secret military propaganda reported by Lt.Col.now
subject to whistleblower reprisal
Posted at 3:00 pm, February
24th, 2011
By Nick Schwellenbach, crossposted
with POGO
Rolling Stones Michael
Hastings has written another article
thats gone viral. Heres how it
opens:
The U.S. Army illegally ordered a team
of soldiers specializing in
psychological operations to
manipulate visiting American senators
into providing more troops and funding
for the war, Rolling Stone has
learnedand when an officer tried to
stop the operation, he was railroaded by
military investigators.
The orders came from the command of Lt.
Gen. William Caldwell, a three-star
general in charge of training Afghan
troopsthe linchpin of U.S. strategy
in the war. Over a four-month period last
year, a military cell devoted to what is
known as information
operations at Camp Eggers in Kabul
was repeatedly pressured to target
visiting senators and other VIPs who met
with Caldwell. When the unit resisted the
order, arguing that it violated U.S. laws
prohibiting the use of propaganda against
American citizens, it was subjected to a
campaign of retaliation.
My job in psy-ops is to play
with peoples heads, to get the
enemy to behave the way we want them to
behave, says Lt. Colonel Michael
Holmes, the leader of the IO unit, who
received an official reprimand after
bucking orders. Im prohibited
from doing that to our own people. When
you ask me to try to use these skills on
senators and congressman, youre
crossing a line.
The idea that the military is misdirecting
resources intended to help us fight the war
to instead manipulate Congress is bad enough.
But Hastings piece could also point to
a systemic weakness in military whistleblower
protections. As the story goes, the
Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD
IG) failed to recognize Lt. Col. Holmes as a
whistleblower whose disclosures were
protected:
Holmes, believing that he was being
targeted for questioning the legality of
waging an IO [information operations]
campaign against U.S. visitors,
complained to the Defense
Departments inspector general.
Three months later, he was informed that
he was not entitled to protection as a
whistleblower, because the JAG [Judge
Advocate General's Corps] lawyer he
consulted was not designated to
receive such communications.
From POGOs perspective, this is
ludicrous. Its natural for a service
member to go JAG attorneys for advice,
particularly on a potentially illegal matter.
The Holmes case appears to indicate a
weakness in military whistleblower
protections. It raises the question:
what constitutes a protected channel for
military whistleblower disclosures?
Weve been told by DoD insiders that it
is the DoD IG, the service members
chain of command, and Congress. (POGO has
posed the question to the DoD IG and will
update this post if warranted.) The JAG
attorney, Capt. John Scott, handled
information operationscould Scott been
seen as within Holmes chain of command
or have been seen as another kind of
protected channel? We have asked the DoD IG
for comment.
This is not the first time the system of
military whistleblower protections has seemed
to fail. Weve written about the
systemic problems with the DoD IG and the
Military Whistleblower Protection Act in the
past (see here,
here,
here,
and here).
POGO has learned that currently the DoD IG
is conducting an Independent Review of
MRI outcomes (MRI refers to Military
Reprisals Investigations) because of a
perception that there is an unusually low
substantiation rate of military retaliation
complaints by MRI.
In the second half of fiscal year 2010,
DoD IG and service IGs received 347
complaints of whistle-blower reprisal and
closed 359 cases, according to the DoD
IGs most recent semiannual
report. Of the 359 cases, 294 were
closed after preliminary analysis determined
further investigation was not warranted, and
65 were closed after investigation. Of the 65
cases investigated, 11 (17 percent) contained
one or more substantiated allegations of
whistleblower reprisal.
Its a 17 percent substantiation rate
only if you set aside all the cases
closed after preliminary analysis
determined further investigation was not
warrantedotherwise the
substantiation rate is about 3 percent (11
cases with at least one allegation
substantiated out of 347). Was Holmes
case closed after preliminary
analysis or after an investigation? We
have asked the DoD IGs press office for
comment and will add it in if they get back
to us.
Nick Schwellenbach is POGOs
Director of Investigations. Follow Nick on Twitter.