"Disgruntled" CIA Employees
Ralph McGehee
CIABASE
10 Apr 1998
CIA is confronted each year with two or three cases of disgruntled
employees on administrative leave who are seen as risks. CIA officials say
that each year it must deal with "dozens" of cases involving medical,
personnel and other issues.
High-risk employees will be kept on administrative leave for long periods
to reduce the chances that they will disclose current secrets.
"Some individuals who go to the inspector general become irritated when
their cases are sent back to their supervisors, with whom they might have
a dispute." Washington Post 4/7/98 A10.
The cause of many CIA personnel, and other problems, results from the
standard practice of the inspector general of ratting on the individuals
who protest to his office. These employees "become irritated" when their cases
are sent back to their supervisors, with whom they are in dispute.
So you go to the inspector general to complain that your supervisor
is: harassing you, is running operations that bring drugs into the United
States, is condoning supporting death squads, is abrasive or abusive,
or is "arrogant, ignorant, and incompetent." The IG then sends your case
back to your supervisor for adjudication. Is there any wonder that the CIA
has problems.
As one example -- in my case I protested to the IG about CIA's contrived
intelligence on Vietnam, only to be placed on immediate probation by my
supervisor. I sought other protest channels -- the Director of Operations'
grievance officer; he listened sympathetically for a half hour and within
a few days retired from the CIA.
I also used the suggestion awards board, only to be warned that "going
around channels" jeopardized my career. I also protested to congressional
committees with no result; and, later to the Department of Justice's Office of
Professional Responsibility only to be advised that OPR had no jurisdiction
over the CIA.
This sort of cover-up and non-accountability in the 50-year-secrecy-
protected CIA is a recipe for disaster. More and more problems have
surfaced recently. In an Agency that employs pressure and "national security"
to hide violations of law, incompetence, politically unacceptable facts, and
an assortment of malfeasance you need the highest degree of accountability.
What you have is the opposite -- a system that defends itself at all costs --
no matter what the transgression.
The CIA even extends its cover-up to other agencies. Richard Nuccio,
who worked in the State Department, says the CIA carried out a vendetta
against him. The DCI said that Nuccio had acted improperly when he
informed Congressman Torricelli in March 1995 that a long-time paid CIA
informant, had ordered the killings of a U.S. innkeeper and the husband
of Jennifer Harbury. Nuccio accused CIA of employing some of the worst
human rights abusers in Latin America. The CIA, acting out of revenge,
removed Nuccio's security clearance and he lost his job in State.
The recent case of Douglas Groat demonstrates the problem. Groat protested
to the inspector general and then was ordered to take the polygraph test --
he refused and became "a threat to National Security." He now is under
indictment. He is the forth CIA official to be arrested for espionage in the
last four years -- how many more have been created by this secrecy-protected
never-challenged bureaucracy is beyond estimate. We can be sure
that the next few years will produce more such cases. With the "National
Security" lock the CIA has over its own lawlessness and personnel it is
little wonder that the Agency experiences defections.
An email from a well-informed individual is paraphrased -- the Agency
closed in on Douglas Groat by using the polygraph as a weapon. In the past
two years I have personally heard of several cases where the time honored
"National Security concerns"...have been invoked to terminate agency
employees. In ALL of these cases the victims had nasty run-ins with
incompetent and abrasive supervisors. I worry there will be more serious
incidents. It will take this before the Agency discards these antiquated
and barbaric methods of treating employees.
A number of "disgruntled employees" have left the CIA in recent years.
One such is former DCI Deutch, who left proclaiming the state of "deep rot,"
in Directorate of Operations. Several officers from the Directorate
of Intelligence have left proclaiming the gross inabilities of that
Directorate.
Will an outside authority ever recognize and act to correct this
dangerously flawed, dangerous institution?