DNI Clapper Should Look in Mirror Before Calling Anyone Else’s Actions ‘Reckless’

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. response to Edward Snowden‘s release to reporters of intimate details about the Intelligence Community’s widespread surveillance of American citizens and collection of their private data seems disingenuous at best. Why do I say this? Because I’ve been on his trail for several years.

James R. Clapper Jr.

James R. Clapper Jr.

Four days ago, DNI Clapper issued the following statement on the collection of intelligence pursuant to section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act:

Over the last week we have seen reckless disclosures of intelligence community measures used to keep Americans safe. In a rush to publish, media outlets have not given the full context–including the extent to which these programs are overseen by all three branches of government–to these effective tools.

In particular, the surveillance activities published in The Guardian and The Washington Post are lawful and conducted under authorities widely known and discussed, and fully debated and authorized by Congress. Their purpose is to obtain foreign intelligence information, including information necessary to thwart terrorist and cyber attacks against the United States and its allies.

Our ability to discuss these activities is limited by our need to protect intelligence sources and methods. Disclosing information about the specific methods the government uses to collect communications can obviously give our enemies a “playbook” of how to avoid detection. Nonetheless, Section 702 has proven vital to keeping the nation and our allies safe. It continues to be one of our most important tools for the protection of the nation’s security.

However, there are significant misimpressions that have resulted from the recent articles. Not all the inaccuracies can be corrected without further revealing classified information. I have, however, declassified for release the attached details about the recent unauthorized disclosures in hope that it will help dispel some of the myths and add necessary context to what has been published.

James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence

I find it fascinating how DNI Clapper used the phrase, “reckless disclosures,” to describe the actions of Snowden, the 29-year-old who claims to have released the blockbuster details about the National Security Agency’s PRISM program. At the same time, I find it disingenuous for the nation’s top intelligence official to describe anyone’s actions as “reckless” without also looking in the mirror and telling himself the same thing.

TCM Graphic 2-17-13During the early stages of an exhaustive investigation that culminated four years later in publication of my recently-released book, THE CLAPPER MEMO, I came upon a memo issued by Clapper while he was serving as Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. That memo served as the first official indication that I was on the trail of a scandal that would lead my investigation all the way to Afghanistan.

By the time I finished my investigation, I was able to connect the dots between the memo Clapper issued in 2007 and hundreds of American and Coalition Forces casualties resulting from “Green-on-Blue” (a.k.a., “Insider”) attacks waged by so-called Afghan “allies” wearing the uniforms of their country. Without giving away “the farm,” I can tell you that my findings will, without a doubt, make your blood boil.

After reading the book, one high-profile American offered his endorsement, stating that it “represents perhaps the most thorough investigative reporting” he has encountered in years before adding later, “This is how it’s done!” Other high-profile Americans offered endorsements as well. You can read them here.

By the time you finish reading THE CLAPPER MEMO, you’ll understand how, if not for the actions of several current and former high-ranking DoD officials, including Clapper, hundreds of American and Coalition Forces warfighters might have avoided being killed or wounded in Afghanistan.

THE CLAPPER MEMO is available in paperback and ebook versions at Amazon.

Order Books Graphic LR 6-15-13

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August and THE CLAPPER MEMO. To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Book Exposes Links Between DoD Memos and ‘Green-on-Blue’ Attacks in Afghanistan

My second nonfiction book, THE CLAPPER MEMO, is now on sale in paperback and ebook versions!

TheClapperMemoFrontCoverLR 6-5-13In THE CLAPPER MEMO, I take readers behind the scenes of a 40-year turf war and share what I learned about polygraph loyalists and their no-holds-barred campaign to eliminate competing investigative technologies that threaten to put them out of business.  Most importantly, I connect the dots between three Department of Defense memos — including one signed by James R. Clapper Jr. before he became the nation’s top intelligence official — and hundreds of American casualties resulting from “Green-on-Blue” (a.k.a., “Insider”) attacks in Afghanistan during the past six years.

The product of an exhaustive four-year investigation, this book has already received three major endorsements (shown below):

• “Bob McCarty’s book, THE CLAPPER MEMO, represents perhaps the most thorough investigative reporting I have encountered in years.  I direct the attention of the so-called major media to it.  This is how it’s done!”David P. Schippers, former director of the U.S. Department of Justice Organized Crime Task Force in Chicago; Chief Investigative Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives during Clinton Impeachment Hearings (1998); and author of the book, SELLOUT: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment.

“Any American with a sense of fair play and a desire to see that our intelligence and vetting personnel have the best information possible should read THE CLAPPER MEMO… clearly an unconscionable cover-up.”Capt. Larry W. Bailey, U.S. Navy SEAL (Ret.), former commander of the U.S. Navy Basic Underwater Demolition/SEALs Training Program (a.k.a. “BUD/S”) and co-founder of Special Operations Speaks; and

“Bob McCarty has uncovered a high-tech ‘turf war’ pitting those who want the best for our troops against others who seem to be focused on their own self-interests.  Sadly, it seems the wrong people are winning this war.  I highly recommend THE CLAPPER MEMO.” — Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, U.S. Army (Ret.), former deputy commander, U.S. Army Pacific now serving as chair of two organizations, Stand Up America and Nemo Arms, Inc., he became well known as a senior military analyst on Fox News Channel from 2000 to 2007.

Ebook versions will be available for ordering only via Amazon (Kindle), while trade paperback versions of the book will be available online at Amazon (paperback) and a number of other online locations.  I will update this post as each site “goes live.”

I hope you’ll order a copy of THE CLAPPER MEMO today! Thanks in advance!

Order Books Graphic LR 6-15-13

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August and THE CLAPPER MEMO. To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

THE CLAPPER MEMO Endorsed by Retired U.S. Navy SEAL Officer

Over the weekend, I received the first pre-release review of my second nonfiction book, THE CLAPPER MEMO. Below I share that review:

CaptLarryBaileyQuoteTCM 3-11-13Any American with a sense of fair play and a desire to see that our intelligence and vetting personnel have the best information possible should read THE CLAPPER MEMO.

I am not a techie. Nor am I a government contract specialist. What I AM is a reasonably objective retired Navy SEAL who understands the importance of getting accurate information from individuals both inside and outside one’s own professional world.

In this case, “professional world” denotes the U.S. military, where accurate and timely information has life-or-death consequences. That information can come in the form of either raw intelligence or personnel “vetting” and is of crucial importance in the War on Terror, especially given the numbers of Americans and International Security Assistance Force personnel who have died or been injured in “Green-on-Blue” incidents.

“Green-on-Blue” is jargon describing the killing and maiming of friendly personnel by individuals who are supposedly their allies. Scores of incidents have occurred in Afghanistan when putative Afghan military men, wholly trusted by their allied advisors, turned their guns on those advisors. These events set the tenor of Bob McCarty’s expose of what is clearly an unconscionable cover-up of a capability of the U.S. military and intelligence community to vet incoming Afghan (or any other) military personnel.

TheClapperMemoFrontCoverLR 6-5-13THE CLAPPER MEMO is that expose, and McCarty pulls no punches as he walks the reader through a multi-year maze of bureaucratic ineptitude and turf-defense as they relate to the relative merits of the polygraph and the more-recent Computer Voice Stress Analyzer (CVSA). Talk about vested interests! The polygraph community has trade-union-like adherents, and, trade-union-like, that community seems to stop at nothing in attempting to discredit the CVSA. The irony here is that the end-user of both devices clearly prefers the CVSA, and the bureaucracy tasked to support that end-user, the U.S. military, has not only abdicated its responsibility to support our military forces but has consciously advocated the suppression of a better means of obtaining truthful responses from targeted individuals, whether those individuals are detainees, truck drivers, interpreters, co-combatants, or politicians. I came away from McCarty’s treatise firmly convinced that the CVSA is a far better tool in conducting field interrogations and administrative verifications alike.

And I emphasize (as does McCarty) the word “tool.” No polygraph operator, as vested as he/she may be, would claim that his/her device is a be-all, end-all game-changer, nor would a CVSA operator make a similar claim about his/her machine. However, it is clear that, on-balance, the CVSA is a much more useful tool in obtaining information. The Department of Defense bureaucracy, though, has come down decidedly on the side of the polygraph. McCarty has clearly been convinced through dint of exhaustive research that the CVSA is better, and his highly footnoted book has convinced me that American interrogators, especially those in the field (such as Navy SEALs or Army Special Forces) should have access to the latest CVSA devices. The CVSA is as close to a field-expedient truth determinant as exists today, and it is to be hoped that McCarty’s book will result in a reassessment of the efficacy of the CVSA as a means of obtaining actionable short-order intelligence.

Our troops deserve nothing less.

Capt. Larry Bailey, U.S. Navy SEAL (Ret.)
Co-founder, Special Operations Speaks, a veterans group dedicated, among other things, to restoring trust and confidence in government.

In short, Captain Bailey believes, like I do, that our nation’s warfighters deserve access to the best tools available — especially when it comes to tools that can be used to elicit intelligence information from our enemies and uncover their true intentions. If you share this belief and want to learn about those who appear to hold opposite views, you’ll want to read THE CLAPPER MEMO.

To receive the latest updates about THE CLAPPER MEMO, subscribe to the book’s website feed by clicking here. The book should hit booksellers everywhere soon. Stay tuned!

UPDATE:  After publishing this piece, the book received another big endorsement!

Order Books Graphic LR 6-15-13

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August and THE CLAPPER MEMO. To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Senior DoD Counterintelligence Official Keeps Job After Compromising Self Online

After being caught using his federal government position to boost business for his National Harbor, Md.-based private investigations company, a key player in Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr.’s announced plan to stem national security leaks remains employed by the Department of Defense.

According to Defense Department spokesperson Lt. Col. James Gregory, Michael V. Porco remains employed almost a week after it was revealed that he had compromised himself by advertising his DoD position as Deputy Director for Counterintelligence Functional Services on the website of his own private investigations company, National Harbor, Md.-based Porco Investigative Services.

I came across this apparent breach of ethics and conflict of interest Aug. 2 while following a lead related to my upcoming second nonfiction book, THE CLAPPER MEMO.

This Aug. 2, 2012, screenshot of a page on Michael V. Porco’s business website, shows how Porco listed his current position with the Department of Defense as a counterintelligence “career highlight.”

On the “Career Highlights” page of the Porco Investigative Services website (shown in the screenshot above taken Aug. 2), the “Counterintelligence” tab featured a description of Porco’s aforementioned high-level position of employment with DoD:

with responsibility for policy development and oversight for the DoD Polygraph/Credibility Assessment, and Technical Surveillance Countermeasures.

This was, of course, very disturbing as our nation’s top intelligence officials — including Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. — find themselves (1) grappling with serious concerns about national security leaks like the ones highlighted recently in the National Post, The New York Times, The Weekly Standard and other news outlets and (2) calling for expanded use of the polygraph as a tool to combat those leaks.

Immediately upon seeing this information displayed so publicly, I fired off an email to Colonel Gregory and asked him to confirm whether or not the individual who appeared to be the proprietor of the business was, indeed, a high-level DoD employee as the website claimed. In addition, I told the colonel I would have a follow-up question for him if he was able to provide that confirmation.

Less than 24 hours later, I received confirmation from Colonel Gregory and replied with the following:

“I found it unusual that a person in the counter intel biz would advertise his arguably-sensitive position on a private investigations business website. Isn’t there a policy or regulation that prohibits that?”

Another 24 hours passed before I received his reply:

“Bob — There is no specific policy regarding the security aspects of posting his position, however there is a policy related to implied endorsement of his company by posting it. Thanks for bringing this to our attention; Mr. Porco has been informed and is taking the appropriate steps to bring his website into compliance. Best, LTC Gregory”

Less than 24 hours after receiving Colonel Gregory’s message, the page in question on Porco’s company website had been scrubbed of the questionable content.

Why does this matter? Because, according to several recent news reports, including a June 25 report by ABC News, DNI Clapper ordered “that a question related to unauthorized disclosure of classified information be added to the counterintelligence polygraph used by all intelligence agencies that administer the examination,” and Porco is the senior DoD policy wonk on all matters related to the polygraph. In that position, one must assume Porco’s going to play a role as vital as he did in response to another recent scandal involving the agency’s polygraph program.

While reading The Polygraph Files, a recent series of articles by McClatchy investigative reporter Marisa Taylor, I came across an article in which Porco was featured as a key player involved in crafting DoD’s official response to allegations of abusive polygraph techniques being used by officials at the National Reconnaissance Office.

Though I never served in the world of counterintelligence, I did possess a security clearance while serving as an Air Force officer and think I have a pretty good feel for what constitutes a conflict of interest, a breach of ethics and/or an implied endorsement. That said, I remain stunned that someone so high up in the “food chain” would do something like this — or even have time to be moonlighting outside of his DoD job.

Wondering whether my reaction was appropriate or over the top, I contacted a retired counterintelligence operative with whom I’ve been friends for several years and asked him for his thoughts.

“Even privates in the Army know such actions go against DoD ethics and conflict of interest directives,” he said, agreeing to speak with me only on the promise of anonymity. “It shows me how much the standards have dropped.

“In the old days, someone in such a high-level CI position would never even think about owning a PI business, never mind advertising on the internet AND showing his current government position to bolster his image.”

Developing…

NewBookCover LR 2-17-2013

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice, a nonfiction book that’s available in paperback and ebook via most online booksellers, including Amazon.com. His second book, THE CLAPPER MEMO, is set for release this fall.

High-Level Counterintelligence Official Exposes Self on Internet

Today, while following a lead related to my upcoming second nonfiction book, THE CLAPPER MEMO, I came across something both astonishing and disturbing.  On the website of a private investigations firm in the Washington, D.C., area, I found one of the nation’s highest-ranking counterintelligence officials using his federal government position to bolster to his credibility as a private investigator and, in turn, increase business and revenues for his business.

On the “Career Highlights” page of the website (shown redacted* above), I clicked on the “Counterintelligence” tab and found the proprietor of the firm behind the website had listed his present position of employment with the Department of Defense:  Deputy Director for Counterintelligence.  This is, of course, very disturbing as our nation’s top intelligence officials, including Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., find themselves grappling with serious concerns about national security leaks like the ones highlighted recently in the National Post, The New York Times and The Weekly Standard.

Immediately upon seeing this information displayed so publicly, I fired off an email to Lt. Col. Jim Gregory, a public affairs officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and asked him to confirm whether or not the individual who appeared to be the proprietor of the business was, indeed, a high-level DoD employee as the website claimed.  In addition, I told the colonel I would have a follow-up question for him if he was able to provide that confirmation.

Less than 24 hours later, I received confirmation from Colonel Gregory and replied with the following:

“I found it unusual that a person in the counter intel biz would advertise his arguably-sensitive position on a private investigations business website.  Isn’t there a policy or regulation that prohibits that?”

Another 24 hours passed before I received this message:

“Bob — There is no specific policy regarding the security aspects of posting his position, however there is a policy related to implied endorsement of his company by posting it.  Thanks for bringing this to our attention; Mr. (name withheld) has been informed and is taking the appropriate steps to bring his website into compliance.  Best, LTC Gregory”

Though I never served in the world of counterintelligence, I found myself stunned that someone so high up in the “food chain” would do something like this and decided to turn to someone I knew with experience in that arena.  Was my reaction was appropriate?  To find out, I contacted a retired counterintelligence operative with whom I’ve been friends for several years and asked him for his thoughts.

“Even privates in the Army know such actions go against DoD ethics and conflict of interest directives,” he said, agreeing to speak with me only on the promise of anonymity.  “It shows me how much the standards have dropped.

“In the old days, someone in such a high-level CI position would never even think about owning a PI business, never mind advertising on the internet AND showing his current government position to bolster his image.”

*EDITOR’S NOTE:  For obvious reasons, I chose not to divulge the name of the DoD employee, the specific area of the counterintelligence directorate over which he exercises responsibility or the name and URL of the website address of his private investigations company.  I did, however, grab screenshots and, to further protect all involved, opted to share a redacted, black-and-white version of one of those screen shots above.

UPDATE 8/03/12 at 9:22 a.m. Central:  I’ve done my part for national security.  Less than 24 hours after being told by a DoD public affairs officer that the high-level counterintelligence official would be told to “bring his website into compliance,” I can report that has happened.  I wonder who should get my bill for services rendered?

UPDATE 8/08/12 at 11:36 a.m. Central:  High-Ranking Counterintelligence Official Identified.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice, a nonfiction book that’s available in paperback and ebook via most online booksellers, including Amazon.com.  His second book, The CLAPPER MEMO, is set for release this fall.

DIA Employs Army Stall Tactics in Response to FOIA Request — UPDATED

A letter received yesterday seems to indicate that officials at the Defense Intelligence Agency are stealing a page from the U.S. Army’s playbook when it comes to dealing with pesky Freedom of Information Act requests — mine!

Described as an “interim response” to my request for copies of certain technology-related contracts, the letter included the following wording:

We will be unable to respond to your request within the FOIA’s 20 day statutory time period due to unusual circumstances… your request has been placed in our queue and will be worked in the order the request was received.  Our current administrative workload is in excess of 1,352 requests.

I followed up receipt of the letter by asking DIA FOIA officials to comply with the law by providing a specific date by which my request will be fulfilled.  Still waiting for a response.

Exactly what is it that I’ve requested via FOIA?  Can’t say yet, but it has to do with certain defense interrogation technology contracts about which I’ve been suspicious since 2009.  Those details and more will appear in my next book, THE CLAPPER MEMO, set for release this fall.

UPDATE 7/30/12 at 12:17 p.m. Central:  I spoke with Alesia Y. Williams, chief of the DIA’s Freedom of Information Office staff, about the interim response I had received as described above.  I told her that, by law, she must provide a specific date by which I should expect a reply.  She told me I should not expect a reply earlier than nine months from today — or April 30, 2013.  I asked her to put it in writing.  She said she would.  So much for adhering with the law.

NewBookCover LR 2-17-2013

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice, a nonfiction book that’s available in paperback and ebook via most online booksellers, including Amazon.com.

Freedom of Information Act Hard to Follow at DIA

Defense Intelligence Agency officials seem intent on making things difficult for anyone trying to follow through on a Freedom of Information Act request.

On July 6, I submitted a list of 18 questions to DIA PAOs.  In reply, Army LTC Thomas F. Veale did not immediately provide answers to my questions; instead, he replied three days later with several questions for me.  I answered his questions, all of which centered on my upcoming second nonfiction book, THE CLAPPER MEMODetails about his questions can be found in this post.

On July 13, Colonel Veale delivered a response:   “Given the depth of detail of your project and my understanding of DoD’s standard procedure for detailed book queries, I believe you should complete the book project support process.”

After suspecting that the “book project support” option would turn into another round of stonewalling similar to the 100-days-long experience I’ve had with the Army, I decided to take an alternative route suggested by Colonel Veale:  FOIA. With the FOIA route, I felt as if I had a sliver of hope that DIA officials might comply with federal laws.

This afternoon, I visited the DIA website’s FOIA instructions page, read through the instructions and opted to use the PDF form option — which, by the way, requires you to fill in the blanks and print out your document rather than allow you to save it as a file that can be emailed easily.

After typing in my pertinent information in the PDF blanks, I printed out the newly-created two-page document and tried to fax it to the DIA fax number provided on the DIA instructions page.  Unfortunately, two attempts yielded nothing but ring tones.  It was as if the DIA fax number refused to recognize my fax machine’s cry, “ANSWER ME!”

My final option was to scan the two-page document I had already printed out and forward the new document to the DIA email address, FOIA@dodiis.mil, provided on the DIA instructions page.  I did that, but with much trepidation — and with good cause:  One minute after sending the document to DIA as an attachment to an email message, I received three “failure” notices.  It appears as if only one of the four recipients to whom my FOIA request was addressed received my message.  We’ll see how this turns out.   Perhaps a change of command at DIA will help.  More on this later.

UPDATE ON MY ARMY FOIA EXPERIENCE

Just before 4 p.m. Central today, I received an email update from Nancy Davis regarding the Army FOIA experience mentioned above and in previous posts like this one.

The woman whose business card must be the size of a billboard because of the length of her title (i.e., “Installation Records Management/FOIA-PA, Directorate of Human Resources, Office of the Adjutant General, U.S. Army Garrison, Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth, KS”) emailed the following update:  “We are continuing to wait on the (Staff Judge Advocate’s) review and opinion.  As soon as we have it, it is ready to go to the (Army Training & Doctrine Command) Initial Denial Authority.  I have CC’ed Ms. Kakel on this email and she is standing by to receive it. Thanks.”

Upon reading her message, I fired back a question:  “I might be mistaken, but doesn’t the phrase, Initial Denial Authority, tell me all I need to know?”

A few minutes later, Davis offered this polite response:  “No.  The role of the IDA is to review any recommended redactions, to reason how best to make a release of information and to work with the HQDA Office of the Judge Advocate in the explanation of why agencies are concerned when their information may be released.  It is the HQDA Office of the Judge Advocate that has the final decision. I hope this helps.”

NINETY-SEVEN DAYS after submitting my FOIA request to the Army, my confidence is bubbling over (NOT)!  More on this subject later, too!

UPDATE 7/17/12 at 9:53 a.m. Central:  A third attempt at sending the FOIA request to DIA via fax succeeded.  Now, we wait for answers.

UPDATE 7/20/12 at 11:15 a.m. Central:  A few minutes ago, I tried contacting two DIA PAOs with whom I’ve been communicating via email.  My emails bounced back.  Twice.  Additionally, my emails to the email address listed on the DIA FOIA website bounced back.  For some reason, I don’t think I’m going to be getting anything from DIA without filing a federal lawsuit.

* * *

NewBookCover LR 2-17-2013In my soon-to-be-published second nonfiction book, THE CLAPPER MEMO, I’ll expose never-before-published details of my investigation into the “green-on-blue” attacks and other matters related to the interrogation technologies now being used — and, in some cases, not used — by U.S. military and intelligence officials around the world for things such as vetting detainees, enemy combatants and third-country nationals.

The product of more than three years of painstaking investigation, dozens of interviews and a whole lot of FOIA requests, THE CLAPPER MEMO goes so far as to connect the dots between a single memo signed by James R. Clapper Jr., the man now serving as our nation’s top intelligence official, and the green-on-blue deaths of dozens of Americans in Afghanistan since that memo was issued.

While you await the release of The CLAPPER MEMO, be sure to order a copy of my first nonfiction book, Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.  It’s available in paperback and ebook via most online booksellers, including Amazon.com. Thanks in advance!

Original post at The CLAPPER MEMO.