Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Goss at CIA Frantic to Find Agency Whistleblower Orders Lie-Detector Tests

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 01:45 PM
Original message
Goss at CIA Frantic to Find Agency Whistleblower Orders Lie-Detector Tests
EXCLUSIVE: Is CIA Leak Probe a 'Witch Hunt'?

Director Launches Internal Investigation Into Who Gave Sensitive Information to the Media
By BRIAN ROSS and RICHARD ESPOSITO

Feb. 7, 2006

http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=1587307

According to people familiar with the Goss e-mail, sent in late January and classified secret, the CIA director warned that any CIA officer deemed suspect by the agency's Office of Security and its Counter Intelligence Center (which handles internal affairs) could be subjected to an unscheduled lie detector test. CIA personnel are subjected to polygraphs at regular intervals in their careers, but one former intelligence officer called the new warning a "witch hunt." Others said Goss' e-mail was narrowly focused and did not suggest agencywide, random lie detector tests.

The memo informs its recipients that the CIA has asked the Justice Department to prosecute any leakers within its ranks. This comes in connection with recent news reports that detailed the CIA's operation of secret prisons in Europe and its far-flung flights of suspected terrorists to foreign prisons.

Goss confirmed the general outline of the leak probe in his appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Feb. 2.

"We also have an investigation of finding out what leakage, if any, is coming out of that building," he said, referring to CIA headquarters. "And I'm afraid there is some coming out. I also believe that there has been an erosion of the culture of secrecy. And we're trying to reinstill that."

Goss told the Intelligence Committee that "on the external side, I've called in the FBI, the Department of Justice. It is my aim, and it is my hope, that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present being asked to reveal who is leaking this information."

full story: http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=1587307


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. Snits
Forget the warrantless wiretaps, just worry about who told the world dubya is breaking the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BR_Parkway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
2. Why didn't you start investigation last year when you knew that it
had been leaked (no tip off during election season) - why did you wait to start until the info was posted in the newspaper?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Bush met with New York Times editor Bill Keller to try and quash
that paper's explosive story about warrantless wiretapping.

Apparently, the president also called in The Washington Post's Leonard Downie Jr. to try and kill Dana Priest's hugely important scoop about secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/print.html?blog=...


The president was so desperate to kill The New York Times eavesdropping story, he summoned the papers editor and publisher to the Oval Office. But it wasnt just out of concern about national security.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dazzlerazzle Donating Member (329 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
3. the porter goss memo
the memo itself was classified and it got leaked???? looks like there are some people who don't approve of how the CIA is being used!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
5. oops ... damn!
"According to people familiar with the Goss e-mail, sent in late January and classified secret, the CIA director warned ..."

did they just do it again?

dp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
6. the dems have to start protecting the whistleblowers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I thought there were federal laws protecting whistleblowers.
Is that not true? Or does it only apply to a certain sector?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. different sectors of government have their own whistleblower laws
Edited on Tue Feb-07-06 02:21 PM by bigtree
it's really hard to sort out the protections, or lack of.

edit: I should have said, there are several federal statutes that include whistleblower protection provisions.

here's a good resource: http://www.whistleblowers.org /

http://www.whistleblowers.org/html/whistleblower_protec...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Thanks!
I thought there was something in place, I just wasn't certain what it was. I appreciate the info!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Those laws are very narrow and limited.
Edited on Tue Feb-07-06 02:20 PM by TahitiNut
Here're some resources to help understand how the 'protection' is like a condom made of Swiss cheese.

http://www.whistleblowers.org /
http://www.whistleblowerlaws.com/protection.htm


It's very important to recognize that the vast majority of such statutes don't give 'standing' to a person unless they've made a written report to a law enforcement or regulatory agency or to a legislative representative. Almost all companies and agencies 'encourage' people to make such reports internally before "going public" - and such an internal report offers that organization the chance to "deal with" the troublemaker BEFORE they gain 'standing' as a whistle-blower. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, leaking to the press isn't sufficient to gain 'standing' under those (so-called) protection statutes. Indeed, even the media don't lobby to afford such 'standing' since it's the lever they use to coerce 'confidentiality of sources.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Thanks!
More information for me to digest. I figured they were not very stringent, but I had no clue they were so haphazard. This information is very troubling. I appreciate the additional information!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
12. Dang whistleblowers keep blowing the coverup.
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lindisfarne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
13. Scientists view lie detectors as completely worthless and a panel
Edited on Tue Feb-07-06 04:15 PM by lindisfarne
of top US scientists made a statement as to that a few years ago. All the evidence shows that they are not at all reliable.

Amazing our government agencies: CIA, FBI, courts, still allow them.


http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309084...
Date: Oct. 8, 2002
Contacts: Vanee Vines, Media Relations Officer
Andrea Durham, Media Relations Assistant
(202) 334-2138; e-mail <news@nas.edu >

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Polygraph Testing Too Flawed for Security Screening

WASHINGTON The federal government should not rely on polygraph examinations for screening prospective or current employees to identify spies or other national-security risks because the test results are too inaccurate when used this way, says a new report from the National Academies' National Research Council.

Much of the evidence assessing the validity of polygraphs, also called "lie detectors," is based on their use in the investigation of specific, known events such as crimes. In these cases, lie-detector tests can differentiate lying from telling the truth at rates well above chance, but they are far from perfect. The report concludes that the polygraph's accuracy is not good enough for security screening for two reasons. First, accuracy is almost certainly lower when the tests are used this way rather than in the investigation of specific incidents. Second, the large groups of people being checked include only a tiny percentage of individuals who are guilty of the targeted offenses; tests that are sensitive enough to spot most violators will also mistakenly mark large numbers of innocent test takers as guilty. Tests that produce few of these types of errors, such as those currently used by several federal agencies, will not catch most major security violators and still will incorrectly flag truthful people as deceptive.

"National security is too important to be left to such a blunt instrument," said Stephen E. Fienberg, chair of the committee that wrote the report, and professor of statistics and computer science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. "The polygraph's serious limitations in employee security screening underscore the need to look more broadly for effective, alternative methods."

Concerned about potential security violations at national energy laboratories, the U.S. Department of Energy asked the Research Council to conduct a study of the scientific validity and reliability of using polygraph testing to identify personnel who may jeopardize national security. Employees who work in sensitive positions at DOE labs and similar federal sites are subject to testing by law. When used this way, however, the drawbacks of current polygraph exams are abundantly clear, the report says.

more at http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309084...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
14. Lets hook Bush and Karl up to the lie detector too.
They'd melt it down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
15. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kansas Wyatt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
16. Is Goss worried that even more damaging information will be leaked?
Especially during an election year, and could it be a special project by a few who know what is really going on in the Bush Cabal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
17. Maybe someone just got drunk and "spilled the beans."
How many of these guys from Porter Goss's early days could have kept great secrets, would you think? Porter Goss is the CIA guy leaning back, with his hand on possibly wrecked Felix Rodriguez, Cuban "exile" CIA guy.



This photograph was taken in a nightclub in Mexico City on 22nd January, 1963. It is believed that the
men in the photograph are all members of Operation 40. Closest to the camera on the left is Felix
Rodriguez. Next to him is Porter Goss and Barry Seal. Tosh Plumlee is attempting to hide his face
with his coat. Others in the picture are Alberto 'Loco' Blanco (3rd right) and Jorgo Robreno (4th right).


Sober, Felix Rodriguez looks more like this photo of him visiting with his old pal, George H. W. Bush at the Vice President's quarters in Washington, and the other photo of him after Che Guevara was chased down and shot in the leg in Bolivia, then murdered.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
18. But he wouldn't investigate the Plame thing
A leak that did actually hurt national security....from his own office.

Turds
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 25th 2014, 02:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC