|
The
War Profiteers - War Crimes, Kidnappings & Torture |
|
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 11th, 2009 - Order “[…] On June 30, 2009, the Court ruled that by July
15, 2009, Plaintiff should either reinstate discovery procedures or file an
appropriate dispositive motion regarding the remaining privacy claim. The
Court warned Plaintiff that ‘failure to do this may well result in dismissal
of this five year old case for lack of prosecution.’ Plaintiff has taken no
action since issuance of this Order on June 30, 2009. “On July 27, 2009, the Government filed a Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute. The Opposition was due August 10, 2009. No
Opposition has been filed. The Government pointed out in its Motion that ‘Plaintiff
has filed nothing for the past 12 months, during the time Defendants and the
Court have made 33 filings or docket entries.’ […] “For all these reasons, as well as those contained
in the Government’s unopposed Motion, it is hereby ordered, that this case is
dismissed. […]” July 27th, 2009 - Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute “[…] Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and Local Rule 83.23, the defendants, by their undersigned
counsel, hereby respectfully move for dismissal of the remainder of this
action, with prejudice, due to plaintiff's failure to prosecute. “The grounds for this motion are more fully set
forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute. […] “[…] The history of this case presents a pattern of ‘inaction’
and ‘dilatoriness’ on the part of the plaintiff. […] For example, plaintiff refuses
to agree on a motion schedule to resolve his one remaining claim, but he has
also failed to pursue discovery proceedings. The plaintiff has not complied
with an order to submit supplemental briefing by February 9, 2009, nor with
an order requiring him either to reinstitute discovery procedures or file a
dispositive motion by July 15, 2009 - even though the last order clearly
warned that non-compliance may result in dismissal for lack of prosecution.
Indeed, the plaintiff has filed nothing for the past twelve months, during
which time defendants and the Court have made thirty-three filings or docket
entries. Under these circumstances, dismissing plaintiff's remaining claim
for failure to prosecute would clearly be within the Court's discretion, and
defendants so request. […]” May 11th, 2009 - Order & Memorandum
Opinion “[…] Plaintiff Doe, a former employee of the Central
Intelligence Agency (‘CIA’), brings this suit against Leon E. Panetta,
Director of the CIA; the CIA; James Pavitt, CIA Deputy Director of Operations
(‘DDO’); and two Defendants Doe, whom Plaintiff identifies as current or
former agents, officers and employees of the United States acting under color
of Federal law. Plaintiff’s true name and address are classified, and
therefore he has been allowed to file as ‘Doe.’ “[…] This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s
Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings […]. Upon consideration of the
Motion, Opposition, and Reply, the entire record herein, and for the reasons
stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ordered that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings is denied; […]” 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.” |
|||||
|
|
|||||
