The News Caravan

Tag: Mishandling

  • CIA in Congress’ crosshairs over alleged mishandling of sex assault cases

    CIA in Congress’ crosshairs over alleged mishandling of sex assault cases

    [ad_1]

    Carroll said his client has told him that as many as 54 women at the CIA over the past decade have said they were been victims of sexual assault or misconduct by colleagues, and that their cases were improperly handled. POLITICO could not independently verify that assertion.

    “This is the CIA’s Me Too moment,” said Carroll, who is a partner at the firm Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP and is representing the victim pro bono.

    The investigation started when one female CIA employee approached the committee in January and said that the agency had not punished a male colleague who had allegedly physically assaulted her and tried to forcibly kiss her repeatedly, according to Carroll and a copy of the complaint the woman made to local law enforcement.

    She said that she quickly reported the attack to numerous offices at the CIA, but nothing was done.

    She also said she was told by officials in the CIA’s security office that if she reported the incident to law enforcement, they would not protect her anymore from the alleged assailant. She said she was warned that moving forward with the allegation could end her career at the agency, according to Carroll and the complaint.

    He said the CIA also threatened the women who were going to Congress with adverse consequences if they spoke out.

    The CIA denied that the agency had tried to prevent the women from speaking to Congress. “This idea that there’s some threatening [of] officers who want to talk to HPSCI, that’s not true,” said the senior CIA official, referring to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. “We haven’t threatened or blocked anybody.”

    Carroll said that the committee’s staff have been busy talking to the women, comparing it to “client intake.”

    Local county law enforcement is pursuing the first woman’s case as a misdemeanor, according to a document viewed by POLITICO, which is not sharing more details about the case in deference to her security concerns.

    “We greatly appreciate the assistance of local law enforcement,” Carroll said. “If federal law enforcement had taken a similar interest, the charge would be felony sex assault.”

    In a joint statement to POLITICO, Turner and Himes said: “Sexual assault is a heinous crime. Our committee is committed to addressing this matter and protecting those who are serving their country. We have been in contact with Director Burns, and he is fully committed to working with us on this issue.”

    When asked for comment, CIA spokesperson Tammy Kupperman Thorp said in a statement that there “can be no tolerance for sexual assault or harassment at CIA.”

    “The Director and senior CIA leaders have personally met with officers to understand their concerns and to take swift action,” she said. “We have established an office to work closely with survivors of sexual assault, and we are committed to treating every concern raised by members of the workforce with the utmost seriousness.”

    She added that Burns and the agency’s senior leadership team is fully engaged on the issue and tracking it closely. “We are committed to supporting the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation and are keeping the Committee updated on our progress,” she said.

    The senior CIA official, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the agency’s inner workings, disputed that the CIA impedes alleged victims who want to approach law enforcement. The official said the agency is required by law to refer allegations of criminal sexual misconduct to law enforcement, and they do so. But the official added that in some cases, law enforcement declines to prosecute and so the CIA “takes appropriate action.”

    At the same time, the person said that even before the letter from Congress, “we obviously recognize that we have to make some changes and improvements.” The official said that the “reporting process is difficult for some people to navigate” and that the agency is in the process of hiring an expert from the outside with decades of experience on combating sexual assault in the workforce to lead its new “Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office.” The official said there are only a “handful of officers” who currently work in the office but that they expect to increase staffing.

    Despite the congressional investigation, the official said the issue did not seem to affect many employees. “While one incident is too many, this may not be a pervasive problem throughout the agency. We take every single one of these allegations seriously, but it does not appear to be really widespread.” The official declined to comment on any specific cases or share the numbers of how many sexual misconduct allegations have been made.

    Kevin Byrnes, a partner with the law firm FH+H, who is the Equal Employment Opportunity lawyer for the first woman who complained to the committee, said he represents several other female CIA employees who are alleging they were sexually assaulted or harassed in the workplace.

    He said the agency’s security division and EEO office discourages people from filing complaints by claiming it’s not in the best interests of the women or would trigger disclosure of classified information. The CIA also requires victims to file a complaint within 45 days.

    CIA employees go through the EEO process to vindicate their rights, according to Byrnes, as well as to secure changes in their working conditions and obtain payment for attorneys’ fees and compensation for pain and suffering.

    But the office “has been a mechanism for deflection and interference with … complaints,” he said.

    The senior CIA official said that the agency is working to fix how the EEO process works and is receiving recommendations for improvements. The person conceded that there have not yet been any tangible improvements made to that process.

    A second woman who has spoken to committee staff in recent months alleged she was raped by a colleague at the CIA, according to Carroll. He said that the agency did not properly punish the alleged perpetrator. A third woman said that the same thing happened when she was sexually assaulted by a colleague at work, he added.

    Allegations of sexual assault by CIA officers have surfaced publicly at times in the last 15 years. In 2009, two women said they were drugged and raped by Andrew Warren, the CIA’s former station chief in Algeria. A search of his residence found a dozen videotapes of him engaging in sexual acts with women, including some in a semi-conscious state. He pled guilty to the assault and served five years in prison.

    Two years ago, former CIA officer Brian Jeffrey Raymond pled guilty to a number of federal charges, including sexual abuse. He was accused of drugging and sexually assaulting dozens of women he had met on dating apps over a 14-year period.

    Raymond was arrested in Mexico City after local authorities responded to a naked woman screaming from his balcony. He was working for the U.S. embassy in Mexico City at the time.

    BuzzFeed also reported in late 2021 that the agency had accumulated evidence that at least 10 employees and contractors had committed sex crimes that involved children, but despite many of the cases being referred to law enforcement, only one person was charged with a crime.

    Erin Banco contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]
    #CIA #Congress #crosshairs #alleged #mishandling #sex #assault #cases
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Opinion | Don’t Blame the Government for Our Leaders Mishandling Documents

    Opinion | Don’t Blame the Government for Our Leaders Mishandling Documents

    [ad_1]

    classified documents unsafe secrets 14143

    Sometimes, however, I reviewed a document marked “TS/SCI” and did not intuitively understand why its contents were classified in that way. The information might seem benign on its face and the implications for U.S. national security were far from clear, at least to me. Does that mean that the information in the document was over-classified? Not necessarily.

    Imagine we learn that a leader of a hostile nation — and I am wholly inventing this example — loves turnip ice cream. Could that information be classified at the TS/SCI level? Hypothetically, yes, and properly so. Let me explain.

    Perhaps the only person on the planet who knows of the turnip ice cream preference is someone on his staff. Perhaps that staffer is supplying information to our intelligence community about the foreign leader — his ice cream preferences, for example — but also about other things, including things he overhears the leader talking about during the day. That highly placed source is incredibly valuable to U.S. intelligence because of his proximity to the foreign leader. However, not all his reporting will be crucial and some of it — including the turnip preference — will seem trivial.

    Should we still classify the turnip reporting at the TS/SCI level and endeavor to protect it? Absolutely. If leaked, it might be easy for the foreign leader to determine the source of the leak and something very bad could happen to that staffer (and to U.S. intelligence interests).

    We might also learn of the leader’s turnip fixation through other means because we gather intelligence through many “sources and methods” that are not always obvious from the contents of a document. Indeed, the sources and methods were often opaque to me — and properly so — because though I may need the underlying information to do my job, I did not “need to know” how we obtained that information.

    Even if we saw the documents found at the homes of Trump, Biden and Pence, we might not understand how the information was compiled nor why the sources and methods are unique, sensitive and worthy of protection. We also could not say that their mishandling was the result of over-classification because we cannot know that.

    That is why extraordinarily reckless and irresponsible people like Edward Snowden can do so much damage to U.S. national security interests. They cannot know — and do not understand — the nature of the information they are disclosing, how it was obtained, who they are putting at risk with their disclosures, and what the costs to the U.S. might be, in terms of lost access and lost information. But I digress.

    Do we have an over-classification problem in this country? I suppose we do. Information might be classified that should not be classified at all; it might be classified at a level higher than it ought to be classified; or it might be classified for too long when declassification could serve other important public interests like transparency and accountability.

    But accepting all that, it is impossible to know that these types of over-classification issues apply to the documents that turned up at the homes of Trump, Biden and Pence. And, so what? None of this is an excuse for sloppy handling.

    Furthermore, if a document is classified, then we must — as users of classified information — accept that classification on its face and treat it as the rules require us to treat it. If it is over-classified, so be it. It certainly would not be prudent for someone to decide on their own that a document is over-classified and then treat it as if it is not classified at all.

    The classified information system is bulky and imperfect. And there is inevitably an over-classification problem, much of it likely not nefarious. A classification official gets into less trouble and incurs less risk for over-classifying a document rather than under-classifying it. But, in the end, the system relies on trust and diligence and prudence and rules. When people fail to act in those ways — even if unintentionally — we ought not make excuses for them.

    [ad_2]
    #Opinion #Dont #Blame #Government #Leaders #Mishandling #Documents
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )