« Ice Cream and Personality | Main | Taxi Rapes »

July 18, 2013

Another Benghazi Mystery Solved

Incroyable!

"On Tuesday I raised the question of why none of the Benghazi survivors, whether State Department, CIA, or private security contract employees have testified publicly before Congress," said Wolf.

"According to trusted sources that have contacted my office, many if not all of the survivors of the Benghazi attacks along with others at the Department of Defense, the CIA have been asked or directed to sign additional non-disclosure agreements about their involvement in the Benghazi attacks. Some of these new NDAs, as they call them, I have been told were signed as recently as this summer."

Wolf continued: "It is worth nothing that the Marine Corps Times yesterday reported that the Marine colonel whose task force was responsible for special operations in northern and western Africa at the time of the attack is still on active duty despite claims that he retired. And therefore could not be forced to testify before Congress.

"If these reports are accurate, this would be a stunning revelation to any member of Congress, any member of Congress that finds this out and also more importantly to the American people. It also raises serious concerns about the priority of the administration's efforts to silence those with knowledge of the Benghazi attack in response.

Our idea about an official "tip hotline" email address for Obama administration scandals is looking better every day.

Posted by Cassandra at July 18, 2013 12:56 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4702

Comments

Posted by: spd rdr at July 18, 2013 03:01 PM

I've been trying to touch base with this Colonel for a little while. I've spoken to several people who know him, or who know people who know him; but nobody knows how to find him.

It's one of the strangest things I've ever encountered.

Posted by: Grim at July 18, 2013 03:13 PM

Private-sector nondisclosure agreements generally include a clause something like this: "Nothing in this document shall prohibit Party A from disclosing otherwise-protected information to a government agency which has required, and has legal authority to require, the disclosure of such information."

The whole idea of a nondisclosure agreement prohibiting an employee of one part of the government from disclosing information to another part of the government seems pretty odd.

Posted by: david foster at July 18, 2013 03:16 PM

It's one of the strangest things I've ever encountered.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. OBviously, he's hiding out in an Undisclosed Location!

Posted by: Darth Cheney at July 18, 2013 03:33 PM

The whole idea of a nondisclosure agreement prohibiting an employee of one part of the government from disclosing information to another part of the government seems pretty odd.

Not at all. Do you really want *more* IRS employees disclosing your Tea Party Donations to DoJOSHAFBIDoLBATFEIEIO? They do that enough even when it *is* prohibited.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at July 18, 2013 04:12 PM

Yu-Ain....an excellent point!...but shouldn't rules governing such disclosures be established by legislation, or at a minimum by published rule-making in the executive branch, rather than by case-by-case orders made by who knows whom under who knows what authority?

Posted by: david foster at July 18, 2013 04:52 PM

That's a really interesting question, David.

Not sure what I think of it. One of the things I deal with in my job every day is the risk of inadvertent disclosures of sensitive data. And I've found that almost no one really thinks about the topic.

So on the one hand, I have little confidence in the ability of Congress (for instance) or senior leaders to make good decisions in this realm. On the otter heiny, I definitely have a problem with using nondisclosure rules intended to preserve confidentiality/privacy to avoid scrutiny.

I'm not sure how you balance those concerns except to [shudder] let the person/group responsible for the data make those decisions and then hold them accountable if/when they screw up?

Posted by: Cass at July 18, 2013 05:01 PM

When I departed Naval Intelligence I signed several global and/or specific 'non-disclosure agreements' . . . and promised to never ever travel to a few countries, for the rest of my life.

My point here is *not* to excuse the buggers that appear to be trying to abuse the Intell classification system to keep secret politically inconvenient facts; it is to point out that Intell NDA's are fundamentally different than the commercial 'equivalent.'

Best Regards,

Posted by: CAPT Mike at July 18, 2013 10:39 PM

Not one of the people involved with Benghazi thought it was worth resigning to bring the facts to light?

Posted by: Scott M at July 19, 2013 04:27 AM

We don't see a lot of that, do we--people resigning (from the military or elsewhere) in protest of policies they can't stomach.

It's one problem with relying on one's employer for a pension and health benefits in retirement, instead of on one's own savings. That means giving the employer leverage over you for the rest of your life.

Posted by: Texan99 at July 19, 2013 09:22 AM

One of the things I deal with in my job every day is the risk of inadvertent disclosures of sensitive data. And I've found that almost no one really thinks about the topic.

I'll second that. My job requires me to have access to personally identifying information. It's extremely rare that I actually need it (once every couple of years), but I simply cannot do my job without it. That said, I do not let my team have access to it.

Any sensitive information you do not need, it is better not to collect in the first place. You can't "misplace" data you don't have.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at July 19, 2013 09:48 AM

"You can't "misplace" data you don't have."

Unless you're the NSA, DoJ, CIA....
0>:~}

Posted by: DL Sly at July 20, 2013 01:10 PM