CIA agent allegedly fired for not lying - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

guy44 · 12-10-2004, 12:13 AM

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A sacked CIA official has sued, alleging he was fired for refusing to fake reports supporting the White House position that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, local media said.

Described as a senior CIA official who was sacked in August "for unspecified reasons," the lawsuit appeared to be the first public instance of a CIA agent charging he was pressured to concoct intelligence on Iraq.

The suit claims the unidentified ex agent was urged to produce reports in line with President George W Bush's contention that Iraq had illegal chemical or biological weapons, which threatened US and international security.

"Their official dogma was contradicted by his reporting and they did not want to hear it," attorney Roy Krieger told The Washington Post of his client.

CIA spokeswoman Anya Guilsher told the daily she could not comment on the lawsuit, adding: "The notion that CIA managers order officers to falsify reports is flat wrong. Our mission is to call it like we see it and report the facts."

Krieger wrote a letter requesting a meeting with CIA Director Porter Goss due to "the serious nature of the allegations in this case, including deliberately misleading the president on intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction," said the daily quoting the letter.

The United States overthrew the Iraqi dictatorship of Saddam Hussein in April 2003, but has found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since then. The US government has acknowledged some of its pre-war intelligence may have been faulty.

The plaintiff, whose identity is blacked out in the version of the lawsuit seen by the Post, along with any reference to Iraq, is of Middle Eastern descent, worked 23 years in the CIA, much of them in covert operations collecting intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, said the daily.

The lawsuit was filed in a US District Court in Washington on Friday and made public Wednesday after it was screened by a judge, said the Post which obtained a copy.

It alleges that the CIA investigated alleged sexual and financial improprieties by the agent "for the sole purpose of discrediting him and retaliating against him for questioning the integrity of the WMD reporting ... and for refusing to falsify his intelligence reporting to support the politically mandated conclusion" of matters that were blacked out, according to the Washington daily.

The document states that in 2002 the plaintiff was "thwarted by CIA superiors" from reporting routine intelligence from a contact of his and that later he was approached by a senior officer "who insisted that plaintiff falsify his reporting."

When the plaintiff refused, the lawsuit said, the CIA's Counterproliferation Division ordered that he "remove himself from any further 'handling'" of the contact, referred elsewhere in the document as "a highly respected human asset."

The former agent's lawyer said the allegations were not true, and that his client had not been formally charged for any of them before being fired three months ago.

Krieger, who represents CIA personnel, told CNN television that such accusations were common practice at the agency.

"In the past seven or eight years I've represented probably in excess of 100 employees of the Central Intelligence Agency and in our experience when (someone) at the agency gets into disfavor or gets himself in a position of opposition to the agency, one of two things -- sometimes both of them -- happen.

"Either he's subjected to a counterintelligence investigation based upon trumped-up allegations or he's referred to the office of Inspector General for investigation of his travel expenses, his finances and, in this case, payments made to an asset," Kreiger said.

In 2003, the lawsuit goes on to say, the CIA officer learned of the investigations against him and that he was refused a promotion "because of pressure from the DDO (Deputy Director of Operations) James Pavitt," according to the Post.

In September 2003, the plaintiff was placed on administrative leave without explanation and in August 2004 he was sacked also "for unspecified reasons," the Post said.

The lawsuit requests that the plaintiff be restored to his former position in the CIA and receives compensatory damages and legal fees.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...iraqwmdciasuit

To anticipate: I do not know if this is true. He could be bitter and lying. I don't know, how could anyone?

It does say something that this sounds like it could be real, doesn't it, even if it isn't (though it might be). I mean, the allegation that the CIA fired this guy for not lying about Iraqi WMD seems as big a story as I can imagine.

Because, you know, it isn't like Bush wouldn't pressure his underlings to produce evidence to allow him to go to war or anything.

I'm curious to see if this is just some angry ex-CIA guy's revenge, or a legit complaint, myself.

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-10-2004, 06:10 AM

I'm fairly certain there are things in place to protect people and their jobs in such instances. Just like people can't get fired for revealing a scandal. I doubt he got fired because he wouldn't lie.

Rekna · 12-10-2004, 09:47 AM

There are lots of protections in this world that only protect when the people in charge want them to protect. This would not surprise me if it is true.

OFKU0 · 12-10-2004, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

I'm fairly certain there are things in place to protect people and their jobs in such instances. Just like people can't get fired for revealing a scandal. I doubt he got fired because he wouldn't lie.

I don't know about the U.S, but in Canada, whistle blower legislation is pending to some extent, yet many civil servants won't come forward because they know it isn't worth it.

In the past people have been demoted, layed off, told to be quiet,replaced (and softer term for being fired) and if they kept their jobs after airing complaints of wrongdoing, are blacklisted with virtually no chance of advancement.

And these people and their complaints don't even come close to those serious enough to start a war.

Seaver · 12-10-2004, 11:13 AM

We'll have to wait and see on this. It's really easy for someone to get fired for negligence and then go around and become a "whistle blower" for something made up.

Ustwo · 12-10-2004, 12:33 PM

You would think people have never seen a disgruntaled employee before.

guy44 · 12-10-2004, 03:29 PM

Yeah, I'd be disgruntled if I got fired because I refused to lie about the existence of Iraqi WMD.

None of us know what the truth of this situation is. Your out-of-hand dismissal, even if it proves to be correct, shows the closemindedness that dominates thinking these days. With literally ZERO, NADA, SHIT FOR evidence, you assume that he must be lying.

I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but I agree with Seaver - we need to wait and see if this turns out to be a case with merit, or if this guy really is a disgruntled employee. But I, personally, won't say either way without any evidence.

sprocket · 12-10-2004, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

Yeah, I'd be disgruntled if I got fired because I refused to lie about the existence of Iraqi WMD.

None of us know what the truth of this situation is. Your out-of-hand dismissal, even if it proves to be correct, shows the closemindedness that dominates thinking these days. With literally ZERO, NADA, SHIT FOR evidence, you assume that he must be lying.

I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but I agree with Seaver - we need to wait and see if this turns out to be a case with merit, or if this guy really is a disgruntled employee. But I, personally, won't say either way without any evidence.

I think out of hand dismissals are quite alright when there isnt enough info to call something news. This story needs to comeback when people investigating have actual information to give us. Until then theres no real way to base any opinion of this situation on fact. All we have in this case are our "preconceived" notions.

KMA-628 · 12-10-2004, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

Yeah, I'd be disgruntled if I got fired because I refused to lie about the existence of Iraqi WMD.

None of us know what the truth of this situation is. Your out-of-hand dismissal, even if it proves to be correct, shows the closemindedness that dominates thinking these days. With literally ZERO, NADA, SHIT FOR evidence, you assume that he must be lying.

With literally ZERO, NADA, SHIT FOR evidence, you assume that he must be telling the truth.

Quote:

But I, personally, won't say either way without any evidence

Correct, you aren't saying that, but minus actually saying "IT'S TRUE!", your opinion is pretty clear.

/Why are we debating something that has absolutely no merit yet? He wins his case, then let's talk.

MSD · 12-11-2004, 11:20 AM

The agent was most likely gotten rid of because of a serious disagreement with his superiors. It is entirely plausible that the agent was pressured to produce a report based on questionable or unsubstantiated sources. It is possible but highly unlikely that the agent was explicitly told to produce false documents or be fired.

I would say that the most likely scenario is that the agent was dismissed because of issues with supervisors, and blew an unrelated incident out of proportion to get publicity for a viewpoint that he holds. On the other hand, I am willing to consider the possiblity that his story is completely or almost completely true.

I'd say that this is probably a classic case of three sides to the story: his side, their side, and the truth.

jonjon42 · 12-11-2004, 06:58 PM

I am skeptical but I believe the claim should be closely examined. We do not know if he is just disgruntled or actually telling the truth. It's very hard in these situations because both are very plausible.

sob · 12-12-2004, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

Yeah, I'd be disgruntled if I got fired because I refused to lie about the existence of Iraqi WMD.

None of us know what the truth of this situation is. Your out-of-hand dismissal, even if it proves to be correct, shows the closemindedness that dominates thinking these days. With literally ZERO, NADA, SHIT FOR evidence, you assume that he must be lying.

I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but I agree with Seaver - we need to wait and see if this turns out to be a case with merit, or if this guy really is a disgruntled employee. But I, personally, won't say either way without any evidence.

It will also be fun to compare the media coverage of this to the coverage of Gary Aldrich.

12-10-2004, 06:10 AM	#2 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I'm fairly certain there are things in place to protect people and their jobs in such instances. Just like people can't get fired for revealing a scandal. I doubt he got fired because he wouldn't lie. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

12-10-2004, 12:33 PM	#6 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	You would think people have never seen a disgruntaled employee before. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-10-2004, 03:29 PM	#7 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Yeah, I'd be disgruntled if I got fired because I refused to lie about the existence of Iraqi WMD. None of us know what the truth of this situation is. Your out-of-hand dismissal, even if it proves to be correct, shows the closemindedness that dominates thinking these days. With literally ZERO, NADA, SHIT FOR evidence, you assume that he must be lying. I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but I agree with Seaver - we need to wait and see if this turns out to be a case with merit, or if this guy really is a disgruntled employee. But I, personally, won't say either way without any evidence. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

12-11-2004, 06:58 PM	#11 (permalink)
jonjon42 Psycho Location: inside my own mind	I am skeptical but I believe the claim should be closely examined. We do not know if he is just disgruntled or actually telling the truth. It's very hard in these situations because both are very plausible. __________________ A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

12-10-2004, 09:47 AM	#3 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	There are lots of protections in this world that only protect when the people in charge want them to protect. This would not surprise me if it is true.

12-10-2004, 11:13 AM	#5 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	We'll have to wait and see on this. It's really easy for someone to get fired for negligence and then go around and become a "whistle blower" for something made up.

12-11-2004, 11:20 AM	#10 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	The agent was most likely gotten rid of because of a serious disagreement with his superiors. It is entirely plausible that the agent was pressured to produce a report based on questionable or unsubstantiated sources. It is possible but highly unlikely that the agent was explicitly told to produce false documents or be fired. I would say that the most likely scenario is that the agent was dismissed because of issues with supervisors, and blew an unrelated incident out of proportion to get publicity for a viewpoint that he holds. On the other hand, I am willing to consider the possiblity that his story is completely or almost completely true. I'd say that this is probably a classic case of three sides to the story: his side, their side, and the truth.