|
The War
Profiteers - War Crimes, Kidnappings, Torture and Big Money |
|
CIA Lawsuits: Doe vs. Porter Goss, Central
Intelligence Agency et al |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
“The Central Intelligence Agency was told by an informant in the spring
of 2001 that Iraq had abandoned a major element of its nuclear weapons
program, but the agency did not share the information with other agencies or
with senior policy makers, a former C.I.A. officer has charged. “In a lawsuit filed in federal court here in December, the former
C.I.A. officer, whose name remains secret, said that the informant told him
that Iraq’s uranium enrichment program had ended years earlier […] |
“The officer, an employee at the agency for more than 20 years, including
several years in a clandestine unit assigned to gather intelligence related
to illicit weapons, was fired in 2004. In his lawsuit, he says his dismissal
was punishment for his reports questioning the agency’s assumptions on a
series of weapons-related matters. Among other things, he charged that he had
been the target of retaliation for his refusal to go along with the agency’s
intelligence conclusions. […]” Excerpt of a New York Times article from August 1st,
2005. |
Target of CIA suit: James Pavitt |
|||
|
|
|||||
|
February 9th, 2007 - Ex-Agent Ties Firing to CIA
Pressure on WMD 1 news article by
U.S. News & World Report January 15th, 2007 - Judge Rules Agent Can Sue
CIA 1 news article by the
Associated Press August 1st, 2005 - Spy’s Notes on Iraqi Aims
Were Shelved, Suit Says 1 news article by the
New York Times November 5th, 2004 - Retired Official Defends
the CIA’s Performance 1 news article by the
Washington Post |
|||||
|
Doe vs. Porter Goss, Central Intelligence Agency et
al U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia No. 1:04-cv-02122 (GK) Action filed: December 6th, 2004 August 7th, 2008 - Plaintiff’s Reply in
Support of his revised Motion “[…] The portions of Plaintiff’s SAC for which he seeks
declassification, or more properly, unredaction contain nothing that remains
classified. Indeed, Defendants have a duty to unredact those portions of the
SAC that have been officially declassified. Information made available to the
public by the President and the FBI cannot remain classified for purposes of
Plaintiff’s SAC. “Plaintiff suggests that the Court merely obtain a copy of the
classified version of the SAC, together with classified copies of Plaintiff’s
original and revised motion to declassify, and do a side by side comparison
of what has been officially declassified but remains redacted in Plaintiff’s
SAC. The Court can then easily determine what should remain redacted. Defendants
themselves suggest such s similar such approach in their Opposition at 6, n.
3. “In conclusion, this Court clearly has the authority to order
declassification of information and the portions of Plaintiff’s SAC that
remain redacted even though most of the information contained therein has
already been officially declassified should be ordered unredacted by this
Court. […]” July 10th, 2008 - Defendant's Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Revised Motion “[… ] Plaintiff Doe’s motion to have the Court declassify certain
paragraphs of the Second Amended Complaint that the Central Intelligence
Agency (‘CIA’) instructed Plaintiff to redact is unsupported by either law or
fact. There is, in fact, no citation to any legal authority in support of the
motion at bar. It is not for Plaintiff to decide whether the information in
the Second Amended Complaint is classified; that decision is left to the
Executive Branch, and courts traditionally defer to the Executive Branch’s
determinations regarding classification. “Here, release of the information at issue in the Second Amended
Complaint has been determined to pose a risk to national security. The paragraphs
are thus properly classified; accordingly, the Court should deny Plaintiff’s
motion. […]” June 27th, 2008 - Plaintiff’s Revised Motion
to Partially Declassify Second Amended Complaint “[…] Now comes Plaintiff Doe, by and through undersigned counsel, and
moves this Honorable Court to order the immediate declassification of
Paragraphs 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 33, and 35 of Plaintiff's
Second Amended Complaint (‘SAC’) (Doc. 30). […]” March 18th, 2008 - Minute
Order Minute Order granting the Joint Motion to Withdraw Motion to Partially
Declassify Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 3/18/08. March 18th, 2008 - Joint Motion to Withdraw
Motion to Partially Declassify Amended Complaint “[…] The parties hereby jointly move the Court to treat Plaintiff’s Motion
to Partially Declassify Amended Complaint as withdrawn. This request is made
in good faith and with good cause, as set forth below: “1. Plaintiff filed his Motion to Partially Declassify Amended
Complaint on March 3, 2008 […]. “2. The Motion referenced the Amended Complaint and its paragraph
numbers, however the operative complaint at this point in the litigation is
the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff therefore intends to re-file the
Motion with reference to the Second Amended Complaint and its paragraph
numbers. “4. [sic] On March 18, 2008, the parties jointly spoke with the
Court’s clerk and informed her of Plaintiff’s intent to withdraw the motion
and re-file a revised motion once the Central Intelligence Agency has an
opportunity to perform its standard classification review. The clerk advised
the parties to file a motion alerting the Court as to their intentions. “Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that Plaintiff’s Motion
to Partially Declassify the Amended Complaint be treated as withdraw. […]” October 25th, 2007 - Minute Order denying
Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. September 14th, 2007 - Defendant’s Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment September 13th, 2007 - Defendant Pavitt’s Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint August 31st, 2007 - Plaintiff's Motion for
Default Judgment against Defendant Pavitt “[…] On July 31, 2007 Defendant Pavitt was personally served with a
copy of the Summons and Second Amended Complaint in the above-captioned
matter. […] Defendant Pavitt is a private citizen sued in his individual
capacity and has 20 days to respond to a Summons and Complaint. To date more
than 20 days have passed with no response whatsoever from Defendant Pavitt,
either in the form of an Answer, motion to dismiss, motion for enlargement of
time in which to respond, or even Notice of Appearance of Counsel. This is
consistent with Defendant Pavitt’s attitude towards this action by refusing
to execute a Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.Proc., waiver of summons and evident evasion
of service over a four month period. Defendant Pavitt is therefore in default
in this action. […]” April 5th, 2007 - Plaintiff’s Reply in Support
of his Motion to Reconsider March 16th, 2007 - Government Defendant’s
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion (II) March 16th, 2007 - Government Defendant’s
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion (I) March 8th, 2007 - Plaintiff’s Notice of
Supplemental Authority February 28th, 2007 - Government Defendants’ Answer
to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint January 12th, 2007 - Order/Memorandum Opinion
Granting/Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss “B. Procedural History “[…] Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 6, 2004. On April
27, 2005, he filed an amended complaint; on November 15, 2005, he filed a
Second Amended Complaint with leave of the Court. The Second Amended
Complaint alleges violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(1) & (2)(A) -
(D); violation of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(e)(2) & (5); breach
of contract pursuant to the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2);
‘failure to convert Plaintiff to staff employee’; ‘tortious violation of Plaintiffs’
[sic] rights under the U.S. Constitution and amendments thereto’; and
violation of the Federal Tort Claims Act (‘FTCA’). “Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to reinstate his CIA employment at
the GS-15 staff level and to order the CIA Director to undertake rule-making
to promulgate regulations to ensure protection of Plaintiff’s rights relating
to his CIA employment; restitution of back pay; compensatory damages and
attorneys’ fees as a result of the foregoing. “Defendants filed the present Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint on December 19, 2005, which Plaintiff opposed on March 9, 2006
(‘Pl.’s Opp’n’). Defendants filed a Reply on April 3, 2006 (‘Defs.’ Reply’).
[…] “IV. Conclusion “For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted
in part and denied in part. The following counts remain in this case: Count
II (Privacy Act claim) and Count V (Bivens claim). An Order will issue with
this Memorandum Opinion. […]” November 15th, 2005 - Second Amended Complaint October 1st, 2005 - Plaintiff’s Reponse to
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss July 1st, 2005 - Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
the Amended Complaint May 6th, 2005 - Defendants’ Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Attend Scheduling Conference April 28th, 2005 - Amended Complaint March 21st, 2005 - Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss “[…] Plaintiff Doe sued Defendants Porter J. Goss (‘the Director’) and
the Central Intelligence Agency (‘CIA’ or ‘the Agency’) (collectively
‘Defendants’), alleging that Defendants violated the Administrative Procedure
Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. (‘APA’), and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a.
Because the allegations in the Complaint are insufficient to state a claim
under either statute, Defendants seek dismissal of the case with prejudice. “Plaintiff asserts two claims under the Privacy Act. First, Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants violated 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5), by failing to
maintain records ‘with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness
as is reasonably necessary.’ 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5). Second, Plaintiff claims
that Defendants violated 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(2), which requires the collection
of information ‘to the greatest extent practicable’ from the subject
individual when the information may result in an adverse determination
against the individual. “Both claims must fail. In order to survive a motion to dismiss on the
accuracy claim, Plaintiff must identify specific documents or categories of
documents which are inaccurate. Plaintiff has not done so. With respect to
the information-collection claim, Plaintiff has not adequately alleged that
it would have been practicable for Defendants to gather any more information
from him than they did. “Both Privacy Act claims fail because Plaintiff has not alleged any
adverse effect from the allegedly inaccurate information or failure to
collect information. In fact, his Complaint alleges that the Agency’s
violations of the Privacy Act were not the cause of the adverse decision he
claims to have suffered. In addition, both claims are, in fact, collateral
attacks on the substance of an underlying agency decision, which is an improper
use of the Privacy Act. “Plaintiff also purports to allege a violation of the APA, claiming
that Defendants violated certain CIA regulations which require the integrity
of intelligence collection and reporting. Plaintiff has failed to adequately
plead this claim because has not identified any regulations that has been
violated, nor would he have standing to raise such a claim if such
regulations existed. Furthermore, Plaintiff is entitled to no possible relief
for such a claim. There is no entitlement to damages under the APA–only
injunctive relief. As Plaintiff no longer works for the Agency, there is no
meaningful injunctive relief that he could be granted, and he is unable to
establish any future risk of harm. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s claim should
be dismissed. […]” December 6th, 2004 - Complaint “[…] 1. The jurisdiction of this Court is based upon the existence of
a Federal question. Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States of America and
a current employee of the Central Intelligence Agency. Defendant Goss is the
Director of Central Intelligence (‘DCI’). Defendant CIA is an agency of the
United States. “2. Beginning in 2001 and continuing to the present, Defendant Goss
has injured and continues to injure Plaintiff through acts and omissions
violating Plaintiff’s rights under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5
U.S.C. §§ 706(1) & (2)(A) - (D). […] “11. Plaintiff is being subjected to retaliation by Defendants for his
refusal to falsify intelligence collected by him [censored] […] “12. Plaintiff is a male of Near Eastern ancestry who joined the CIA
as a contract covert Operations officer in 1982. During the ensuing
twenty-two year period Plaintiff has conducted numerous successful covert
operations against a variety of intelligence targets while serving in the CIA
Directorate of Operations (‘CIA/DO’). This service and his significant
contributions resulted in his eventual approval for promotion to the rank of
GS-15 and for receipt of the CIA Special Intelligence Medal in recognition of
his [censored] recruitment of an [censored] penetrating a target country’s
WMD program [censored] […]. “13. In 1995 Plaintiff was advised by Defendant CIA that his
employment had been converted from that of a contractor to a staff employee.
Thereafter, Plaintiff received regular GS promotions, bi-weekly payment stubs
and other related documents reflecting his current ‘GS’ status, salary and
benefits. “14. In 1995 Plaintiff was assigned to the CIA/DO Counter
Proliferation Division (‘CIA/DO/CPD’) where his mission was to collect
intelligence on and interdict the proliferation of WMD, [censored] […] “15. At all times pertinent hereto CIA/DO/CPD served as the primary
collection point at CIA/DO for Near Easter WMD programs, [censored] […] “16. While serving at CIA/DO/CPD Plaintiff recruited many
‘hard-target’ human ‘assets,’ [censored] […] “17. Plaintiff was first subjected to a demand that he alter his
intelligence reporting in 2000, [censored] […] Plaintiff reported this
information via formal CIA cable channels. Plaintiff was subsequently advised
by CIA management that his report did not support the earlier assessment
[censored] and instructed that if he did not alter his report to support this
assessment it would not be received well by the intelligence community.
Plaintiff was aware that earlier reporting underlying the assessment was
less-than-genuine and refused to alter his report. As the result, CIA/DO/CPD
refused to disseminate his report to the intelligence community despite
Plaintiff’s efforts. “18. In 2001, Plaintiff met with a highly respected human asset
[censored] […] Plaintiff immediately reported this information to his
supervisor who in-turn met with CIA/DO/CPD management. Plaintiff was later
instructed that he should prepare no written report of the matter and that
the Deputy Director of Operations (‘DDO’) together with the Chief of
CIA/DO/CPD would personally brief the President. Upon information and belief,
Plaintiff avers that no such briefing ever occurred and therefore the
President was misled by the withholding of vital intelligence. Subsequently,
in 2002, the Chief of CIA/DO/CPD advised Plaintiff that his promotion to
GS-15 and receipt of the Special Intelligence Medal had been approved by the
DDO but were being withheld until Plaintiff removed himself from further
handling of this asset. “19. In 2001, Plaintiff, attempted to report ‘actionable’ intelligence
[censored] […] Plaintiff reported this information to CIA/DO/CPD via formal
cable channels. However, the CIA never disseminated this information in the
intelligence community despite Plaintiff’s pleas to do so, effectively
sequestering intelligence [censored] […] Later, a co-worker of Plaintiff
warned him that CIA management planned to ‘get him’ for his role in reporting
intelligence contrary to official CIA dogma [censored] […] “20. In 2002, Plaintiff attempted to report routine intelligence
[censored] […] but was thwarted by CIA superiors. Plaintiff had met with a
human asset [censored] […] Plaintiff reported this information to CIA/DO/CPD
via formal cable channels. Plaintiff was subsequently approached by a senior
[censored] […] desk officer who insisted that Plaintiff falsify his reporting
of the matter [censored] […] Plaintiff refused. Subsequently, CIA/DO/CPD
management determined that Plaintiff should remove himself from any further
‘handling’ of this asset. 21. [Censored] […] After Plaintiff reported this information via
formal CIA cable channels, CIA/DO/CPD instructed Plaintiff to remove himself
from further handling of the asset. [censored] […] “22. Subsequently, in 2003 Plaintiff learned that he was under a
counter-intelligence (‘CI’) investigation for allegedly having sex with a
female asset, which Plaintiff did not do. In addition, Plaintiff was told
five days after he began a new position at CIA that the position had been
canceled because of pressure from the DDO, James Pavitt. Plaintiff also was
told by the Chief of CIA/DO/CPD that the DDO was angry with Plaintiff because
he believed Plaintiff was blackmailing him [censored] which Plaintiff did not
do. “23. In September, 2003 the Chief of the CIA Counter Intelligence
Center (‘CIA/CIC’) placed Plaintiff on paid administrative leave without
explanation, barring Plaintiff from entering any CIA facilities or engaging
in any further operations on behalf of CIA. “24. During this period the DDO determined to withhold from Plaintiff
his previously approved promotion to GS-15 and award of the CIA ‘Medal of
Intelligence’. “25. Some eight months later Plaintiff was contacted by the CIA Office
of Inspector General (‘CIA/OIG’), which advised him that he was under
investigation for diverting to his own use monies provided to him for payment
to human assets, which Plaintiff did not do. These allegations were made by
the same CIA/DO/CPD managers who managed the operations and reporting
[censored] in which Plaintiff had been involved as described above. Plaintiff
subsequently cooperated with requests for detailed financial information from
the CIA/OIG. “26. During the week of July 26, 2004 Plaintiff again met with
investigators from CIA/OIG who presented him with a list of financial items
to explain, including one outgoing check for $30.00 that predated the time
period of any of the CI issues. Plaintiff explained all of the deposits. “27. On August 6, 2004 Plaintiff met with two representatives from CIA
who presented him with a letter of termination for unspecified reasons,
effective September 10, 2004. The letter described Plaintiff as a contractor
whose services were no longer required. Despite his repeated requests,
Plaintiff has never been advised of the outcome of either the CI or OIG
investigations of his conduct. “28. On information and belief, Plaintiff avers that both the CI and OIG
investigations of him were a sham, initiated for the sole purpose of
discrediting him and retaliating against him for questioning the integrity of
the WMD reporting [censored] […] and for refusing to falsify his intelligence
reporting to support the politically mandated conclusion [censored] […] “29. On information and belief, Plaintiff avers that the termination
of his employment at CIA was in further retaliation for, and to contrive a
pretext to discredit, his refusal to falsify his intelligence reporting to
support the politically mandated conclusion [censored] […]” |
|||||
|
Background 1) James L. Pavitt - undated - File photo from “The Scowcroft Group” (http://www.scowcroft.com); Text of Pavitt’s résumé: “A Principal of The Scowcroft Group, James L.
Pavitt draws on more than 30 years of experience in the Intelligence
Community to provide strategic advice and risk assessments to clients in the
financial services, defense, information technology, homeland security and
counterterrorism fields, among others. “As the Deputy Director for Operations at the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), he managed more than one-third of the CIA’s globally deployed
personnel and nearly half of the CIA’s multi-billion-dollar budget. His
responsibilities involved unparalleled cooperation with leaders of the
intelligence and security communities in capitals throughout the world. As
head of America’s Clandestine Service, he led the CIA’s operational response
to the attacks of September 11, 2001. As Chief of the CIA’s
Counterproliferation Division, he managed and directed intelligence
operations against sophisticated global weapons proliferation networks.
Working closely with the Department of Energy and its National Laboratories,
he worked to identify new technologies required to identify and halt the
proliferation of these weapons. He spent many years abroad as a member of the
Clandestine Service. “Mr. Pavitt served as
Senior Intelligence Advisor to President George H.W. Bush as a member of the
National Security Council team from 1990 to 1993. He has had extensive
experience in assessing and representing critical national security issues at
meetings with the President, Cabinet, Congress, U.S. policymakers, heads of
foreign intelligence services and senior government officials around the
globe. Early in his career, he served as a Legislative Assistant in the U.S.
House of Representatives. He received a B.A. in History from the University
of Missouri and was a National Defense Education Act Fellow at Clark
University. Mr. Pavitt is a recipient of the CIA’s Distinguished Intelligence
Medal. He is a member of Phi Beta Kappa.” |
|||||
|
|
|||||
