The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog

V-22: Premature Deployment?

The AP (via DefenseTech) is reporting that the V-22 Osprey will deploying to “combat zones” within a year, but POGO is concerned that this may a clever, but misleading ploy to tout the aircraft or is just plain stupid. It could be both.  Recently, the Pentagon’s Operational Test and Evaluation office only approved the Osprey for a medium threat environment (pdf), though POGO has heard that the bird is really only suitable for a low threat environment at this point.

The V-22 is prone to entering an asymmetric lift situation called the Vortex Ring State (VRS) that leads to the aircraft rolling. VRS killed a four-man aircrew and 15 Marines being transported aboard the aircraft in April 2000. Unlike most helicopters, the V-22 cannot land safely in helicopter mode without power, a procedure known as autorotation. Nor does the Osprey have a defensive gun at this time. And there has been only limited testing of the Osprey in brown-out conditions—swirling dirt, dust and debris caused by the aircrafts two large props—a problem particularly acute in the sands of Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and a lot of the places the US has fought or is likely to fight. (POGO outlined most of its concerns here.)

All of these problems equal potential catastrophe if indeed the Osprey encounters any serious opposition from ground fire. However, it remains to be seen if the V-22 will truly face the kinds of threats its supporters say it will provide great advantages against. If it does, it might be facing them prematurely to our soldiers’ peril.

Closing the Door to Defense Advisory Boards

A move being considered by the Defense Department threatens to place Defense Department advisory boards rife with contractor conflicts of interest under a veil of secrecy, InsideDefense.com learned last Friday.  By consolidating service-specific (e.g. Air Force, Army) advisory boards under the mantle of the highly-influential Defense Science Board, there would be a reduction in "'administrative requirements' because committee subpanels are not required to be open to the public and meetings would not have to be announced beforehand in the Federal Register," according to a Feb. 3 memo from the deputy director of the Office of the Secretary of Defense's administration and management office, Howard Becker.

The openness of advisory committees has been under attack in recent years.  In 2003, POGO pointed out the danger of exempting the industry-dominated Homeland Security Advisory Committee from openness provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.  More recently, the original legislation proposing the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Agency (BARDA) had provided for the same exemption for BARDA's advisory committees.  And the Acquisition Advisory Panel (also known as the 1423 Panel) is considering closed-door working groups where contractors will protest preliminary findings and recommendations.

Some government officials claim that subcommittees or working groups in "fact-finding mode," where only information is collected, sometimes have much more candid witnesses in private than if those witnesses were under the public spotlight.

However, in general, POGO believes that advisory committees and their subcommittees should be open.  Though the FACA law does not make it mandatory for subcommittees meeting solely to seek information to make these meetings public, the law does allow agencies to use their discretion.  In sum, the DoD advisory committees moving under the Defense Science Board can continue to remain open at the Secretary of Defense's discretion.  Rumsfeld once said, "Our great political system needs information to be self-correcting."  Let's hold him to it.

Echoes of Druyun: MZM's Wade Pleas Guilty

The US Attorney's Office, Southern District of California, has released a press release on MZM Inc. owner Mitchell Wade's guilty plea.  Besides the known bribery of Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (see page 3 of this document to see his "bribe menu"; pdf), Wade provided "illegal benefits to Defense Department officials," and he attempted "to curry favor with two other members of Congress by making illegal campaign contributions."

The "illegal benefits to Defense Department officials" part sounds a lot like the Darleen Druyun-Boeing tanker lease scandal, where Druyun negotiated a job with Boeing while in a position to promote Air Force contracts with them.  She awarded Boeing a $4 billion contract months after Boeing hired her daughter and son-in-law.

It sounds like MZM used some of Boeing's tricks.  The US Attorney's Office press release says that Wade's activities included:

• arranging for a Defense Department official's son to be hired as an MZM employee; the cost of that job was ultimately paid for by the government in reimbursement agreement with MZM; and
• extending an offer of employment, and then ultimately hiring, a Department of Defense official who was responsible for overseeing much of MZM's work. Federal law prohibits government employees from, among other things, discussing potential employment with companies with whom they do government business.
• Certain Department of Defense employees provided: valuable procurement information that MZM could use to tailor a proposal for work that MZM could perform under the BPA [Blanket Purchase Agreement];
• an official recommendation that MZM receive contracts under the BPA for certain activities involving the imaging and archiving of Defense Department documents; and
• favorable performance reviews about MZM. These performance reviews were critical to MZM. Notwithstanding the fact that Wade received these purchase orders without competitive bidding as a result of his earlier receipt of the $225 million BPA, MZM could not be assured that they would continue to receive new purchase orders without receiving these type of favorable reviews by Defense Department officials.

In engaging in this corrupt activity, Wade deprived the citizens of the United States of their right to the honest services of government -- the right of the Defense Department to make decisions free from bias and favoritism.

MZM persuaded two Defense Department components--the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) and Department of the Army's National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC)--to contract with MZM. 

Surprisingly, we've heard that the press release's reference to a Defense Department official's son is not a reference to William S. Rich III, son of William S. Rich Jr. who is a former Executive Director of NGIC.  William S. Rich Jr. went to work for MZM as well as his son, after MZM was awarded contracts by NGIC.  So it must be some other DoD official's son.  Press accounts point to numerous NGIC employees moving to or with a relative at MZM, including the "wife of Robert Canar, until last month the center's longtime chief of staff,  [who] was employed as a secretary at MZM" and the "former sergeant major at the NGIC, George A. Peeterse, [who] is an MZM vice president."

Even if neither Rich is the ones referred to in Wade's plea agreement, the employment of numerous former Defense Department employees or their relatives by MZM highlights the too-cozy relationship and corruption that too often stem from the revolving door.

MORE: The National Journal's Hotline Blog takes a stab at figuring out who the "two other members of Congress" might be.  One of those might be Congressman Virgil Goode whose district contains the National Ground Intelligence Center in Charlottesville, Virginia.  Goode sits on the House Appropriations Committee.  Goode "has said he requested funding for a Foreign Supplier Assessment Center in Martinsville, which became the second MZM facility to open" in his district.  Talking Points Memo had a very informative piece on the connections between Wade and Goode last November.

AND MORE: Here's the full press release, the Statement of Offenses (pdf), the Plea Letter (pdf) and the information on the four counts against Wade (pdf).

The Post Weighs In:  They say that the Defense Department official who went to work for MZM, as well as his son, was Robert Fromm.  And they seem certain that Goode and Rep. Katherine Harris, both Republicans, are the representatives besides Cunningham that were influenced by MZM.

Official Secrets Act Rears Its Ugly Head

If Senator Pat Roberts gets his way, the First Amendment and the public's right to know will take a monstrous hit.  Roberts is considering adding language to the 2007 intelligence authorization bill that criminalizes the distribution of classified information by everyone, not just by government employees and contractors.  Similar legislation, known as the Official Secrets Act, was defeated when President Clinton vetoed it near the end of his presidency. 

Criminalizing disclosure of classified information by any member of the public would have a chilling effect on the press and the public would be less informed as a result.  Classification is often wrongly used to cover up government illegalities or other questionable behavior.  In a democracy, should exposing government misconduct be illegal?

Again, currently, only people with security clearances are held responsible for securing classified info. Under Senator Roberts’ proposal, reporters – even people reading the newspaper – would be in trouble.

Congress Capitulating

Newspapers are reporting that Congress is acquiescing to White House pressure to hold off or severely limit the scope of their investigation into warrantless domestic spying by the National Security Agency (NSA).  Instead of examining the eavesdropping program, both chambers of Congress are instead focusing only on whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) should be changed.  By ignoring the possibility that the President may have broken the law and violated the Constitution (pdf) and by giving a pass to a program that may have generated a plethora of bad leads because of poor oversight, Congress is fundamentally weakening our system of checks and balances because of political expediency.

Old News: Rumsfeld Doesn't Use Email

Newsweek reports that during a congressional investigation of the government fumbling before, during and after the Katrina catastrophe discovered that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff) don't use email.  POGO could have told you that you can't send Rummy any emails over a year ago.

Declassification Board to Finally Meet

The Public Interest Declassification Board that POGO and other organizations successfully urged Congress to fund last year, is meeting for the first time on February 25th.  Secrecy News has the scoop.  The Board should help bring some balance to the excessive overclassification that plagues the government.  However, the Board could have much more impact if it had independent authority to declassify documents.

National Security, Whistleblowers and IG Independence

One reason national security whistleblowers often do not go to their agency Inspector Generals is because they fear that the IGs are not independent enough from the agency they are meant to oversee.  This, however, isn't just a fear, it's reality.  National security-related IGs are less independent because the head of the agency can easily stop an investigation or audit.   As the Congressional Research Service report "Statutory Offices of Inspector General: Establishment and Evolution" (pdf) states:

Under the IG Act, as amended, the heads of only five agencies—the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and Treasury, plus the U.S. Postal Service—may prevent the IG from initiating, carrying out, or completing an audit or investigation, or issuing a subpoena, in order to preserve national security interests or to protect on-going criminal investigations, among other specified reasons. When exercising this power, the department head must transmit an explanatory statement for such action to the House Government Reform Committee, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, and other appropriate congressional committees and subcommittees within 30 days. Under the CIA IG Act, the Director of Central Intelligence may similarly prohibit the CIA IG from conducting investigations, audits, or inspections and, when doing so, must notify the House and Senate Intelligence Committees of the reasons for such action within 7 days. [all emphasis POGO's]

DoD IG: "'Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act' is a misnomer."

At yesterday's hearing on national security whistleblowers, there were a lot of interesting moments.

• Defense Department Inspector General Thomas Gimble said (pdf), “Despite its title, the ICWPA does not provide statutory protection from reprisal for whistleblowing for employees of the intelligence community. The name ‘Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act’ is a misnomer.”


• Although the National Security Agency says (pdf) that neither the House nor Senate Intelligence Committees are cleared to hear closed testimony from Russ Tice on special access programs (SAPs) that he has concerns about, the House Armed Service Committee is cleared.


• The Central Intelligence Agency's Office of Congressional Affairs communicated (pdf) to the House Government Reform Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Shays on behalf of the CIA IG, leading some members of Congress to question the CIA IG's independence from the agency.

MORE: Steve Aftergood has made all written testimony at the hearing available online.

Whistleblower Hearing Today

Several whistleblowers will testify before Congress for the first time ever today, such as Able Danger's Tony Shaffer, NSA whistleblower Russ Tice, and SPC Samuel Provance who alleged a coverup of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.  POGO's own Beth Daley is also testifying.

The hearing begins at 1pm EST with the whistleblowers making up the first panel.  Live video of the hearing should be available at this link.  Or you can listen to the hearing today on C-SPAN Radio.

Some background material: POGO report "Homeland and National Security Whistleblowers: the Unfinished Agenda"; CRS report "National Security Whistleblowers."

The New $435 Hammer or Perhaps Another Tanker-Lease “Deal”?

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, FEMA rented 16 mid-size vehicles for one year and two more mid-size vehicles for six months each for a total of $190,944, the Clarion Ledger reported.

FEMA officials justify the costs as being cheaper than buying 18 SUV’s outright (despite the fact that SUV’s are not mid-size cars). In a procurement world that preaches “best value,” is it prudent to argue that renting a car for a year at $11,232 ($30.77/day) is better than purchasing a vehicle for say, $13,000? At the end of the year, these cars will be handed back to Enterprise Rent-A-Car and Uncle Sam will have nothing to show for it. With a purchase, FEMA would still have the vehicles at its disposal and could either: 1) continue using them, or 2) sell them to the highest bidder (for probably more than $2,000 each). Additionally, couldn’t FEMA have negotiated a better deal because they are renting several cars for an entire year?

The Air Force took a lot of heat when it inked a deal with Boeing to lease tankers for a price that was higher than it would have been to purchase them. Did FEMA make the right call on this one, or is this just another example of an agency disregarding the big picture because “it’s just the taxpayer’s dollars”? Or perhaps this should just be added to the growing list of rush-jobs by a FEMA that simply wasn’t prepared to handle a crisis.

Whistleblowing Is Patriotic

Today, an op-ed by Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director Porter Goss ran in The New York Times.  Numerous details, but, more importantly, the overall argument, are wrong.  First, the big kahuna: Goss's assertion that "the term 'whistleblower' has been misappropriated."

Goss says that "those who choose to bypass the law and go straight to the press are not noble, honorable or patriotic. Nor are they whistleblowers."  Wrong.  People who are trying to stop the government from pursuing illegal activities or expose corruption are whistleblowers, are patriotic and deserving of our respect. 

Overwhelmingly, the men and women who do go to the press are coming forward with information they believe needs to become public, because there are grave abuses, whether it is an exorbitant waste of taxpayer dollars, a threat to our constitutional system of government, or something else of significant public interest.  And when they do go to the media, operational details that can benefit our enemies are almost never revealed. 

But why go to the press when Goss says that the "Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act [ensures] that current or former employees could petition Congress, after raising concerns within their respective agency, consistent with the need to protect classified information"?  The answer is quite simple: the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act is more like an Intelligence Community Whistleblower Control Act, especially when it comes to the CIA.

As we've stated before, the Act says that CIA whistleblowers cannot go to congressional intelligence committees without the CIA director giving him or her "direction on how to contact the intelligence committees in accordance with appropriate security practices."  Problem with this is that the CIA director might not want Congress to look into the allegations of wrongdoing by the CIA whistleblower. 

What about the Inspector General (IG)?  Well, they don't provide an independent shelter for whistleblowers either.  The POGO-Government Accountability Project-Public Employee for Environmental Responsibility book, The Art of Anonymous Activism, states:

While the IG touts itself as independent, that is not really the case. At small agencies, the agency head appoints the IG. For larger agencies, the IG is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The IG reports to the head of the agency and serves at the pleasure of the President. In other words, if an IG is upsetting the Administration’s apple cart, he or she can be instantly removed.

The IG’s performance appraisal comes from the agency head, who also controls issuance of awards and financial bonuses to the IG. As a consequence, many IG offices are quite political in the selection of cases for investigation and the manner in which its findings are cast.

So if an investigation by the CIA Inspector General is shut down or ineffective and the CIA director doesn't want the whistleblower to go to Congress, then there is no other choice but to go to the media.  If concerned CIA employees know this, the only way for them to air their concerns, without signaling to the CIA director who to retaliate against, is to skip the CIA IG, skip going to Congress and go straight to the press. 

These are just some of the specific problems CIA whistleblowers face.  Government employees across the government, including the CIA, face incredible legal odds.  Both the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act and the Whistleblower Protection Act are highly flawed.  For example, a whistleblower is not legally protected if they first report wrongdoing in the chain of command in their agency.  But wouldn't telling your boss be the first thing an employee who notices something wrong would do? 

The only example where Goss asserts that information in the press hurt intelligence efforts was the urban myth that Osama bin Laden abandoned use of his satellite phone, which the US has eavesdropped upon, because the press reported that he used one.  But an article by the Washington Post shows how hollow Goss' assertion really is.  It was bin Laden's ally the Taliban who revealed this fact--not a leak from the CIA or another intelligence agency--to Time in 1996 that bin Laden used a satellite phone.  It is even possible that the CIA began eavesdropping on bin Laden's phone because of this information gleaned from Time.  And when bin Laden stopped using his phone, it's more likely because the US had launched cruise missiles at his camp the day before.  The second time bin Laden's satellite phone was mentioned in the press, the source was bin Laden himself.  Again, this does not qualify as a leak from the CIA, or as a leak at all.

Also a revelation, first reported by National Journal, might give Goss a pause since it implicates Vice President Dick Cheney as authorizing leaks of classified information to the press for political purposes:

Beyond what was stated in the court paper, say people with firsthand knowledge of the matter, Libby also indicated what he will offer as a broad defense during his upcoming criminal trial: that Vice President Cheney and other senior Bush administration officials had earlier encouraged and authorized him to share classified information with journalists to build public support for going to war. Later, after the war began in 2003, Cheney authorized Libby to release additional classified information, including details of the NIE, to defend the administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case for war.

Goss only points the finger at whistleblowers who are trying to inform the public of government malfeasance, but not at the politicized leaking of intelligence authorized at the highest levels.  There's a world of difference, and it is loose lips of this Administration that Goss should be truly concerned about.