,054 in salary from the U.S. government for the benefit of him and his wife.

This investigation was conducted jointly by the FBI's Washington Field Office and the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security. The prosecution was handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney G. Michael Harvey, from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, and Senior Trial Attorney Clifford I. Rones, from the Counterespionage Section of the Justice Department's National Security Division.

Another Leaker Arrested

2010-06-08T19:07:00.000-07:00

A 22-year-old Army intelligence analyst from Potomac Maryland is under investigation for leaking an alleged 260,000 classified State Department diplomatic cables to the whistleblower site Wikileaks. The cables, which originated with State, were disseminated to other agencies (including the military) and were leaked a classified computer network used by several agencies.

However, the leaker placed the blame at State's door, saying: "State dept fucked itself. Placed volumes and volumes of information in a single spot, with no security.”

The leaker, Bradley Manning, was not found by DS, nor by the military's CID investigators. Rather, he was turned in by a good samaritan, fellow hacker Adrian Lamo, after Manning told Lamo what he had done.

“Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning, and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format, to the public,” Manning told Lamo in an online chat session.

In the same session, Manning took credit for leaking a headline-making video of a helicopter attack that Wikileaks posted online April 5, another video showing the notorious 2009 Garani air strike in Afghanistan that Wikileaks has previously acknowledged is in its possession, and a classified Army document evaluating Wikileaks as a security threat (hello!).

State Department Spokesperson Phillip Crowley confirmed the matter on Monday, saying:

" [T]hese are classified documents. We take their release seriously. It has the – it has particular impact in terms of potentially revealing what we call sources of methods – compromising our ability to provide government leaders with the kind of analysis that they need to make informed decisions. So this is a serious issue and we are fully cooperating with the other agencies of government."

Also on Monday, the Army released this statement:

"United States Division-Center is currently conducting a joint investigation of Spc. Bradley Manning, 22, of Potomac, Md., who is deployed with 2nd Brigade 10th Mountain Division, in Baghdad, Iraq. He was placed in pre-trial confinement for allegedly releasing classified information and is currently confined in Kuwait. The Department of Defense takes the management of classified information very seriously because it affects our national security, the lives of our Soldiers, and our operations abroad. The results of the investigation will be released upon completion of the investigation."

CFSO supports Rolling Thunder 2010

2010-05-29T06:08:00.000-07:00

Rolling Thunder XXIII Message Points:

Live POWs - what is our government doing about the live POWs left behind in all past and present wars? Why are government efforts focused only on recovering remains? Why has the government ignored its own documentation or changed creditable reports into discredited reports. It is impossible that every piece of intelligence that concerns a live unreturned POW is wrong. For the families of those still unaccounted for, there will never be closure.

House Res. 111 – why has Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi refused to allow this resolution to come to the floor for a vote? This bill had 289 co-sponsors in the 110th congress and has 248 in the 111th congress. Bills have come to the floor with less than half-dozen co-sponsors yet ours remains blocked by Nancy Pelosi. When you read the text of the proposed bill, it is difficult to understand why there is opposition: “Resolved: that there is established in the House of Representatives a select committee to be known as the Select Committee on POW and MIA Affairs…The select committee shall conduct a full investigation of all unresolved matters relating to any United States personnel unaccounted for from the World War II, Cold War Missions, the Korean conflict, Vietnam Conflict, Persian Gulf War, Operation Iraqi Freedom, or Operation Enduring Freedom, including MIA's and POW's missing and captured.”

Veterans benefits – the economic recovery and healthcare reform have taken center stage, yet there are still serious problems with the VA system, particularly in the areas of speedy transition of service personnel after discharge, claims processing, and geographic inequities in VA facilities. While we applaud VA Secretary Shinseki’s efforts—and we believe him to be a true advocate—we believe there is more that could be done. This includes more public communication about VA programs such as the new Emergency Care Fairness Act of 2009 and the Special Pension for Veterans’ Aid and Attendance. Many veterans and their families have no idea these benefits are available to them; an estimated $22 billion annually goes unclaimed.

Rolling Thunder Charities - Rolling Thunder® Charities Inc. (a 501(c)(3) non-profit) was created in 2007 to start a fund from which we could address more of the needs of our veterans, our troops and their families who have fallen between the cracks and not gotten the help they deserve. Since then, with generous contributions from Rolling Thunder chapters, individuals and corporate sponsors such as Aetna, Humana Military Healthcare, and Harley Davidson of Washington, DC, Rolling Thunder Charities and Rolling Thunder chapters nationwide have helped veterans across the country. From purchasing wheelchairs and building wheelchair ramps, to fixing leaky roofs, ductwork and heating units, to donating food and building a shelter for homeless veterans, Rolling Thunder Charities is ―filling in the cracks for those who have served this country with courage and honor. They deserve nothing less.

POW/MIA Flag Over the White House – why is this flag not flying over the White House, as it has in previous administrations?

Go Joe Carson!

2010-05-04T18:30:00.001-07:00

CFSO supporter and Department of Energy whistleblower Joe Carson's case has reached the supreme court.

Joe Carson is a nuclear safety engineer at the U.S. Department of Energy. He is a decorated veteran who served as an officer in the nuclear navy for six years and later worked at several commercial nuclear power plants. He worked at the Oak Ridge nuclear facility in Knoxville Tennessee.

In 1994, Carson was appointed head of a board to investigate a fire at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York. The fire occurred in connection with the Terrific Reactor Isotope Separator To Analyze Nuclides (TRISTAN) experiment, which was being conducted by a private contractor at Brookhaven, under DOE’s supervision.

Carson alleged that DOE officials had permitted the contractor at Brookhaven to operate the TRISTAN experiment for more than ten years in non-compliance with a series of DOE safety orders and procedures. Had the procedures been followed, he alleged, the experiment would have been shut down because of the dangerous energies and substances, high voltage and high level radioactive waste being used in a confined area with inadequate containment.

Investigations by an outside agency confirmed Mr. Carson’s allegation that DOE had not conducted comprehensive safety reviews of the TRISTAN experiment and that a number of management inadequacies contributed to the failure to conduct safety reviews of TRISTAN commensurate with its hazards. The investigations implicated DOE in cases s of injury and sickness of DOE employees, put in harms way by inadequate safety practices.

As a result, Congress passed a law in 2000, the Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Plan Act (EEOICPA), to provide a measure of compensation and health care to thousands of diseased, disabled, or prematurely deceased DOE workers or their survivors. President Clinton, in signing this legislation, apologized to these workers for their being put in harms’ way in DOE facilities, without their knowledge or adequate protection. About 70,000 claims have been filed under the EEOICPA and thousands of claims have been paid.

As for Carson, DOE responded by relieving Carson of his oversight and investigative duties, tranferring him to a series of clerical and make-work jobs, eventually "promoting" him to a low level clerical job preparing training materials. At the same time, they opened an investigation into alleged problems with his competence, and accusing him of being a disgruntled employee. And of course, they began the process of revoking his security clearance.

Carson appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which ordered DOE to give Carson back his job. DOE abolished the job,and Oak Ridge did not offer him a different job (though some were available). Carson was offered a choice of taking a job in the Washington area (moving his family from Oak Ridge to Washington) or finding work outside the agency. He chose to move to Washington.

Eventually, he appealed again to the MSPB, and again, he "won." DOE was ordered to give him a good job, and to pay him 260,000 for his legal fees. To date, despite several subsequent "victories" including an additional 120,000 in legal fees, DOE has yet to comply.

In April of 2003, Carson appealed to the Office of Special Counsel to investigate DOE's failure to comply with the MSPB orders, and to oblige their compliance. OSC failed to do so alleging (incorrectly) that it did not have the authority to do so. In essence, the legally mandated "enforcer" of MSPB's decisions was refusing to carry out its responsibilities. In the course of seeking justice in his own case, Carson discovered that, in the 31 years of its exitence, the OSC has repeatedly refused to take on high-profile investigations, effectively allowing agencies to carry out prohibited personel practices even after those practices were shown to be illegal.

As a result, Carson expanded his struggle for justice, to attempt to oblige the OSC to comply with its own mandate. That is the case that is now entering the Supreme Court.

Defining his case, Carson wrote:

"The OSC has repeatedly refused to investigate allegations of federal employees harmed by agency violations of agency directives for personnel matters as work force discipline, grievances, performance evaluations, personnel security clearances, etc, basing its refusal on the idea that there is no "civil service rule" prohibiting such reprisals. This has continued despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled the contrary, that agency work force discipline directives are “rules” per 5 U.S.C. §7703(c)(2) - see Doyle, v. VA, 229 S.Ct. Cl. 261 (1982).

As a result, agencies are allowed free reign to use such means, particularly biased performance evaluations and security clearance revocations, as reprisals against whistleblowers and internal policy dissenters.

To obscure this failure, OSC has claimed that the reporting requirements of 5 U.S.C. §1214(e) do not apply to the selected laws, rules, or regulations it considers to be under its jurisdiction. The result is that OSC obstructs justice by not formally reporting to the involved agency head, as §1214(e) explicitly requires, its nondiscretionary investigatory determinations, “there is reasonable cause to believe” such a violation occurred, thereby creating a permanent, publicly available record of OSC’s report and the agency-head certified response, per 5 U.S.C. §1219(a)(3)."

CFSO notes that DOE has a long history of non-compliance with court decisions and those of appeal boards, as well as a history of cheating in security clearance matters. In one recent case, a DOE employee was denied access to allegations against him, violating his legal right to review and respond to those allegations.

For this reason and others, Joe Carson has been a supporter of CFSO. Now it is our turn to help him.

We urge CFSO members and readers of this blog to go to the National Whistleblowers Center website and sign on to the amicus currae brief supporting Joe's case.

Physician, Heal Thyself

2010-04-21T19:38:00.000-07:00

From Secrecy News, by the Federation of American Scientists.

STATE DEPT SEEKS PUBLIC INPUT ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN U.S.
Steven Aftergood

The U.S. State Department is inviting members of the public to present their concerns about human rights in the United States as part of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process, in which the human rights records of all UN Member States are to be reviewed.

"In the pursuit of a transparent and effective UPR process, the Department of State is encouraging the American public, including non-governmental organizations and civil society more broadly, to provide input regarding human rights in the United States directly to the Department of State."

"Your feedback is vital for us to better gauge the U.S. human rights situation now, and how protection of human rights can be improved in our country and around the world," the State Department website said. "We look forward to receiving your comments."

The Federation of American Scientists asked the State Department to turn its attention to those cases where a resolution of alleged human rights violations has been barred by the government's use of the state secrets privilege.

"There are innocent individuals who have been swept up in U.S. Government counterterrorism operations, wrongly detained, 'rendered' surreptitiously to foreign countries, subjected to extreme physical and mental stress, or otherwise wronged," we wrote. "In some cases, like those of persons such as Maher Arar and Khaled el-Masri, efforts to seek legal remedies have been blocked by the Government's invocation of the state secrets privilege. As a result, the alleged abuses committed in such cases remain unresolved, and there is no way for the affected individuals to be made whole."

"If the judicial process in such cases is foreclosed by the state secrets privilege, then an alternate procedure should be created to rectify the wrongs that may have been committed," FAS suggested.

Crazy like a FOX

2010-04-15T18:55:00.000-07:00

Digger at Life after Jerusalem brought to our attention this amusing dig at those who see terrorism behind every moslem, and moslems under every rock.

A case of retaliation at CIA

2010-04-09T06:02:00.001-07:00

By Jeff Stein for the Washington post, April 6, 2010:

Even spies get caught up in the struggle for promotions, demotions, pay raises and dismissals, just like their brethren in other federal agencies. The difference in the CIA is that personnel decisions are wrapped in secrecy, making it as difficult for employees as for outsiders to find out what’s really going on.

So it’s been with the long-running case of “Peter B.,” a onetime deep cover counterterrorism agent for the CIA, who alleges he was unfairly fired back in 2002. He also alleges that the CIA intervened with agency contractors to get them to rescind job offers.

Why?

Peter B. asserts that the answer can be found in the coils of a spy case involving a State Department officer and a Taiwanese intelligence agent four years ago.

The State Department officer, Donald Keyser, pleaded guilty to charges less severe than espionage in 2006, which prosecutors sought to rescind when they discovered Keyser had lied to them about the extent of his relationship and the hoard of secret documents he kept at home.

But as Time magazine’s Adam Zagorin reported back then, the case “got even weirder” when investigators discovered that Keyser’s wife, a CIA officer by the name of Margaret Peggy Lyons, knew all about the classified documents her husband kept at home -- and even had some of her own.

And Lyons, as it turns out, was Peter B.’s supervisor.

He knew too much.

In his own sworn declaration to the court in February, Peter B. elaborated on his suspicions, which sounds like material for the next Matt Damon thriller.

“I believe that the work I was doing, and about to do, potentially risked exposure of the illegal activities of her husband, “ he declared, “and that defendant Lyons sought to eliminate me as a threat to her husband, and perhaps, her own actions. Thus, she took certain steps to disparage me, and to destroy not only my CIA craeer but my ability to pursue my chosen profession.”

He is demanding that the CIA restore his officer status and benefits and to have his case reviewed through due process.

Lyons “either acted illegally or outside of her scope of employment to retaliate against Peter B.,” his Washington, D.C., lawyer, Mark S. Zaid, alleges in court documents, reported here for the first time.

Moreover, Zaid maintains, Lyons’s part in the CIA’s dismissal of him was “of a personal nature, unlawful and/or retaliatory.”`

An airing of CIA and FBI files, Peter B. argued in his own declaration to U.S. District Court Judge Richard W. Roberts, would produce “relevant records about this theory.”

The CIA is seeking a summary dismissal of the case .

Lyons, who admitted to prosecutors in 2006 that she and Keyser had failed "to properly secure" her husband's secret material, subsequently went to work for the Directorate of National Intelligence. She could not be reached for comment.

Meanwhile, Peter B., who, unknown to him, was commended by CIA Director George Tenet for “services rendered for our country” at the same time in 2002 that Lyons was allegedly plotting to destroy him, is no longer alone in his fight with the CIA.

Rosemarie Hesterberg, a 40-year CIA veteran who managed agency counterterrorism operations against high priority targets from Oct. 2001 to Oct. 2005, stepped out of the shadows in late February to say she has information that could help him.

“I believe many individual(s) in this summary process have made decision based on false data/information …” Hesterberg told the court in a four-page statement on Feb. 26, “and therefore have tarnished the good name of the Central Intelligence Agency (whether deliberately or not) for reasons I still do not understand.”

“In that process,” Hesterberg continued, “the Agency lost a competent operational officer at a time crucial in the fight on terrorism, one that was totally unnecessary hence abusing CIA’s good name and good conduct towards its employees.”

********

CFSO Note: Irrespective of the merits of the Keyser case, Peter B's statement and that of Rosemarie Hesterberg show how, in their zeal, security officers often cross lines of legality, and often hurt, rather than help, our nation's security. As we often say about State's Bureau of Diplomatic Security: Security badly done is simply bad security.

Unlike State, CIA Takes Background Investigations Seriously

2010-04-06T05:44:00.001-07:00

From The Detroit News by Paul Egan

A Royal Oak woman who falsified background investigations she conducted for the CIA was sentenced today in federal court to two months in prison, followed by six months of home confinement.

Kerry Gerdes, 27, was also ordered to repay about $25,000 in salary she received from the Central Intelligence Agency during the time she submitted the false reports.

Her job was to conduct interviews as part of background checks for current and potential Central Intelligence Agency employees, but a routine quality control check found that Gerdes documented interviews she never conducted, according to court records.

"Serious responsibilities were imposed on you in conducting these interviews," U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn told Gerdes. "People engaged in this kind of work must understand the importance of adhering to standards."

The charge carried a maximum sentence of five years in prison. Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Falvey asked for six months in prison. Richard Helfrick of the Federal Defender Office, the attorney for Gerdes, asked for probation.

"I'm sorry, sir," Gerdes told Cohn. "I will not be in the court system again."

Helfrick said the job with the CIA near Washington, D.C., was Gerdes' first job out of college and it took her away from friends and family.

"She was basically overwhelmed by the work and under pressure to get work done," Helfrick said.

Falvey said Gerdes "was entrusted by the United States government to conduct security clearance background investigations," and "the fabricated interviews and false information were material to the background investigations and were relied upon ... in adjudicating security clearances."

*******

Hey Don Reid: Note the words "routine quality control check!" If you want to know what that is, we can explain it to you!

When Good people Do Bad Things

2010-04-01T19:29:00.000-07:00

From the National Law Journal by Mike Scarcella, March 31, 2010

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday approved a $3 million settlement and vacated two opinions that the Justice Department said threatened national security.

The suit, filed in 1994 by a Drug Enforcement Administration agent, has dragged on amid disputes about the state secrets privilege. The plaintiff, Richard Horn, alleged then-CIA officer Arthur Brown and Franklin Huddle Jr. of the State Department unlawfully eavesdropped on telephone communication while Horn was stationed in Burma in the 1990s. The suit remained under seal until last year.

In dismissing the case with prejudice, Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to notify him whether it will refer allegations of government misconduct to the Office of the Inspector General and to appropriate oversight committees in Congress.

"Here, the allegations of wrongdoing by the government attorneys in this case are not only credible, they are admitted," Lamberth wrote in his a six-page opinion. Lamberth also said: "[T]his Court is called upon to approve a $3,000,000 payment to an individual plaintiff by the United States, and again it does not appear that any government officials have been held accountable for this loss to the taxpayer. This is troubling to the Court."

********

A very thorough piece by Diplopundit providing additional background can be found here.

Another interesting perspective piece can be found here.

All other things aside, Huddle, known to some of us as "Pancho," is a talented photographer.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Listen to Hearsay

2010-03-28T05:31:00.000-07:00

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced March 25 that, in advance of the findings of a review he requested in February, he was tightening regulations to make it harder to fire gay service members.

According to a Defense Department press release, Gates said on Thursday:

In February, I established a high-level working group to review the issues associated with implementing a repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law and to develop recommendations for implementation should the law change. At the same time, I directed the department to conduct a review of how the military implements the current policy, and, within 45 days, present to me recommended changes that would enforce the existing law in a fairer and more appropriate manner.

Today, I have approved a series of changes to the implementation of the current statute. They were developed with the full participation of the department’s senior civilian and military leadership and the changes are unanimously supported by Chairman Mullen, Vice Chairman Cartwright, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The department’s General Counsel, Jeh Johnson, and the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel have also concluded that these changes are consistent with the existent “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. These changes reflect some of the insights we have gained over 17 years of implementing the current law, including the need for consistency, oversight, and clear standards.

The changes are as follows:

We will raise the level of the officer who is authorized to initiate a fact-finding inquiry or separation proceeding regarding homosexual conduct to a general or flag officer in the service member’s chain of command.

We will raise the level of the person who is authorized to conduct a fact-finding inquiry to the level of lieutenant colonel, navy commander, or above.

We will raise the level of the officer who is authorized to separate an enlisted member to a general or flag officer in the service member’s chain of command.

We will revise what constitutes credible information to begin an inquiry or separation proceeding by, for example, specifying that information provided by third parties should be given under oath, and by discouraging the use of overheard statements and hearsay.

We will revise what constitutes a “reliable person”, upon whose word an inquiry could be initiated, with special scrutiny on third parties who may be motivated to harm the service member. Finally, certain categories of confidential information will no longer be used in support of discharges, including:

· Information provided to lawyers, clergy, and psychotherapists;

· Information provided to a medical professional in furtherance of medical treatment or a public-health official in the course of a public-health inquiry;

· Information provided in the course of seeking professional assistance for domestic or physical abuse; and

· Information obtained in the course of security-clearance investigations, in accordance with existing DoD policies.

The services will have 30 days to conform their regulations to these changes. Meanwhile, these modifications will take effect immediately and will apply to all open and future cases. In effect, this means that all separations from this point forward will take place under the revised regulation.

I believe these changes represent an important improvement in the way the current law is put into practice – above all, by providing a greater measure of common sense and common decency to a process for handling what are difficult and complex issues for all involved. Of course, only Congress can repeal the current “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” statute. It remains the law, and we are obligated to enforce it. At the same time, these changes will allow us to execute the law in a fairer and more appropriate manner.

The work of the DoD working group chaired by Mr. Johnson and General Carter Ham continues. As I told the Congress in February, I am determined that we in the department carry out the president’s directive on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in a professional and thorough way. I look forward to the continued progress of the working group as they undertake their important task in weeks and months ahead.

From the Servicemembers Legal Defence Network, March 25, 2010

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network expressed support for Department of Defense's regulatory changes designed to reduce the number of discharges under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law. Under new guidelines announced by Secretary Gates, anonymous tips, hearsay and privileged statements made in confidence to doctors and other medical professionals and clergy -- previously among the reasons gay and lesbian service members were discharged -- can no longer be used to spark a DADT investigation.

“The regulatory changes announced today are another major step forward in making the 1993 ban less draconian," said Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN executive director. "These changes underscore what Sec. Gates said on February 2 and again today: the repeal of ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is inevitable - it's a matter of how to repeal the law, not whether to do so.”

Under the Pentagon's new criteria, complaints of DADT violations must come from a person who gives a statement under oath. Only a general or admiral may initiate a fact-finding inquiry. The reporting person must also be credible.

“We are especially pleased that the undue burden gay and lesbian troops carry around with them every day has been lessened. At least a gay service member can divulge his or her sexuality to a physician or therapist without fear of getting fired. Service members can also report domestic abuse without the fear of being discharged.”

Service members should be aware that these new rules go into effect today.

“Let's not forget that gay and lesbian troops are fired for reasons other than third-party outings,” Sarvis said. “The Pentagon will continue to process hundreds of DADT discharges this year and thousands of service members will leave the services on their own because of DADT. This is why Congress must step up to the plate and repeal the law this year to bring these discharges to zero.”

As American as......

2010-03-27T15:05:00.000-07:00

From the March 26 New York Times:

WASHINGTON — One evening in April 2008, three low-level staff members from the Obama presidential campaign — a baggage handler, a videographer and an advance man — gathered in the windowless basement of a Pennsylvania hotel for an improvised Passover Seder.

The day had been long, the hour was late, and the young men had not been home in months. So they had cadged some matzo and Manischewitz wine, hoping to create some semblance of the holiday.

Suddenly they heard a familiar voice. “Hey, is this the Seder?” Barack Obama asked, entering the room.

So begins the story of the Obama Seder, now one of the newest, most intimate and least likely of White House traditions. When Passover begins at sunset on Monday evening, Mr. Obama and about 20 others will gather for a ritual that neither the rabbinic sages nor the founding fathers would recognize.

In the Old Family Dining Room, under sparkling chandeliers and portraits of former first ladies, the mostly Jewish and African-American guests will recite prayers and retell the biblical story of slavery and liberation, ending with the traditional declaration “Next year in Jerusalem.” (Never mind the current chill in the administration’s relationship with Israel.)

Top aides like David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett will attend, but so will assistants like 24-year-old Herbie Ziskend. White House chefs will prepare Jewish participants’ family recipes, even rendering chicken fat — better known as schmaltz — for just the right matzo ball flavor.

If last year is any guide, Malia and Sasha Obama will take on the duties of Jewish children, asking four questions about the night’s purpose — along with a few of their own — and scrambling to find matzo hidden in the gleaming antique furniture.

That event was the first presidential Seder, and also probably “the first time in history that gefilte fish had been placed on White House dishware,” said Eric Lesser, the former baggage handler, who organizes each year’s ritual.

As in many Jewish households, the Obama Seder seems to take on new meaning each year, depending on what is happening in the world and in participants’ lives (for this group, the former is often the same as the latter).

The first one took place at the bleakest point of the campaign, the long prelude to the Pennsylvania primary, which was dominated by a furor over Mr. Obama’s former pastor. “We were in the desert, so to speak,” remembered Arun Chaudhary, then and now Mr. Obama’s videographer, who grew up attending Seders with his half-Jewish, half-Indian family.

No one led the proceedings; everyone took turns reading aloud. Mr. Obama had brought Reggie Love, his personal aide, Ms. Jarrett and Eric Whitaker, another close friend, all African-American. Jennifer Psaki, the traveling press secretary, and Samantha Tubman, a press assistant, filtered in. Neither had ever been to a Seder, but they knew the Exodus story, Ms. Psaki from Catholic school and Ms. Tubman from childhood Sundays at black churches.

Together they peppered the outnumbered Jews at the table with questions, which the young men sometimes struggled to answer. “We’re not exactly crack Hebrew scholars,” said Mr. Lesser, now an assistant to Mr. Axelrod.

Participants remember the evening as a rare moment of calm, an escape from the din of airplanes and rallies. As the tale of the Israelites unfolded, the campaign team half-jokingly identified with their plight — one day, they too would be free. At the close of the Seder, Mr. Obama added his own ending — “Next year in the White House!”

Indeed, the same group, with a few additions, has now made the Seder an Executive Mansion tradition. (No one ever considered inviting prominent rabbis or other Jewish leaders; it is a private event.)

But maintaining the original humble feel has been easier said than done.

Ms. Tubman and Desirée Rogers, then the White House social secretary, tried to plan an informal meal last year, with little or even no wait staff required. White House ushers reacted with what seemed like polite horror. The president and the first lady simply do not serve themselves, they explained. The two sides negotiated a compromise: the gefilte fish would be preplated, the brisket passed family-style.

Then came what is now remembered as the Macaroon Security Standoff. At 6:30, with the Seder about to start, Neil Cohen, the husband of Michelle Obama’s friend and adviser Susan Sher, was stuck at the gate bearing flourless cookies he had brought from Chicago. They were kosher for Passover, but not kosher with the Secret Service, which does not allow food into the building.

Offering to help, the president walked to the North Portico and peered out the door, startling tourists. He volunteered to go all the way to the gates, but advisers stopped him, fearing that would cause a ruckus. Everyone seemed momentarily befuddled. Could the commander in chief not summon a plate of cookies to his table? Finally, Mr. Love ran outside to clear them.

Mr. Obama began the Seder by invoking the universality of the holiday’s themes of struggle and liberation. Malia and Sasha quickly found the hidden matzo and tucked it away again, so cleverly that Mr. Ziskend, the former advance man, needed 45 minutes to locate it. At the Seder’s close, the group opened a door and sang to the prophet Elijah.

In preparation for this year’s gathering, Mr. Lesser and others have again been collecting recipes from the guests, including matzo ball instructions from Patricia Winter, the mother of Melissa Winter, Mrs. Obama’s deputy chief of staff.

“We like soft (not hard) matzo balls,” Mrs. Winter warned in a note to the White House chefs, instructing them to buy commercial mix but doctor it. Use three eggs, not two, she told them; substitute schmaltz for vegetable oil, and refrigerate them for a day before serving (but not in the soup).

The Seder originated with Jewish staff members on the campaign trail who could not go home, but now some celebrate at the White House by choice. Participants say their ties are practically familial by this point anyway. “Some of the most challenging experiences of our life we’ve shared together,” Ms. Jarrett said.

No one yet knows exactly what themes will emerge this year. Maybe “taking care of people who can’t take care of themselves and health care reform,” suggested Ms. Sher, now Mrs. Obama’s chief of staff.

The evening might also reflect a group that has settled into the White House and a staff more familiar with the new custom. Last week, Ms. Sher was leaving the East Wing when a guard stopped her.

“Hey, are you bringing macaroons again this year?” he asked.

Pick Up the Pace

2010-03-25T17:58:00.000-07:00

From Secrecy News by Steven Aftergood

The Department of State must begin producing new volumes of the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series at a rate of a dozen volumes per year if it is going to fulfill its statutory mandate to document the history of U.S. foreign policy not later than 30 years after the fact, the State Department Inspector General said in a new report.

"The [State Department Historian's Office] is behind schedule in meeting the statutory FRUS deadline: HO historians only now are compiling the contents of the volumes covering the foreign policy of the Carter administration (1977-1981)," the Inspector General report said. "To achieve compliance with the 30-year deadline, HO will need to accelerate the rate of publication to approximately 12 volumes per year."

The IG audit found that after a controversial period of management turmoil in 2007 and 2008 culminating in a 2009 IG inspection report , conditions in the Historian's Office had stabilized, with "improved morale, reduced factionalism, and [a] strengthened spirit of civility" as well as "greater openness and a more participatory style of management." But more recently, as the pace of internal reform has slowed, "morale has begun to decline."

See "Report of Inspection: The Bureau of Public Affairs," U.S. Department of State Office of Inspector General, February 2010, at pp. 34-38.

No Comment

2010-03-21T19:03:00.001-07:00

The Navy Times reported Friday March 19 on testimony by General Jack Sheehan, holding Gay Dutch soldiers responsible for 1995 massacre of 7,000 Muslim men at Srebrenica, in Bosnia.

"The Dutch military’s failure to intervene during a 1995 massacre in Bosnia suggests that allowing gays to serve openly — as the Dutch military does — hurts military readiness," Sheehan told the Senate Armed Services Committee, alleging that, as a result of Gays being among the troops, "at the 1995 massacre of 7,000 Bosnian-Muslim men at Srebrenica, the Dutch battalion on station was understrength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to telephone poles, marched the Muslims off and executed them."

“Did the Dutch tell you it was because there were gay soldiers there?” asked Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the committee chairman.

“Yes,” Sheehan said. “They included that as part of the problem. ... A combination of the liberalization of the military — a net effect, basically, of social engineering.”

Not surprisingly Dutch officials have allegedly reacted with anger to that claim.

Dutch television reported that when pressed to name a source in the Dutch military, General Sheehan said that he was basing his remarks on what someone named “Hankman Berman” had told him. The Dutch Defense Ministry guessed that this was a reference to Gen. Henk van den Breemen, the country’s former chief of defense staff.

On Friday the ministry issued a statement saying that General van den Breemen, now retired, called this “absolute nonsense,” since he did not believe that the presence of gay troops had anything to do with what happened at Srebrenica and had never said any such thing.

Soon after the hearing, the Dutch ambassador to the United States, Renée Jones-Bos, said that she “couldn’t disagree more,” in a statement posted on her embassy’s Web site. The ambassador added:

On Friday, Dutch radio noted that “among all the introspection and adjustments made in the wake of Srebrenica, the issue of homosexuality never came up.”

The Dutch defense minister, Eimert van Middelkoop, added that the comments were, “scandalous and unbefitting a soldier.”

Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch foreign minister, chimed in on Twitter, calling the explanation of what happened at Srebrenica “extremely strange.”

Jan Kleian, the head of the Dutch military union ACOM, told Dutch television, “That man is just crazy.” He added, “That sounds harsh, but what else can I say, because it is complete nonsense.”

According to Radio Netherlands, Gays have been allowed to serve in the Dutch army since 1974. Before that, there were gays in the military under a version of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. Today, about 7 to 10 percent of the soldiers serving in the Dutch military are homosexual.

The Dutch ambassador to the United States took quick exception to Sheehan’s remarks. “I couldn't disagree more,” said Ambassador Renée Jones-Bos. “I take pride in the fact that lesbians and gays have served openly and with distinction in the Dutch military forces for decades, including in leading operational positions, such as in Afghanistan at the moment.”

Murders in Mexico

2010-03-14T20:31:00.000-07:00

A drive-by shooting that killed three employees of the U.S. Consulate in Mexico reminds us that there are other dangers out there besides terrorism.

From the Associated Press:

By Philip Elliott and Terry Wallace.

Gunmen killed a U.S. consulate employee and her husband as they drove in this violent border city with their baby in the back seat, minutes after the husband of another consular employee was shot to death and his two children wounded, officials said Sunday. Security forces suspected a drug gang hit.

President Barack Obama expressed outrage over the killings, and Mexican President Felipe Calderon said he was indignant and promised a swift investigation.

The gunmen are suspected of belonging to a gang of hit men tied to the Juarez drug cartel, according to a statement from the joint mission of soldiers and federal police overseeing security in Ciudad Juarez. The statement said the theory was based on "information exchanged with U.S. federal agencies" helping in the investigation.

But police said gave no information on a possible motive. U.S. State Department spokesman Fred Lash said the three slain people had attended the same social event before the attacks Saturday.

Several U.S. citizens have been killed in Mexico's drug war, most of them people with family ties to Mexico. It is very rare for American government employees to be targeted, although assailants hurled grenades at the U.S. consulate in the northern city of Monterrey in 2008.

Civilians have increasingly gotten caught in the middle of drug gang violence that has made Ciudad Juarez one of the deadliest cities in the world, with more than 2,500 people killed last year alone. At least 11 people were killed in Ciudad Juarez over the weekend.

The three died during a particularly bloody weekend in Mexico, with nearly 50 people killed in apparent gang violence. Nine people were killed in a gang shootout early Sunday in the Pacific resort city of Acapulco, one of Mexico's spring break attractions.

The State Department authorized U.S. government employees at Ciudad Juarez and five other U.S. consulates in northern Mexico to send their family members out of the area because of concerns about rising drug violence. The cities are Tijuana, Nogales, Nuevo Laredo, Monterrey and Matamoros.

Lash said the decision was based not only on Saturday's killings but also on a wider pattern of violence and threats in northern Mexico in recent weeks. The State Department noted the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City has advised American citizens to delay unnecessary travel to parts of the Mexican states of Durango, Coahuila and Chihuahua.

The consulate employee and her husband, both U.S. citizens, were shot to death Saturday afternoon in their car near the Santa Fe International bridge linking Ciudad Juarez with El Paso, Texas, said Vladimir Tuexi, a spokesman for the Chihuahua state prosecutors office.

The woman was shot in the head, while her husband suffered bullet wounds in his neck and arm. Their baby was found unharmed in the back seat. Tuexi estimated the child was about 1 year old.

The pair was identified as consular employee Lesley A. Enriquez, 35, and her husband, Arthur H. Redelfs, 34, by Robert Cason, Redelfs' stepfather. Redelfs was a detention officer at the El Paso County Jail, he said.

Cason declined to discuss the welfare of his grandchild. "I don't want to give any more information to the psychotics out there," he said.

Tuexi said the baby was in the custody of Mexican social services.

The U.S. government had not described Enriquez's job at the consulate, and Cason said he didn't know what she did there. A neighbor of Enriquez, Zonia Rivas, also didn't know.

"I do know she just went back to work about three months ago after having her baby," she said.

Ten minutes before that killing, police had found the body of the husband of a Mexican employee of the consulate.

Jorge Alberto Salcido Ceniceros, 37, was shot to death in his car, while his two children, ages 4 and 7, were wounded, according to the state prosecutors office. The children were hospitalized.

Obama was "deeply saddened and outraged" by the killings, the White House said.

"He extends his condolences to the families and condemns these attacks on consular and diplomatic personnel serving at our foreign missions," the statement said. "In concert with Mexican authorities, we will work tirelessly to bring their killers to justice."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said "these appalling assaults on members of our own State Department family are, sadly, part of a growing tragedy besetting many communities in Mexico."

"They underscore the imperative of our continued commitment to work closely with the Government of President Calderon to cripple the influence of trafficking organizations at work in Mexico," she added. "This is a responsibility we must shoulder together."

Calderon's office said the Mexican president "expresses his indignation" and "his sincerest condolences to the families of the victims." He "reiterated the Mexican government's unwavering compromise to resolve these grave crimes."

U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, who represents El Paso, expressed concern about the safety of Americans who frequently cross into Ciudad Juarez to work or visit relatives.

"These brutal murders are another sobering reminder that Mexico's drug-related violence poses a shared security threat to the United States," Reyes said in a statement. "Many American citizens and innocent civilians have lost their lives in drug-related violence, and thousands of El Pasoans continue to live and work in Ciudad Juarez every day."

Some Americans killed have been involved in the drug trade. Other cases have not been resolved, including the December killing of Augustin Salcedo, a California school board member and assistant principal who was abducted with five other men from a restaurant in northern Durango state.

Nearly 18,000 people have been killed since Calderon deployed tens of thousands of troops and federal police across the country in December 2006 in an offensive against drug traffickers.

In Acapulco, a battle between drug gangs killed eight gunmen and a 23-year-old woman caught in the cross fire as she rode in a taxi, according to a Guerrero state police report.

Weekend shootouts left more than 30 people dead in Guerrero, where several cartels are battling for drug dealing turf and trafficking routes. Eight people were killed Friday night when gunmen burst into party in western Sinaloa state.

***************

The State Department released a press release expressing condolences.

The State Department authorized U.S. government employees at Ciudad Juarez and five other U.S. consulates in northern Mexico (Tijuana, Nogales, Nuevo Laredo, Monterrey and Matamoros) to send their family members out of the area because of concerns about the risks of escalating violence.

Sometimes a Cassock, Sometimes a Badge

2010-03-13T17:21:00.001-08:00

The recent hubbub about yet another pedophile priest, this time possibly protected by the Pope's own brother, reminds us yet again that there are certain professions which attract people with certain predilections and depravities, because they present ample opportunity for the practice of those depravities, and offer a protective veil of respectability and protection that assures, in most cases, that in a situation where it is one person's word against another's, they will nearly always win.

Thus we see pedophile priests predatory schoolteachers, rapist gynecologists, murderous nurses, publicly homophobic, privately homosexual senators and tickling congressmen.

Such people do not, of course, make up a majority in their professions. Most members of their professions are honest, dedicated, decent and indeed, respectable. We include His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and nearly all senators and congressmen in that category. But some are scum, who have sought out and found a niche in which they can practice heinous, corrupt or abusive acts with impunity.

The Bureau of Diplomatic Security's current Coordinator for Security Infrastructure is not, as far as we know so far, a pedophile, a murderer, a rapist, or a tickler. He is a garden-variety good-old-fashioned bigot who has found one of the few places in the government where a person can express ethnic and religious hatred without worrying about laws prohibiting such expression. A doubly wonderful niche, in which he can also protect like-minded individuals, under the very respectable guise of protecting national security.

Like the Church, the teaching profession, the medical profession, and others, most employees of DS are decent, law-abiding, dedicated and honest. But the fact that DS practices allow the free expression of unlawful bias should be examined and changed.

The integrity of the organization, and the profession, depends on it.

Profile of a Terrorist Suspect

2010-03-10T15:49:00.000-08:00

For years, CFSO has condemned the idiocy of profiling terrorist suspects, or other security risks, according to race, ethnicity, religion or background. Todays news brings another example: a fine blond all-American woman who just happens to support international terror.

Today the Justice Department released the following:

David Kris, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, and Michael L. Levy, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, together with Janice K. Fedarcyk, Special Agent-in-Charge of the FBI in Philadelphia, today announced the unsealing of an indictment charging Colleen R. LaRose, aka "Fatima LaRose," aka "Jihad Jane," with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, conspiracy to kill in a foreign country, making false statements to a government official and attempted identity theft.

The indictment charges that LaRose (an American citizen born in 1963 who resides in Montgomery County, Pa.) and five unindicted co-conspirators (located in South Asia, Eastern Europe, Western Europe and the United States) recruited men on the Internet to wage violent jihad in South Asia and Europe, and recruited women on the Internet who had passports and the ability to travel to and around Europe in support of violent jihad.

The indictment further charges that LaRose and her unindicted co-conspirators used the Internet to establish relationships with one another and to communicate regarding their plans, which included martyring themselves, soliciting funds for terrorists, soliciting passports and avoiding travel restrictions (through the collection of passports and through marriage) in order to wage violent jihad. The indictment further charges that LaRose stole another individual’s U.S. passport and transferred or attempted to transfer it in an effort to facilitate an act of international terrorism.

In addition, according to the indictment, LaRose received a direct order to kill a citizen and resident of Sweden, and to do so in a way that would frighten "the whole Kufar [non-believer] world." The indictment further charges that LaRose agreed to carry out her murder assignment, and that she and her co-conspirators discussed that her appearance and American citizenship would help her blend in while carrying out her plans. According to the indictment, LaRose traveled to Europe and tracked the intended target online in an effort to complete her task.

"Today’s indictment, which alleges that a woman from suburban America agreed to carry out murder overseas and to provide material support to terrorists, underscores the evolving nature of the threat we face," said David Kris, Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division. "I applaud the many agents, analysts and prosecutors who worked on this important investigation."

"This case shows the use terrorists can and do make of the Internet," said U.S. Attorney Michael L. Levy. "Colleen LaRose and five other individuals scattered across the globe are alleged to have used the Internet to form a conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism, culminating in a direct order to LaRose to commit murder overseas. LaRose – an American citizen whose appearance was considered to be an asset because it allowed her to blend in – is charged with using the Internet to recruit violent jihadist fighters and supporters, and to solicit passports and funding. It demonstrates yet another very real danger lurking on the Internet. This case also demonstrates that terrorists are looking for Americans to join them in their cause, and it shatters any lingering thought that we can spot a terrorist based on appearance."

"This case demonstrates that the FBI and our partners in the law enforcement and intelligence communities must continue to remain vigilant in the face of the threats that America faces, in whatever form those threats may present themselves or no matter how creative those who threaten us try to be," said Special Agent-in-Charge Janice K. Fedarcyk of the Philadelphia Division of the FBI. "We must use all available technologies and techniques to root out potential threats and stop those who intend to harm us."

If convicted of the charges against her, LaRose faces a potential sentence of life in prison and a $1 million fine.

This case was investigated by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. It is being prosecuted by Jennifer Arbittier Williams, Assistant U.S. Attorney from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and Matthew F. Blue, Trial Attorney from the Counterterrorism Section in the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

As for religion, the AP reports:

03/10/10 12:55 PM EST QUAKERTOWN, PA. — A boyfriend of the American woman charged in a foreign terrorism plot says she never showed any Muslim or other religious leanings.

Kurt Gorman of suburban Philadelphia says Colleen LaRose mostly spent her days at their Pennsburg apartment.

Federal officials charge that she met up with violent jihadists online under the name "JihadJane." An indictment issued Tuesday says she used the Internet to conspire with them to kill a Swedish artist.

Authorities say she also stole Gorman's U.S. passport to give it to a male co-conspirator.

Gorman says he spent five years with LaRose and saw no violent tendencies. He says he came home one day last summer and found her gone.

Gorman says he's still shocked by her arrest.

Security Badly Managed is Bad Security

2010-03-04T18:28:00.000-08:00

From todays Mother Jones:

Diplomatic Impunity?
By Daniel Schulman

For years a group representing current and former State Department officials has warned of an "above-the-law" culture that has taken root within the agency's law enforcement division, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. No one paid much attention—and now the State Department could have a major scandal on its hands.

Court records unsealed Tuesday suggest that diplomatic security officers may have worked to impede the investigation into 2007's mass shooting in Baghdad's Nisour Square by Blackwater personnel. The New York Times' James Risen unearthed a key exchange, buried in thousands of pages of court transcripts, in which Kenneth Kohl, the lead prosecutor in the case against five former Blackwater guards, recalls an interview with a diplomatic security officer stationed at the US Embassy in Baghdad when the episode occurred:

"I talked to David Farrington, who was concerned, who expressed concern about the integrity of the work being done by his fellow officers," Mr. Kohl recalled. He said that Mr. Farrington had said he was in meetings where diplomatic security agents said that after they had gone to the scene and picked up casings and other evidence, "They said we’ve got enough to get these guys off now."

Following the dismissal of charges against the former Blackwater contractors, the Justice Department—and Kohl himself—have been harshly criticized for bungling the high-profile case. In December, when the charges were thrown out, the federal judge presiding over the case said prosecutors had forced his hand by relying on inadmissible statements the guards had been compelled to make under the terms of Blackwater's contract with the State Department.

Farrington's comments, if accurate, not only reveal a new dimension to the case—they support accusations that have circulated for years about impropriety by the diplomatic security branch.

After Nisour Square, Concerned Foreign Service Officers (CFSO), an association of current and former State Department personnel that was founded by foreign service officers who felt their security clearances had been unfairly suspended by Diplomatic Security, released a statement saying the incident was a direct result of "the 'above-the-law' culture that has developed in the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security," which oversaw Blackwater's personnel and other security contractors protecting diplomats overseas. When, two years later and on Diplomatic Security's watch, the hard-partying and hazing of ArmourGroup's Kabul embassy guards caused an international incident, CFSO again faulted the lawless environment within the bureau:

The internal corporate culture of the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security promotes the concept that all things are allowable in defense of the nation's security, and that employees who perform illegal acts in the name of security will be protected. The directors of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security's security infrastructure promote an all-for-one team mentality which encourages agents to view themselves as being above the law. Complaints of improprieties in investigations and other activities are routinely ignored. Internal oversight is a joke and external oversight is blocked. The ugly photos currently making the news are a particularly ugly manifestation of that culture.

A recently retired veteran of the Diplomatic Security division and member of CFSO told me he's not surprised that officers of the bureau may have tried to derail the Nisour Sqaure investigation. "It was too big a contract to oversee at that time," he says. "Blackwater was the sole source that was helping DS to get the job done to protect US diplomats in Iraq and they didn't want anything to upset the apple cart. I could see them wanting to take every means to protect Blackwater."

Responding to allegations that diplomatic security officers obstructed the Blackwater case, PJ Crowley, the State Department's top spokesman, told the Times: "We took the case seriously from the outset. We invited the F.B.I. to join the investigation, and more than two years later, we continue to pursue the case and seek justice."

Even so, Kohl, the Justice Department prosecutor, has said he experienced "an undercurrent of obstruction in this case." And, as the government appeals its case, additional evidence of State Department stonewalling could surely emerge, further embarassing the agency even as it continues to deal with the diplomatic fallout of the flawed Blackwater prosecution.

In the past, CFSO hasn't been alone in criticizing Diplomatic Security's "culture." Last September, Dov Zakheim, who served as a top Pentagon official during the Bush administration, alluded to misconduct by this division during a hearing of the Commission on Wartime Contracting, of which he's a member. The hearing, held two weeks after ArmorGroup's embassy scandal broke, focused on the State Department's oversight of contractors. At the time, Zakheim described the lewd conduct of the company's embassy guards—documented in a series of graphic pictures circulated widely online—as "the equivalent of Abu Ghraib for Afghanistan."

"By the way," he said [PDF], addressing Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary of state for management, "I have been in touch with a bunch of our folks in Kabul as recently as yesterday, and I want to read you some of the reactions that are coming out of our own embassy in Kabul about this: 'We knew nothing of the contract problems until the story broke. An incredible breakdown of communications, problems stemming from 2007, and DS, Diplomatic Security, never passed this on to us. They have their own culture.' I think this is the biggest challenge for you, Ambassador Kennedy, dealing with a culture that fundamentally is out of whack with the interest of the United States of America in Afghanistan."

Part of that culture, according to the diplomatic security veteran, is "a bigtime revolving door" through which security contractors from Blackwater and other security firms land jobs at the bureau, effectively overseeing their former employers and colleagues. Over the years, the division forged a particularly close relationship with Blackwater, he says. The result, he adds, was that "accountability and oversight fell by the wayside."

Good Luck With That!

2010-02-27T19:18:00.000-08:00

Earlier this week, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced legislation that would phase out private security contractors in war zones.

Currently, there are more than 220,000 contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan working on everything from diplomatic security to training military and police officers, to doing the dirty work in interrogations and intelligence gathering.

In Representative Schakowsky's words, "The behavior of private contractors has endangered our military, hurt relationships with foreign governments, and undermined our missions overseas."

CFSO agrees, noting that much of that bad behavior occurred among the 3900 contractors working under the execrable management of the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security.

According to the bill:

In September 2009, photos surfaced showing individuals hired by ArmorGroup North America, which was awarded a contract by the Department of State to provide security at the United States embassy in Kabul, engaging in lewd and drunken sexual conduct and hazing.

In May 2009, four men employed as military trainers for Paravant LLC, a Blackwater affil1iate, fired on a civilian vehicle in Kabul, killing one Afghan and wounding two others.

In November 2007, a contractor employed by DynCorp International, LLC, reportedly shot and killed an unarmed taxi driver who, according to witnesses, posed no threat to the DynCorp convoy.

On September 16, 2007, individuals hired by the company then known as Blackwater USA opened fire on Baghdad’s Nisour Square, killing 17 Iraqis and wounding at least 20 others.

On Christmas Eve 2006, Blackwater contractor Andrew Moonen, while drunk, shot and killed a guard to Iraqi Vice President Adil Abd-al-Mahdi in the Green Zone., and though Mr. Moonen lost his job with Blackwater as a result of this incident.

In October 2007, an audit report issued by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction stated that the Department of State ‘‘does not know specifically what it received for most of the $1,200,000,000 in expenditures under its DynCorp Contract for the Iraqi Police Training Program.’’

Signed affidavits have been filed in a civil lawsuit against Blackwater that company founder Erik Prince views himself ‘‘as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe’’, that he knowingly deployed ‘‘demonstrably unfit men’’ to Iraq, and that he used illegal ammunition, including a bullet designed to explode after entering the human body, among other charges.

The Bill would require that, on a regular basis, begining 60 days after the passage of the act, The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development shall each submit to each specified congressional committee a report that contains the following information:

The number of persons performing work in Iraq and Afghanistan under contracts (and subcontracts at any tier) entered into by Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of the Interior, and the United States Agency for
International Development, respectively.

The total cost of such contracts.

The total number of persons who have been wounded or killed in performing work under such contracts.

A description of the disciplinary actions that have been taken against persons performing work under such contracts by the contractor, the United States Government, or the Government of Iraq or Afghanistan.

Perhaps the other agencies can comply, but that kind of report would require three things that the Bureau of Diplomatic Security lacks: good management, good records, and respect for Congress.

We wish Senator Sanders and Congressman Schakowsky luck.

No Surprises Here!

2010-02-13T12:07:00.000-08:00

There is a logical extension to the way that the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security evades responsibility for improprieties in security clearance cases and investigations. It is merely a symptom of a culture in which responsibility is never assumed, and Special Agents, even when criminally negligent, are always right.

The following did not occur in Communist China, nor in Mugabe's Zimbabwe, but right here, on the streets of our Nation's capital.

Struck Down: Feds refuse to explain how agent injured Daily Caller writer

By Tucker Carlson and Jon Ward - The Daily Caller 02/04/10 at 5:49 pm

The State Department has refused to answer basic questions about an accident that took place in Washington on Wednesday night, in which a U.S. Diplomatic Security Service vehicle struck Daily Caller employee Sean Medlock as he was crossing the street.

An agent in the vehicle, Mike McGuinn, did not identify himself to Medlock at the scene, or apologize for running him down. Indeed, Washington, D.C., police drove to a local emergency room to serve Medlock with a jaywalking citation as he lay prostrate in a hospital bed, while a man who identified himself as “special agent” stood by watching and taking notes.

Reached on his cell phone the following day by the Daily Caller, McGuinn refused to answer questions about the incident.

“I’m a federal agent and I’m not allowed to talk to the media,” McGuinn said, citing “liability.” McGuinn initially declined even to reveal which agency he works for. “You can refer to the [DC] police department report,” he said before hanging up abruptly. (According the police department, no report will be publicly available for at least three days.)

According to Medlock, who writes under the name Jim Treacher, he was struck at about 7:15 p.m. on Wednesday, while crossing M Street in downtown Washington. Medlock says he was walking within the bounds of the crosswalk, toward a blinking white signal, when a government SUV suddenly turned left and plowed into him, knocking him to the ground.

Bystanders tended to Medlock, collected his crushed glasses and called an ambulance. McGuinn, meanwhile, called The Daily Caller’s offices from the scene to tell Medlock’s colleagues about the incident. But he did not identify himself to them or to Medlock.

Medlock was taken to Georgetown University Hospital with a broken left knee, lacerations and bruises. He will undergo surgery later this week.

At the hospital, DC police officer John Muniz arrived to issue Medlock a $20 jaywalking ticket. Medlock was lying sedated on a gurney, so Muniz delivered the ticket to a Daily Caller colleague, who was at the hospital with Medlock. He looked embarrassed as he did so. Behind him stood a man dressed in a dark suit who identified himself as a “special agent.” He said nothing but wrote in a notebook.

Curiously, the ticket says that Medlock was struck at an intersection four blocks from where the accident actually took place. And it claims that Medlock was walking diagonally across the intersection at the time. In one of his strikingly short conversations with the Daily Caller, agent Mike McGuinn acknowledged that Medlock was not jaywalking at all, but walking “outside the crosswalk when the incident occurred.”

The question is: Did the federal agent driving the SUV, faced with potential liabilities from the accident, encourage local police to issue some sort – any sort – of citation to Medlock, to establish his culpability?

If not, what exactly did happen? Calls to the State Department were met with evasion and indifference. Spokeswoman Grace Moe first asked a Daily Caller reporter where the publication’s offices were located before taking a message.

A second DSS spokeswoman, Sarah Rosetti, requested that questions be submitted in writing. When she responded in an e-mail, Rosetti claimed that “a jogger collided with one of the U.S. Department of State, Diplomatic Security Service’s official vehicles” – as if Medlock, who does not jog, had somehow attacked the SUV.

“At all times, Diplomatic Security acted responsibly and appropriately and displayed due diligence in caring for the injured,” Rosetti continued.

Rosetti ignored a series of questions about whether McGuinn was on or off duty, who he might have been escorting or protecting, whether McGuinn identified himself to police at the scene of the accident, and whether McGuinn had anything to do with the jaywalking citation.

She said MPD had “conducted an investigation” of the incident and referred questions about the investigation to MPD.

MPD provided several answers about the level of detail they would be able to provide. MPD public affairs said a police report would not be available until early next week at the soonest. A Daily Caller reporter who visited the Second District station, where Officer Muniz posts, was told there will be no incident report at all filed for a traffic incident.

The Daily Caller will continue to press for answers. In the meantime here are the questions sent by The Daily Caller to the Diplomatic Security Services public affairs office, followed by the responses.

QUESTIONS:

Was Mr. McGuinn protecting any member of the diplomatic corps when his SUV struck our Mr. Medlock? If so, who was he protecting? If he was not protecting or escorting anyone, was he on duty or off duty?

Was Mr. McGuinn driving a state department vehicle?

Did Mr. McGuinn at any time identify himself to Mr. Medlock or to Metropolitan Police? Did he accompany Mr. Medlock to the hospital?

Did Mr. McGuinn contact MPD to have them write Mr. Medlock a jaywalking ticket that was delivered to Mr. Medlock while he was in the hospital being treated for a broken knee (which will require surgery), lacerations and bruises? If so, do you consider that ethical or proper behavior?

Did a diplomatic security service special agent accompany the MPD officer into the hospital room while Mr. Medlock was being questioned, observe and take notes? Was that officer Mr. McGuinn?

Does Mr. McGuinn contend that Mr. Medlock was jaywalking?

Did Mr. McGuinn apologize to Mr. Medlock after the incident? Does the State Department plan on issuing an apology to Mr. Medlock?

Will any disciplinary action be taken against Mr. McGuinn? Is this the first time he has been involved in a vehicular accident?

ANSWERS:

At approximately 7:10 PM last night, a jogger collided with one of the U.S. Department of State, Diplomatic Security Service’s official vehicles.

The jogger was transported by ambulance to Georgetown University Hospital.

Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) responded to the scene and conducted an investigation. Diplomatic Security has since learned that the jogger was cited for Jaywalking. For further details regarding the investigation, we would refer you to MPD.

At all times, Diplomatic Security acted responsibly and appropriately and displayed due diligence in caring for the injured.

Mike Riggs and Gautham Nagesh contributed to this report.

Et tu, Barrack?

2010-02-02T15:26:00.000-08:00

From today's Washington Times:

By Eli Lake

President Obama is coming under pressure from Democrats and civil liberties groups for failing to fill positions on an oversight panel formed in 2004 to make sure the government does not spy improperly on U.S. citizens.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was recommended initially by the bipartisan September 11 commission as an institutional voice for privacy inside the intelligence community. Its charter was to recommend ways to mitigate the effects of far-reaching surveillance technology that the federal government uses to track terrorists.

The panel was established in 2004 under the Bush administration as part of the executive office of the president. Its independence was unclear for several years. Congress responded by increasing the board's budget, expanding its powers and moving it outside the presidential executive office in 2007.

Since taking office, Mr. Obama has allowed the board to languish. He has not even spent the panel's allocation from the fiscal 2010 budget.

*******

The events of September 11, 2001 were undeniably horrifying. What is equally horrifying is the complicity of the U.S. Government, whose efforts since then to prevent a recurrance have routinely subsumed the principles and Constitution on which our nation was founded. Whenever our constitutional rights are trampled, whether by FBI abuse of the Patriot Act or by DS abuses of security clearance laws, the terrorists win.

In his inaugural address a year ago, President Obama said:

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.

Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake."

It's high time to put those fine words into action.

Another Double Standard

2010-02-01T04:53:00.000-08:00

This month, DS revised the FAM regulations concerning "fitness for duty" regs for DS Special agents.

The revision called our attention to an interesting paragraph, apparently inserted in 2008, which says:

3 FAM 4914.4 Impact on Disciplinary and Other Proceedings

A fitness-for-duty evaluation (FFDE) is not a substitute for supervision or a mode of discipline and should never be used in a punitive fashion. An FFDE is independent and separate from any disciplinary proceedings, suitability investigation, or other process. In a disciplinary action, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) will only disclose the FFDE report with the employee's written consent or as required by law.

It's too bad that the regulations concerning Security Clearances do not contain a similar paragraph.

Although a Security Clearance is never intended to be used as a punitive measure or to take the place of a disciplinary action, the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security routinely uses security clearance suspension and revocation for that purpose, especially where no evidence exists of any wrongdoing.

Another case of DS protecting its own, while abusing the opacity of its processes to attack others.

The Idiocy of Ethnically Profiling Potential Terrorists

2010-01-22T19:47:00.000-08:00

This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR:

Profiling: Sketching the Face of Jihadism
January 20, 2010 | 1950 GMT
By Scott Stewart

On Jan. 4, 2010, the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) adopted new rules that would increase the screening of citizens from 14 countries who want to fly to the United States as well as travelers of all nationalities who are flying to the United States from one of the 14 countries. These countries are: Afghanistan, Algeria, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

Four of the countries — Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria — are on the U.S. government’s list of state sponsors of terrorism. The other 10 have been labeled “countries of interest” by the TSA and appear to have been added in response to jihadist attacks in recent years. Nigeria was almost certainly added to the list only as a result of the Christmas Day bombing attempt aboard a Detroit-bound U.S. airliner by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian man.

As reflected by the large number of chain e-mails that swirl around after every attack or attempted attack against the United States, the type of profiling program the TSA has instituted will be very popular in certain quarters. Conventional wisdom holds that such programs will be effective in protecting the flying public from terrorist attacks because profiling is easy to do. However, when one steps back and carefully examines the historical face of the jihadist threat, it becomes readily apparent that it is very difficult to create a one-size-fits-all profile of a jihadist operative. When focusing on a resourceful and adaptive adversary, the use of such profiles sets a security system up for failure by causing security personnel and the general public to focus on a threat that is defined too narrowly.

Sketching the face of jihadism is simply not as easy as it might seem.

The Historical Face of Terror

One popular chain e-mail that seemingly circulates after every attack or attempted attack notes that the attack was not conducted by Richard Simmons or the Tooth Fairy but by “Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.” And when we set aside the Chechen “Black Widows”, the occasional female suicide bomber and people like Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph, many terrorist attacks are indeed planned and orchestrated by male Muslim extremists between the ages of 17 and 40. The problem comes when you try to define what a male Muslim extremist between the ages of 17 and 40 looks like.

When we look back at the early jihadist attacks against the United States, we see that many perpetrators matched the stereotypical Muslim profile. In the killing of Rabbi Meir Kahane, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing and the thwarted 1993 New York Landmarks Plot, we saw a large contingent of Egyptians, including Omar Abdul-Rahman (aka “the Blind Sheikh”), ElSayyid Nosair, Ibrahim Elgabrowny, Mahmud Abouhalima and several others. In fact, Egyptians played a significant role in the development of the jihadist ideology and have long constituted a very substantial portion of the international jihadist movement — and even of the core al Qaeda cadre. Because of this, it is quite surprising that Egypt does not appear on the TSA’s profile list.

Indeed, in addition to the Egyptians, in the early jihadist plots against the United States we also saw operatives who were Palestinian, Pakistani, Sudanese and Iraqi. However — and this is significant — in the New York Landmarks Plot we also saw a Puerto Rican convert to Islam named Victor Alvarez and an African-American Muslim named Clement Rodney Hampton-el. Alvarez and Hampton-el clearly did not fit the typical profile.

The Kuwait-born Pakistani citizen who was the bombmaker in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing is a man named Abdul Basit (widely known by his alias, Ramzi Yousef). After leaving the United States, Basit resettled in Manila and attempted to orchestrate an attack against U.S. airliners in Asia called Operation Bojinka. After an apartment fire in Manila caused Basit to flee the city, he moved to Islamabad, where he attempted to recruit new jihadist operatives to carry out the Bojinka plot. One of the men he recruited was a South African Muslim named Istaique Parker. After a few dry-run operations, Parker got cold feet, decided he did not want to embrace martyrdom and helped the U.S. Diplomatic Security Service special agents assigned to the U.S. Embassy orchestrate Basit’s arrest. A South African named Parker does not fit the typical terrorist profile.

The following individuals, among many others, were involved in jihadist activity but did not fit what most people would consider the typical jihadist profile:

Richard Reid, the British citizen known as the “shoe bomber.”
Jose Padilla, the American citizen known as the “dirty bomber.”
Adam Gadahn, an al Qaeda spokesman who was born Adam Pearlman in California.
John Walker Lindh, the so-called “American Taliban.”
Jack Roche, the Australian known as “Jihad Jack.”
The Duka brothers, ethnic Albanians involved in the Fort Dix plot.
Daniel Boyd and his sons, American citizens plotting grassroots attacks inside the United States.
Germaine Maurice Lindsay, the Jamaican-born suicide bomber involved in the July 7, 2005, London attacks.
Nick Reilly, the British citizen who attempted to bomb a restaurant in Exeter in May 2008.
David Headley, the U.S. citizen who helped plan the Mumbai attacks.

As reflected by the list above, jihadists come from many ethnicities and nationalities, and they can range from Americans named Daniel, Victor and John to a Macedonian nicknamed “Elvis,” a Tanzanian called “Foopie” (who smuggled explosives by bicycle) and an Indonesian named Zulkarnaen. There simply is not one ethnic or national profile that can be used to describe them all.

An Adaptive Opponent

One of the big reasons we’ve witnessed men with names like Richard and Jose used in jihadist plots is because jihadist planners are adaptive and innovative. They will adjust the operatives they select for a mission in order to circumvent new security measures. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, when security forces began to focus additional scrutiny on people with Muslim names, they dispatched Richard Reid on his shoe-bomb mission. And it worked — Reid was able to get his device by security and onto the plane. If he hadn’t fumbled the execution of the attack, it would have destroyed the aircraft. Moreover, when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wanted to get an operative into the United States to conduct attacks following 9/11, he selected U.S. citizen Jose Padilla. Padilla successfully entered the country, and it was only Mohammed’s arrest and interrogation that alerted authorities to Padilla’s mission.

But their operational flexibility in fact predates the 9/11 attack. For example, some of the operatives initially selected for the 9/11 mission were Yemenis and could not obtain visas to the United States. Since Saudis were able to obtain visas much easier, al Qaeda simply shifted gears and decided to use Saudis instead of Yemenis.

Pakistan-based militant groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Harkat-ul-Jihad e-Islami likewise sought to fool the Danish and Indian security services when they dispatched an American citizen named David Headley from Chicago to conduct pre-operational surveillance in Mumbai and Denmark. Headley, who was named Daood Gilani at his birth, legally changed his name to David Coleman Headley, anglicizing his first name and taking his mother’s maiden name. The name change and his American accent were apparently enough to throw intelligence agencies off his trail — in spite of his very aggressive surveillance activity.

Most recently, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) showed its cunning when it dispatched a Nigerian, Abdulmutallab, in the Christmas Day attack. Although STRATFOR was among the first to see the threat AQAP’s innovative devices posed to aviation security, there is no way we could have forecast that the group would conduct an attack originating out of Nigeria using a Nigerian citizen. A Saudi or Yemeni, certainly; a Somali or American citizen, maybe — but a Nigerian? AQAP’s use of such an operative was a total paradigm shift. (Perhaps this paradigm shift explains in part why U.S. officials chose not to act more aggressively on intelligence they had obtained on Abdulmutallab that could have prevented the attack.) The only reason Nigeria is on the list of 14 countries now is because of the Christmas Day incident, and there is no reason that jihadists couldn’t use a Muslim from Togo, Ghana, or Trinidad and Tobago instead of a Nigerian in their next attack.

Jihadist planners have now heard about the list of 14 countries and, demonstrating their adaptability, will undoubtedly try to use operatives who are not from one of those countries and choose flights that originate from other places as well. They may even follow the lead of Chechen militants and the Islamic State of Iraq by employing female suicide bombers. They will also likely instruct operatives to “lose” their passports so that they can obtain new documents that contain no traces of travel to one of the 14 countries on the list. Jihadists have frequently used this tactic to hide operatives’ travel to training camps in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Moreover, jihadist groups have no lack of operatives from countries that are not on that list. Jihadists from all over the world have traveled to jihadist training camps, and in addition to the large number of Egyptian, Moroccan and Tunisian jihadists (countries not on the list), there are also Filipinos, Indonesians, Malaysians and, of course, Americans and Europeans. Frankly, there have been far more jihadist plots that have originated in the United Kingdom than there have been plots involving Nigerians, and yet Nigeria is on the list and the United Kingdom is not. Because of this, a British citizen (or an American, for that matter) who has been fighting with al Shabaab in Somalia could board a flight in Nairobi or Cairo and receive less scrutiny than an innocent Nigerian flying from the same airport.

In an environment where the potential threat is hard to identify, it is doubly important to profile individuals based on their behavior rather than their ethnicity or nationality — what we refer to as focusing on the “how” rather than the “who”. Instead of relying on pat profiles, security personnel should be encouraged to exercise their intelligence, intuition and common sense. A U.S. citizen named Robert who shows up at the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi or Amman claiming to have lost his passport may be far more dangerous than some random Pakistani or Yemeni citizen, even though the American does not fit the profile requiring extra security checks.

The difficulty of creating a reliable and accurate physical profile of a jihadist, and the adaptability and ingenuity of the jihadist planners, means that any attempt at profiling is doomed to fail. In fact, profiling can prove counterproductive to good security by blinding people to real threats. They will dismiss potential malefactors who do not fit the specific profile they have been provided.

Dr. Martin Luther King January 15, 1929-April 4, 1968

2010-01-16T14:03:00.000-08:00

"The time has come for an all-out world war against poverty. The rich nations must use their vast resources of wealth to develop the underdeveloped, school the unschooled, and feed the unfed. Ultimately a great nation is a compassionate nation. No individual or nation can be great if it does not have a concern for "the least of these". Deeply etched in the fiber of our religious tradition is the conviction that men are made in the image of God and that they are souls of infinite metaphysical value, the heirs of a legacy of dignity and worth. If we feel this as a profound moral fact, we cannot be content to see men hungry, to see men victimized with starvation and ill health when we have the means to help them. The wealthy nations must go all out to bridge the gulf between the rich minority and the poor majority."

Dr. Martin Luther King, in his Nobel Prize lecture in Oslo, December 11, 1964

Sad News

2010-01-15T14:31:00.000-08:00

Concerned Foreign Service officers mourns the passing of our friend and colleague Vickie DeLong during the earthquake in Haiti January 13. Our thoughts and prayers go out to her family and friends during this difficult and painful time.

The Jewish Question

2010-01-14T18:14:00.000-08:00

From Secrecy News, by Steven Aftergood:

A lawsuit (pdf) filed on behalf of a Jewish-American FBI agent whose security clearance was revoked based on unspecified charges states that his termination was an improper expression of FBI bias against American Jews, and complains that the agent was unconstitutionally denied a right to confront and rebut the claims against him.

The case appears to have arisen in part from an earlier investigation of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel advocacy organization. The FBI agent, named only as John Doe, says he was questioned about his contacts with AIPAC employees Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, who were charged in 2005 under the Espionage Act in a case that was later dismissed.

The new lawsuit, filed by attorney Mark S. Zaid, indicates that John Doe had faxed unclassified articles prepared by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service to AIPAC, as well as another unclassified State Department document.

"These documents were directly related to matters on which John Doe worked as an Intelligence Research Specialist and his contacts with AIPAC officials were neither inappropriate nor outside the scope of his employment with the federal government," the lawsuit states.

"The defendants [FBI and Department of Justice] effectively punished John Doe for lawful, proper, and necessary associations with American citizens who are Jewish and/or have association with the country of Israel by revoking his clearance and terminating his employment based on his contacts in violation of his First Amendment right of association," the complaint states.

The FBI action response indicates "an unfounded paranoia far out of proportion to the innocuous and/or professional nature of John Doe's relationships. Defendants have failed to offer any factual evidence indicating John Doe's associations were illegal, suspect, dangerous, deceptive, improper, or even untoward," Mr. Zaid wrote

FSJ: State Clearance Decisions Arbitrary? No Doubt About It!

2010-01-12T19:15:00.000-08:00

From this month's Foreign Service Journal, by AFSA VP Daniel Hirsch:

In January 2006, AFSA wrote to management expressing concern that department decisions in adverse-action security clearance cases lacked objectivity.

The department responded with the briefest of notes, asserting that it followed governmentwide guidelines for adjudication.

AFSA disagreed and wrote again in 2007, noting, among other things, that unlike the Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Defense, which collectively adjudicate more that 94 percent of U.S. government security clearance cases, the department applies no standard of evidence to the derogatory information used as a basis for clearance suspensions and revocations.

The department responded in 2008 that Executive Order 12968 did not establish a specific standard of evidence and, in essence, that the laws were vague and subject to interpretation.

In both responses, the department asserted that “all doubt” in a security clearance matter must be resolved in favor of national security.

It is rare that a dispute with management takes so long to resolve, but AFSA is again pursuing this issue. The executive order is indeed vague, but it is crystal-clear on three points: information used as the basis for a security clearance action must be reliable; the adjudicative process must involve a “whole person” review; and security clearance decisions must involve an investigation conducted for that purpose.

AFSA feels that since the law is vague, and since the department’s share of adjudications is a tiny portion of the whole government’s, it is reasonable for the department to follow the interpretation used by the vast majority.

In the 94 percent of security clearance cases adjudicated by OPM and DOD, the “reliability” of derogatory information is subject to a standard of “substantial evidence.” That is not the highest evidentiary standard — in fact, it is a very low standard — but it is one that benefits the vast majority of cleared government employees. Yet it is denied to the 1 percent or so of employees whose cases are decided by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security.

That standard does not come from the executive order. It derives from decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and those of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, which provide most of the case-law precedents used by the security clearance community as a way of avoiding arbitrary and capricious determinations contrary to law.

The dictionary defines “arbitrary” as “based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by the intrinsic nature of something.” In other words, an arbitrary decision is one made in the absence of an objective standard.

Absent an evidentiary standard, the current adjudicative procedures used by the department are, by definition, arbitrary.

With reference to the concept that all doubt must be resolved in favor of national security, that is also very different for 94 percent of cleared government employees than it is for those employed by State.

Here again, OPM and DOD apply a Supreme Court- and DOHA-supported definition, in which the word “doubt” is defined as “reliable, relevant, derogatory information that is not mitigated by other information either supplied by the subject or otherwise available.” By that definition, if one cannot determine the reliability of information, one cannot have the kind of legally-defined doubt that should form the basis of a security clearance determination.

AFSA does not ask that State Department employees be treated more leniently than anyone else.

However, Foreign Service members should not have fewer rights than the 94 percent of cleared government employees whose clearances are adjudicated by DOD and OPM. If their evidence-based procedures are good enough to protect military information in a time of war, they should be good enough to protect State Department information, as well.

Moreover, we feel that given a mandated governmentwide trend toward interagency standardization and reciprocity of clearances, State should not continue to forge its own interpretations of law, but should join other agencies of government by accepting the standards used in the vast majority of security clearance adjudications.

This includes not only the standard of evidence mentioned above, but also written procedures documenting a whole-person review, and clear and rebuttable statements of reasons for denial of a clearance.

Let doubt be resolved in favor of national security, by all means. But let that doubt, and all decisions related to it, be based on the same evidentiary standard that protects 94 percent of cleared government employees from arbitrary
decisions and abuse.

Towards a More Open Government - Part 3

2010-01-02T15:40:00.000-08:00

After 9/11, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security was supposed to eliminate barriers to information sharing between law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, and between federal agencies in general. Any professional bureaucrat would know that creating additional layers of bureaucracy would not accomplish that aim.

The recent bombing attempt by a Nigerian passenger on Northwest airlines flight 253 between Amsterdam and Detroit highlights this fact. Information identifying that passenger as a high-risk individual (contact with terrorist groups, a warning by the man's father to both Nigerian and American officials, listing on an American watchlist [Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment - TIDE], paying cash for a ticket, leaving no contact information with the airline, traveling internationally with no luggage) was known, and not shared with those who needed it most. When all was said and done, only blind luck saved the passengers of that flight from certain death.

On a smaller scale, information within the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security is often so stove-piped that DS investigations routinely ignore information already in DS's possession.

Protection of sensitive information is obviously necessary in many situations, but stove-piping and the barriers it sets up are but one example out of many of instances where classification of information, or the handling of classified information, is detrimental to national security.

On December 29th, the White House released a new presidential directive and a new executive order, requiring regular review of security classifications, and mandating that information which no longer meets classification standards must be declassified.

They also provide a mechanism for federal employees who believe that information is improperly classified to challenge that classification.

With specific reference to the State Department (and presumably to the failures to declassify historical information described earlier in this blog), they require the Secretary of State (and those of Defense, and Energy, and the Director of National Intelligence) to provide the Archivist of the United States with sufficient guidance to speed up declassification of Records of Permanent Historical Value.

With relevance to the security clearance appeal process as practiced by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the executive order repeats earlier admonitions that: "In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to: conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error or to prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency."

DS regularly classifies information related to DS investigations and adjudications in order to conceal violations (by DS employees) of law and regulation, and to avoid embarrassing top DS management. Concerned Foreign Service Officers calls upon the new Director of DSS to end this illegal practice.

According to President Obama's memo:

"Striking the critical balance between openness and secrecy is a difficult but necessary part of our democratic form of government. Striking this balance becomes more difficult as the volume and complexity of the information increases. Improving the capability of departments and agencies to identify still sensitive information and to make declassified information available to the public are integral parts of the classification system."

So is getting rid of old Cold-Warriors and the destructive habits they continue to practice in DS and elsewhere, with predictable detrimental effects to the national security of the United States.

Happy 2010!

2010-01-02T08:41:00.000-08:00

May this be the year in which the Diplomatic Security Service of the U.S. Department of State brings its security clearance adjudication processes into conformity with those of the rest of the government. State Department employees are no less deserving of a fair and legal hearing than the 94 percent of all cleared U.S. Government employees whose clearances are adjudicated by DoD and OPM.