Is The CIA Muzzling Whistleblower To Hide Inborn ‘Recipe For Disaster’?

Why won’t the CIA allow a former agent with Middle East experience to discuss declassified material?Is the CIA Muzzling Whistleblower To Hide Inborn ‘Recipe For Disaster’?By Cliff Montgomery – Apr. 18th, 2007The Mar. 5th, 2007 complaint which Franz Boening issued in the United States District Court in Washington, DC against the CIA–if true–could become a bombshell. We offer quotes below:COMPLAINT”Plaintiff, and federal whistleblower, Franz Boening brings this action against defendant Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) for injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the CIA’s internal regulations and the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”The CIA has unlawfully imposed a prior restraint upon Franz Boening by obstructing and infringing on his right to disseminate unclassified information concerning his efforts to expose the CIA’s illegal relationship with a foreign national, for which the Agency retaliated against him.”Additionally, the CIA deliberately interfered with Boening’s efforts to properly challenge the CIA’s classification actions before the Interagency Security Appeals Panel, an intra-governmental entity coordinated by theInformation Security Oversight Office of the National Archives & Records Administration.”Plaintiff Franz Boening (“Boening”) was formerly employed by the Central Intelligence Agency from 1980-2005. After learning Arabic in the early 1980s, he spent nearly one dozen years in agent operations, primarily in the Middle East. He worked declassification issues from 1995-1999, and ultimately retired from the Agency after working at the Foreign Broadcast Information Service where he handled Internet exploitation and training. He has held a Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented security clearance for nearly 25 years.”He is required by virtue of a secrecy agreement to submit most personal writings for pre-publication review. As a result of the matters addressed herein Boening became a whistleblower and suffered employment retaliation to include not being sent to Foreign Country “A” despite his having volunteered and possessing needed language skills.”By memorandum dated November 22, 2004, Boening submitted to the CIA’s Publication Review Board (“PRB”) four documents for classification review for the purposes of potential public dissemination. These were: (a) May 10, 2001, Whistleblower Complaint and addendums dealing with [Individual’s name]; (b) March 24, 2003, Whistleblower Complaint alleging retaliation; (c) May 20, 2004, Whistleblower Complaint allegingretaliation; and (d) January 16, 2003, Grievance Against FBIS managers.”It was noted that (a) through (c) were considered classified by the CIA, and that the CIA was not permitting review of (b) or (c). Documents (b) and (c) were later declassified and are not at issue in this litigation.”Boening’s May 10, 2001, memorandum sought to detail perceived violations of the law committed by the CIA. It was drafted for the consumption of the Director, CIA, and numerous senior CIA officials. It specifically alleged that the:”CIA may have violated US laws during its 10+ year relationship with [NAME REDACTED](paragraph five); CIA’s professional behavior was so scandalous that it seriously damaged American prestige and credibility (paragraph six); relationship continued because of an egregious counterintelligence failure (paragraph eight).”It is Boening’s contention that the CIA maintained a special relationship with a foreign individual who committed unlawful human rights violations and criminal acts with the knowledge of the CIA, and that despite other federal agencies expressing interest in seeing this person arrested the CIA preferred that such action not take place…”Although the entire analysis and factual recitation of the CIA’s involvement with this individual that was drafted by Boening was based purely on publicly available non-governmental (including newspaper articles) and unclassified government websites, including from FBIS, the CIA ‘classified’ more than a dozen pages of publicly available newspaper, radio, and television information–a practice that was commonly assumed to have been discontinued by the CIA years ago.”Additional, the CIA not only deleted all references to the foreign individual’s name but also Boening’s personal assessment of this individual. Yet, Boening had never once read any classified CIA document pertaining to this individual…”As he noted in his still partially classified memorandum of May 10, 2001:   ‘In an effort to combat drug traffickers, CIA deluded itself into believing–despite a mountain of freely available, contrary evidence–that [NAME REDACTED] was sincerely helping to further USG policy goals. What it didn’t take into account is that men like [NAME REDACTED] if fundamentally misunderstood, can subvert whole aspects of US foreign policy. The counterintelligence failure was exacerbated and prolonged by CIA’s hubris and apparent tendency towards secrecy, even with USG colleagues.‘CIA’s hubris, secretiveness, disinclination to accept contrary assessments and evidence, its lax management, and its desire to avoid embarrassment, all proved to be a smoldering recipe for disaster.’ (emphasis original)”Despite significant internal efforts by Boening he was unable to persuade the CIA to declassify the information of concern. Indeed, William McNair, then CIA’s Information Review Officer, Directorate of Operations, told Boening in May 2002:“Look, Franz, do you think I care about [Foreign Individual’s name]? This is not about ‘source protection,’ this is about CIA’s reputation. We don’t want you to have any credibility.”