By RICHARD LARDNER (AP)
WASHINGTON — A Marine Corps whistleblower says military officials are trying to force him from his job for exposing failures to deliver lifesaving equipment to troops in Iraq.
Franz Gayl, a senior civilian employee, alleges a series of punitive actions that underscore the challenges President Barack Obama faces in fulfilling a campaign pledge to treat federal whistleblowers as patriots instead of pariahs.
Public interest groups cheered Obama's promise. But Gayl's case points to the difficulty of transforming a culture, particularly within the military, where whistleblowers often are viewed with contempt.
"That is going to be hard to change," said Patrice McDermott, director of OpenTheGovernment.org. "But the reality is, whistleblowers will have an improved situation over what they've had for the last eight years."
Gayl, 52, is the target of a Naval Criminal Investigative Service inquiry for allegedly mishandling secret information, according to Tom Devine, his lawyer. Gayl had accused the Marine Corps of "gross mismanagement" for failing to answer the call in 2005 for heavy-duty trucks that could withstand roadside bombs in Iraq.
Devine calls the military probe an "illegal bluff" aimed at punishing Gayl for ignoring his supervisors warnings and giving then-Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., and other lawmakers copies of an unclassified study he wrote. Gayl's 2008 action in providing Biden with the study prompted the Navy investigation, Devine says.
The January 2008 study, which soon after became public, harshly criticized the Marine Corps for refusing an urgent request from commanders in Iraq for the blast-resistant vehicles.
When Gayl's study was disclosed, the Marine Corps called it a personal opinion at odds with the facts. But a subsequent audit by the Pentagon inspector general affirmed many of Gayl's conclusions.
Months before turning over the study to Biden, Gayl had been telling Biden's office and other lawmakers, including Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., about what he said were serious flaws in the acquisition system that kept needed gear from getting to the troops.
As a leading Senate Democrat, Biden had used Gayl's disclosures to hammer the Bush administration for "unconscionable bureaucratic delays." Biden had called Gayl a hero and urged Gen. James Conway, the Marine Corps commandant, to make sure Gayl wasn't punished.
But now that he's vice president, Biden hasn't intervened. Biden's press secretary, Elizabeth Alexander, said it is administration policy that the president and vice president "generally do not intervene in or comment on ongoing criminal investigations, personnel actions, and other investigations."
Maj. Carl Redding, a Marine Corps spokesman, denied Gayl is a victim of retaliation.
"We don't do that," Redding said. "Taking time to retaliate against anyone is against the core beliefs of the Marine Corps."
Besides the criminal investigation, Devine says Gayl, a retired Marine officer, has been branded a coward in his Pentagon office where he works as a science and technology adviser.
According to Devine, Gayl has received poor performance evaluations that rank him in the bottom 3 percent of employees at his grade. He's been hit with a letter of reprimand, had his job description rewritten and been pressured to resign. Before his whistleblowing, Devine says Gayl had a sterling record.
"What they are doing to him is shameful," said Devine, legal director at the Government Accountability Project in Washington. "His supervisors might as well be drill sergeants at boot camp trying to break a recruit's spirit."
Ed Buice, a spokesman for the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, said the NCIS does not discuss the details of investigations.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has stepped in. This month, the committee asked the Pentagon inspector general to determine if Gayl's supervisors are using the criminal inquiry as retaliation.
Gayl testified under oath before the committee in May, saying that his professional life had become a nightmare since he first came forward.
In a statement to The Associated Press, the committee chairman, Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., said the committee takes reprisal allegations made by witnesses "very seriously."
The Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency that reviews reprisal complaints filed by civilian government employees, is also examining Gayl's case.
Devine says Gayl learned in late September he was being investigated by the NCIS. If Gayl is found to have mishandled classified material, he could lose his top-secret security clearance and face criminal charges.
According to an Oct. 14 e-mail that Devine and his associates received from the NCIS, investigators don't dispute that Gayl's 2008 armored vehicle study is unclassified.
Instead, they're zeroing in on two documents he referred to in the study. The documents detail needs for battlefield equipment. Both were written by Gayl while he was in Iraq in 2006 and 2007 serving as a science adviser to the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force.
Gayl recommended both documents be unclassified, and Devine, his lawyer, says senior officers in Iraq agreed. But the NCIS e-mail says the two documents should have been stamped secret because each contained "classified paragraphs." Investigators want to know where the documents are, according to the e-mail, and whether they're being stored in an "unclassified medium."
But Devine says the investigators are trying to classify material "after-the-fact" that by law was unclassified at the time. He also notes that Gayl's access to classified information has been unimpeded while the investigation proceeds, undercutting any suggestion he did anything improper.
"Either the Marines have been letting someone who betrayed the nation continue to have access to secret material, or they're punishing him for speaking out," Devine said. "We think it's the latter."
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Lost In The Tragedy
Overshadowed by events in Fort Hood was a memorandum urging commanders to facilitate mental health treatment for soldiers who might need it.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Towards a More Open Government - Part 2
On December 8, 2009, the White House announced a new "Open Government Directive" which mandates, among other things, that each agency of government reduce its backlog of FOIA requests by ten percent per year.
The Directive builds on Department of Justice guidance, published in March 2009, urging a greater culture of openness, and asking heads of each agency to release information under FOIA to the greatest degree possible.
Importantly, the DOJ memorandum states:
"First, an agency should not withhold information simply because it may do so legally. I strongly encourage agencies to make discretionary disclosures of information. An agency should not withhold records merely because it can demonstrate, as a technical matter, that the records fall within the scope of a FOIA exemption.
Second, whenever an agency determines that it cannot make full disclosure of a requested record, it must consider whether it can make partial disclosure. Agencies should always be mindful that the FOIA requires them to take reasonable steps to segregate and release nonexempt information. Even if some parts of a record must be withheld, other parts either may not be covered by a statutory exemption, or may be covered only in a technical sense unrelated to the actual impact of disclosure.
At the same time, the disclosure obligation under the FOIA is not absolute. The Act provides exemptions to protect, for example, national security, personal privacy, privileged records, and law enforcement interests. But as the President stated in his memorandum, "The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears."
Taking the lead, the Department of Defense immediately announced a new website (actually opened in August) which will be populated with most-requested DOD information.
Later the same day, the State Department announced a much more limited response, promising to release previously unreleased information on Darfur.
Sources confirm that in response to the White House Directive, AFSA VP Daniel Hirsch has asked the State Department to consider according higher priority to FOIA requests made by employees who file requests to obtain information to support responses to Department of State matters; for example, to support an employees response to a disciplinary case, or to support an employee's position in a grievance. Hirsch allegedly suggested to State that doing so would help the agency meet its requirement to reduce its backlog while at the same time affording fairer treatment to employees, who currently must wait as much as two or three years for an FOIA response.
The White House has opened a blog, to which people can write between now and January 7, 2010, commenting on the Directive. CFSO urges all members concerned about the speed of FOIA responses at State, to let the White House know how you feel.
The open government initiative also has potential effects on the security clearance appeal process.
When an employee is accused of an action affecting his or her clearance, he or she has a right to ask to see any information supporting Diplomatic Security's case. DS has the right, however, to withhold some information, to the same degree that it would do so in response to an FOIA request. Presumably, then, the admonishments of the new DOJ memorandum apply to that situation as well, reducing the ability of DS to withhold information simply because it would embarrass DS officials, reveal errors and failures in DS processes, or because of the kind of speculative and abstract fears that guide many DS security clearance decisions.
The Directive builds on Department of Justice guidance, published in March 2009, urging a greater culture of openness, and asking heads of each agency to release information under FOIA to the greatest degree possible.
Importantly, the DOJ memorandum states:
"First, an agency should not withhold information simply because it may do so legally. I strongly encourage agencies to make discretionary disclosures of information. An agency should not withhold records merely because it can demonstrate, as a technical matter, that the records fall within the scope of a FOIA exemption.
Second, whenever an agency determines that it cannot make full disclosure of a requested record, it must consider whether it can make partial disclosure. Agencies should always be mindful that the FOIA requires them to take reasonable steps to segregate and release nonexempt information. Even if some parts of a record must be withheld, other parts either may not be covered by a statutory exemption, or may be covered only in a technical sense unrelated to the actual impact of disclosure.
At the same time, the disclosure obligation under the FOIA is not absolute. The Act provides exemptions to protect, for example, national security, personal privacy, privileged records, and law enforcement interests. But as the President stated in his memorandum, "The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears."
Taking the lead, the Department of Defense immediately announced a new website (actually opened in August) which will be populated with most-requested DOD information.
Later the same day, the State Department announced a much more limited response, promising to release previously unreleased information on Darfur.
Sources confirm that in response to the White House Directive, AFSA VP Daniel Hirsch has asked the State Department to consider according higher priority to FOIA requests made by employees who file requests to obtain information to support responses to Department of State matters; for example, to support an employees response to a disciplinary case, or to support an employee's position in a grievance. Hirsch allegedly suggested to State that doing so would help the agency meet its requirement to reduce its backlog while at the same time affording fairer treatment to employees, who currently must wait as much as two or three years for an FOIA response.
The White House has opened a blog, to which people can write between now and January 7, 2010, commenting on the Directive. CFSO urges all members concerned about the speed of FOIA responses at State, to let the White House know how you feel.
The open government initiative also has potential effects on the security clearance appeal process.
When an employee is accused of an action affecting his or her clearance, he or she has a right to ask to see any information supporting Diplomatic Security's case. DS has the right, however, to withhold some information, to the same degree that it would do so in response to an FOIA request. Presumably, then, the admonishments of the new DOJ memorandum apply to that situation as well, reducing the ability of DS to withhold information simply because it would embarrass DS officials, reveal errors and failures in DS processes, or because of the kind of speculative and abstract fears that guide many DS security clearance decisions.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Surprise! New GAO Study Critical of DS
From "the Cable" Foreign Policy blog; Monday, 12/07/2009 by Josh Rogin
The State Department is tripling its civilian presence in Afghanistan, which will require a huge increase in the amount of security needed to look after those civilians. But State's bureau in charge of protecting its personnel is already stretched thin and the Afghanistan surge could only exacerbate its administrative and strategic shortfalls, according to a soon-to-be-released GAO report.
It's a fact of life that operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are a now a huge part of the mission for the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), which protects diplomats all over the world. That's somewhat a legacy of Condoleezza Rice's "Transformational Diplomacy" initiative, which was meant to expand the U.S. diplomatic presence to include more robust efforts in more dangerous places. Outposts that might have been closed have been kept open, such as in Lahore, Pakistan, putting added burdens on the diplomatic security infrastructure, the report states.
Success in Afghanistan depends on improving the Afghan government and "that makes civilian efforts as vital as military operations and of longer duration," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said just before last Tuesday's announcement by the president. "We have begun to elevate diplomacy and development alongside defense in our national security strategy, and we are certainly engaged in doing so in Afghanistan."
But a more robust civilian presence will require a corresponding security footprint, and it's not clear the DS bureau, whose budget has ballooned from $200 million to almost $2 billion since the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, can handle the increase. The bureau is strategically rudderless, overly reliant on contractors, and short on the skills needed to do the job, according to the new report, which will be the subject of a Senate hearing Wednesday.
"Although Diplomatic Security's workforce has grown considerably over the last 10 years, staffing shortages in domestic offices and other operational challenges -- such as inadequate facilities, language deficiencies, experience gaps, and balancing security needs with State's diplomatic mission -- further tax its ability to implement all of its missions," the report states.
Ninety percent of DS personnel are contractors, at the cost of $2.1 billion since 2000, and DS has 1,000 contractors doing administrative jobs alone, the report says. And while critics of the system blame an over-reliance on private security contractors for recent scandals and problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, for Congress the issue is whether national and taxpayer interests are being protected and whether the bureau's future is being adequately managed.
According to the report, the lack of planning and management shortfalls at the bureau have consequences both at home and abroad. For example, due to increased needs overseas, in 2008 more than a third of DS's domestic offices were at least 25 percent vacant. Thirty-four percent of the bureau's positions worldwide, excluding Baghdad, are filled with officers below the position's designated grade.
"I would like to see a greater emphasis on strategic planning to ensure that Diplomatic Security has sufficient staffing and resources to meet its missions," said Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-HI, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management.
Akaka will bring all the players into one room on Wednesday for a hearing on the matter. Testifying will be Amb. Eric J. Boswell, assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, Jess T. Ford, GAO's director for international affairs and trade, Amb. Ronald E. Neumann, president of the American Academy of Diplomacy and the former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, and Susan R. Johnson, president of the American Foreign Service Association.
Akaka's concerns are shared on both sides of the aisle.
"Despite receiving a significant increase in resources and doubling the size of its direct-hire workforce, I'm concerned that the Bureau of Diplomatic Security remains largely reactive and suffers from the Department of State's lack of focus on strategic planning," said Sen. George Voinovich, the panel's ranking Republican.
The senators want State to chart a course for the DS service that will allow it to properly recruit and train the type of highly skilled agents that State will need in perpetuity, not just in warzones.
State has a departmental strategic plan and the DS bureau has a strategic plan as well, but neither specifically addresses the bureau's resource needs or its management challenges, according to the lawmakers and the GAO.
Earlier this year, the GAO found that 53 percent of regional security officers do not speak and read at the level required by their positions. In one instance, an officer transferred a sensitive telephone call from a local informant to a local employee, which could have compromised the informant's identity.
The State Department agreed with the GAO's concerns and responded by saying that Foggy Bottom is examining the issues raised in the report in the context of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR). That review is expected in summer or fall of 2010, after most of the new resources for Afghanistan will have already have been deployed.
The State Department is tripling its civilian presence in Afghanistan, which will require a huge increase in the amount of security needed to look after those civilians. But State's bureau in charge of protecting its personnel is already stretched thin and the Afghanistan surge could only exacerbate its administrative and strategic shortfalls, according to a soon-to-be-released GAO report.
It's a fact of life that operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are a now a huge part of the mission for the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), which protects diplomats all over the world. That's somewhat a legacy of Condoleezza Rice's "Transformational Diplomacy" initiative, which was meant to expand the U.S. diplomatic presence to include more robust efforts in more dangerous places. Outposts that might have been closed have been kept open, such as in Lahore, Pakistan, putting added burdens on the diplomatic security infrastructure, the report states.
Success in Afghanistan depends on improving the Afghan government and "that makes civilian efforts as vital as military operations and of longer duration," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said just before last Tuesday's announcement by the president. "We have begun to elevate diplomacy and development alongside defense in our national security strategy, and we are certainly engaged in doing so in Afghanistan."
But a more robust civilian presence will require a corresponding security footprint, and it's not clear the DS bureau, whose budget has ballooned from $200 million to almost $2 billion since the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, can handle the increase. The bureau is strategically rudderless, overly reliant on contractors, and short on the skills needed to do the job, according to the new report, which will be the subject of a Senate hearing Wednesday.
"Although Diplomatic Security's workforce has grown considerably over the last 10 years, staffing shortages in domestic offices and other operational challenges -- such as inadequate facilities, language deficiencies, experience gaps, and balancing security needs with State's diplomatic mission -- further tax its ability to implement all of its missions," the report states.
Ninety percent of DS personnel are contractors, at the cost of $2.1 billion since 2000, and DS has 1,000 contractors doing administrative jobs alone, the report says. And while critics of the system blame an over-reliance on private security contractors for recent scandals and problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, for Congress the issue is whether national and taxpayer interests are being protected and whether the bureau's future is being adequately managed.
According to the report, the lack of planning and management shortfalls at the bureau have consequences both at home and abroad. For example, due to increased needs overseas, in 2008 more than a third of DS's domestic offices were at least 25 percent vacant. Thirty-four percent of the bureau's positions worldwide, excluding Baghdad, are filled with officers below the position's designated grade.
"I would like to see a greater emphasis on strategic planning to ensure that Diplomatic Security has sufficient staffing and resources to meet its missions," said Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-HI, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management.
Akaka will bring all the players into one room on Wednesday for a hearing on the matter. Testifying will be Amb. Eric J. Boswell, assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, Jess T. Ford, GAO's director for international affairs and trade, Amb. Ronald E. Neumann, president of the American Academy of Diplomacy and the former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, and Susan R. Johnson, president of the American Foreign Service Association.
Akaka's concerns are shared on both sides of the aisle.
"Despite receiving a significant increase in resources and doubling the size of its direct-hire workforce, I'm concerned that the Bureau of Diplomatic Security remains largely reactive and suffers from the Department of State's lack of focus on strategic planning," said Sen. George Voinovich, the panel's ranking Republican.
The senators want State to chart a course for the DS service that will allow it to properly recruit and train the type of highly skilled agents that State will need in perpetuity, not just in warzones.
State has a departmental strategic plan and the DS bureau has a strategic plan as well, but neither specifically addresses the bureau's resource needs or its management challenges, according to the lawmakers and the GAO.
Earlier this year, the GAO found that 53 percent of regional security officers do not speak and read at the level required by their positions. In one instance, an officer transferred a sensitive telephone call from a local informant to a local employee, which could have compromised the informant's identity.
The State Department agreed with the GAO's concerns and responded by saying that Foggy Bottom is examining the issues raised in the report in the context of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR). That review is expected in summer or fall of 2010, after most of the new resources for Afghanistan will have already have been deployed.
Towards a More Open Government
From Secrecy News; December 8th, 2009 by Steven Aftergood:
In a conscious and far-reaching attempt to change the culture of secrecy that prevails within many government agencies, the Obama Administration today issued a directive (pdf) that orders each federal agency to establish an open government program with mandatory new information disclosure obligations as well as opportunities for public participation.
Moving beyond the familiar rhetoric of openness, the directive imposes substantive new publication requirements, sets deadlines, promotes sharing of best practices, and promises further steps to come.
So, for example, within 45 days each agency is obliged to publish online “at least three high-value data sets” that have not been previously available online. Within 60 days, each agency must establish a portal for public access to its open government activities, including provision for public feedback and input. Within 90 days, OMB will issue guidance on the use of new incentives to promote further openness.
The new directive does not extend to classified national security information or controlled unclassified information, both of which are to be addressed in other pending executive orders. But it does direct agencies to reduce any backlogs in Freedom of Information Act requests “by ten percent each year.”
Significantly, the new open government policy directive did not emerge from the exercise of “checks and balances” by the other branches of government. Congress did not urge the Administration to promote a culture of openness, much less compel its adoption. Instead, it is a unilateral executive branch effort, akin in its conception to Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary’s landmark Openness Initiative of the 1990s, but now extended for the first time to the entire executive branch.
Success is not guaranteed.
The previous Administration used to invoke the theory of “the unitary executive,” which generally holds that all executive branch power and authority is vested in the President. But the opposite may be closer to the real state of affairs, in the sense that the exercise of presidential authority is dependent on innumerable acts of compliance by scattered officials any of whom can, whether through disobedience or incompetence, frustrate the implementation of policy. And the more ambitious the proposed change, the more likely it is to encounter resistance.
The directive is also predicated on the existence of a significant number of citizens who are motivated to engage in public policy deliberations and who are capable of doing so. The quality of public comments on the development of the open government directive last summer, which sometimes suffered from digressions into extraneous matters, was not consistently encouraging on that score.
The declared objective of the new directive is “to create an unprecedented and sustained level of openness and accountability in every agency,” and it shows every sign of good faith in attempting to realize that objective.
In any case, given the directive’s well-defined milestones and deadlines, it will soon be clear whether and to what extent the new openness initiative succeeds.
In a conscious and far-reaching attempt to change the culture of secrecy that prevails within many government agencies, the Obama Administration today issued a directive (pdf) that orders each federal agency to establish an open government program with mandatory new information disclosure obligations as well as opportunities for public participation.
Moving beyond the familiar rhetoric of openness, the directive imposes substantive new publication requirements, sets deadlines, promotes sharing of best practices, and promises further steps to come.
So, for example, within 45 days each agency is obliged to publish online “at least three high-value data sets” that have not been previously available online. Within 60 days, each agency must establish a portal for public access to its open government activities, including provision for public feedback and input. Within 90 days, OMB will issue guidance on the use of new incentives to promote further openness.
The new directive does not extend to classified national security information or controlled unclassified information, both of which are to be addressed in other pending executive orders. But it does direct agencies to reduce any backlogs in Freedom of Information Act requests “by ten percent each year.”
Significantly, the new open government policy directive did not emerge from the exercise of “checks and balances” by the other branches of government. Congress did not urge the Administration to promote a culture of openness, much less compel its adoption. Instead, it is a unilateral executive branch effort, akin in its conception to Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary’s landmark Openness Initiative of the 1990s, but now extended for the first time to the entire executive branch.
Success is not guaranteed.
The previous Administration used to invoke the theory of “the unitary executive,” which generally holds that all executive branch power and authority is vested in the President. But the opposite may be closer to the real state of affairs, in the sense that the exercise of presidential authority is dependent on innumerable acts of compliance by scattered officials any of whom can, whether through disobedience or incompetence, frustrate the implementation of policy. And the more ambitious the proposed change, the more likely it is to encounter resistance.
The directive is also predicated on the existence of a significant number of citizens who are motivated to engage in public policy deliberations and who are capable of doing so. The quality of public comments on the development of the open government directive last summer, which sometimes suffered from digressions into extraneous matters, was not consistently encouraging on that score.
The declared objective of the new directive is “to create an unprecedented and sustained level of openness and accountability in every agency,” and it shows every sign of good faith in attempting to realize that objective.
In any case, given the directive’s well-defined milestones and deadlines, it will soon be clear whether and to what extent the new openness initiative succeeds.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Another Move Towards Reciprocity
Five years ago, following years of discussion of the fact that security clearances issued by one agency are not necessarily accepted by others, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which included a mandate for the government to standardize procedures and processes to enable reciprocity.
That process has been advancing very very slowly, so slowly that last week, a new bill was introduced to jump start that process.
The legislation, sponsored by Senators Daniel Akaka and George Voinovich, would amend the portion of the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act to strengthen the language concerning reciprocity of clearances between agencies.
Among other things, the bill would require agencies to develop performance measures to be used to determine the effectiveness of security clearance procedures, including measures for the quality of security clearance investigations and adjudications. Agencies would then have to report their success in these areas.
CFSO has their fingers crossed that this will eventually spur the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security to actually develop some standards to report on.
For now, while 94 percent of government employees benefit from the unified standards of OPM and DoD, which include a substantial evidence standard to determine the reliability of information on which security clearance adjudications are based, DS has no such standards, in an apparently deliberate attempt to preserve their ability to abuse the process as DS leadership sees fit.
We can only hope that, as more and more agencies come into line, DS's refusal to get with the program will attract the attention of someone who can make them conform.
Or, better yet, that the new head of DSS will make an early mark as a leader, by becoming the first director since the passage of the IRTPA to actually require DS to conduct quality-based adjudications.
Frank Taylor left DS round about the time the IRTPA was passed. It really is time to purge DS of the poison with which his administration suffused DS, and get on with the business of creating a quality organization.
That process has been advancing very very slowly, so slowly that last week, a new bill was introduced to jump start that process.
The legislation, sponsored by Senators Daniel Akaka and George Voinovich, would amend the portion of the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act to strengthen the language concerning reciprocity of clearances between agencies.
Among other things, the bill would require agencies to develop performance measures to be used to determine the effectiveness of security clearance procedures, including measures for the quality of security clearance investigations and adjudications. Agencies would then have to report their success in these areas.
CFSO has their fingers crossed that this will eventually spur the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security to actually develop some standards to report on.
For now, while 94 percent of government employees benefit from the unified standards of OPM and DoD, which include a substantial evidence standard to determine the reliability of information on which security clearance adjudications are based, DS has no such standards, in an apparently deliberate attempt to preserve their ability to abuse the process as DS leadership sees fit.
We can only hope that, as more and more agencies come into line, DS's refusal to get with the program will attract the attention of someone who can make them conform.
Or, better yet, that the new head of DSS will make an early mark as a leader, by becoming the first director since the passage of the IRTPA to actually require DS to conduct quality-based adjudications.
Frank Taylor left DS round about the time the IRTPA was passed. It really is time to purge DS of the poison with which his administration suffused DS, and get on with the business of creating a quality organization.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Happy Thanksgiving!
Like most FSOs, I am a busy man. And like most of us, though I love my work, it stresses me out. And as someone who fights for justice, I am often upset by the many acts of injustice I witness. In short, I rarely take time to take stock of my blessings, being more preoccupied with stresses and frustrations and annoyances.
There are many reasons why Americans of all faiths and backgrounds celebrate Thanksgiving. An excuse to feast. An opportunity to get together with family members, some of whom might only be seen on the holidays. A day off from work. And the feeling that they are part of something that is happening on that day in nearly every house all over America.
Celebrating Thanksgiving is as much a celebration of being American as is celebrating the 4th of July.
It is the true embodiment of the first amendment to the American Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In other words, America is a secular nation that encourages the free expression of religion. And Thanksgiving is a holiday that is both completely secular, something generally celebrated at home rather than church, and yet inherently spiritual, a tangible and participatory expression of core values of every major religion.
I celebrated with my wife's family, most of whom either emigrated to America themselves, or represent the first generation of their lineage to be born here. In addition to a very traditional preparation of turkey with all the trimmings and a home-made apple pie, there was also goat stew, salted cod, rice-and-peas and a really delicious flan.
And this is American too. To be able to know where your ancestors came from and celebrate one's heritage, while at the same time being and feeling completely American.
The other day I met a man from Vietnam, who had been a translator for the U.S. Marine Corps. When Saigon fell, the Marines airlifted him out, and gave him a job as a janitor on a Marine base until his situation was legalised. Once his situation became legal, he founded a small cleaning company that grew into a larger one, that grew into a service corporation doing everything from cleaning to catering. Then he bought restaurants and office buildings, and became a very wealthy man. He is currently using part of his fortune to create and fund a program to help people affected by Agent Orange, both American war veterans and Vietnamese. He is funding therapy centers for affected veterans in several American cities, as well as in Vietnam.
Like most immigrants, he is very much aware of the tremendous debt he owes this country, and now that he is able to give back, he is doing so. His project benefits more than veterans. It is actually bringing the US and Vietnam closer together; something that advances our national interest.
Thinking about his story reinforced my frustration with a DS leadership that continues to consider members of minority religions, ethnic groups, or orientation less likely to be loyal to America than everyone else.
America gave my parents a refuge when other countries refused to let them in. And despite the controversies involved, America continues to provide a home for tens of thousands of immigrants every year. And most of them are more loyal, not less, to the country that gave them refuge from whatever they left behind.
Today I played checkers and cards with family members, caught up with their news, and relaxed in a way I rarely do. And I thanked God for my own blessings: a job I love, good and supportive friends, a beautiful and loving family, and the opportunity to serve my fellow FSOs and help them in their individual and collective battles for justice.
It was a cleansing and wonderful day.
I hope that all our readers, on both sides of CFSO's issues, had a similarly relaxing holiday, and took the time to step back from their stresses and frustrations, and just be thankful.
All of us, no matter what our problems and frustrations, have a great deal to be thankful for.
There are many reasons why Americans of all faiths and backgrounds celebrate Thanksgiving. An excuse to feast. An opportunity to get together with family members, some of whom might only be seen on the holidays. A day off from work. And the feeling that they are part of something that is happening on that day in nearly every house all over America.
Celebrating Thanksgiving is as much a celebration of being American as is celebrating the 4th of July.
It is the true embodiment of the first amendment to the American Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In other words, America is a secular nation that encourages the free expression of religion. And Thanksgiving is a holiday that is both completely secular, something generally celebrated at home rather than church, and yet inherently spiritual, a tangible and participatory expression of core values of every major religion.
I celebrated with my wife's family, most of whom either emigrated to America themselves, or represent the first generation of their lineage to be born here. In addition to a very traditional preparation of turkey with all the trimmings and a home-made apple pie, there was also goat stew, salted cod, rice-and-peas and a really delicious flan.
And this is American too. To be able to know where your ancestors came from and celebrate one's heritage, while at the same time being and feeling completely American.
The other day I met a man from Vietnam, who had been a translator for the U.S. Marine Corps. When Saigon fell, the Marines airlifted him out, and gave him a job as a janitor on a Marine base until his situation was legalised. Once his situation became legal, he founded a small cleaning company that grew into a larger one, that grew into a service corporation doing everything from cleaning to catering. Then he bought restaurants and office buildings, and became a very wealthy man. He is currently using part of his fortune to create and fund a program to help people affected by Agent Orange, both American war veterans and Vietnamese. He is funding therapy centers for affected veterans in several American cities, as well as in Vietnam.
Like most immigrants, he is very much aware of the tremendous debt he owes this country, and now that he is able to give back, he is doing so. His project benefits more than veterans. It is actually bringing the US and Vietnam closer together; something that advances our national interest.
Thinking about his story reinforced my frustration with a DS leadership that continues to consider members of minority religions, ethnic groups, or orientation less likely to be loyal to America than everyone else.
America gave my parents a refuge when other countries refused to let them in. And despite the controversies involved, America continues to provide a home for tens of thousands of immigrants every year. And most of them are more loyal, not less, to the country that gave them refuge from whatever they left behind.
Today I played checkers and cards with family members, caught up with their news, and relaxed in a way I rarely do. And I thanked God for my own blessings: a job I love, good and supportive friends, a beautiful and loving family, and the opportunity to serve my fellow FSOs and help them in their individual and collective battles for justice.
It was a cleansing and wonderful day.
I hope that all our readers, on both sides of CFSO's issues, had a similarly relaxing holiday, and took the time to step back from their stresses and frustrations, and just be thankful.
All of us, no matter what our problems and frustrations, have a great deal to be thankful for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
