CIA Employee Who Refused to Sign Non-Disclosure on Benghazi Suspended

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Sep 17, 2013.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,279
    Likes Received:
    780
    A CIA employee who refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement barring him from discussing the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, has been suspended as a result and forced to hire legal counsel, according to a top House lawmaker.

    Rep. Frank Wolf (R., Va.) revealed at an event on Monday that his office was anonymously informed about the CIA employee, who is purportedly facing an internal backlash after refusing to sign a legal document barring him from publicly or privately discussing events surrounding the Benghazi attack.

    The revelation comes about a month after several media outlets reported that CIA employees with knowledge of the terror attack had been forced to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDA) and submit to regular polygraph tests.

    “The reports on the NDA are accurate. We’re getting people who call,” Wolf said Monday during an event marking the launch of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, a panel of former military and intelligence officials who are investigating unanswered questions surrounding the Benghazi incident.

    http://freebeacon.com/cia-employee-who-refused-to-sign-non-disclosure-on-benghazi-suspended/
     
  2. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    While I support the CIA employee and would especially like to hear his testimony, the precedent for such a legally binding document is multiplicitous. No one involved in a top secret action at any level of the military or foreign services is allowed to talk about the operation where matters of national security are in question. Even though the document obviously is intended as a blockage to testimony that would damage the reputations and careers of employees both at State, and at the administration, this was still a national security op, and as such those involved should be apprised of the consequences for discussing issues of national security with the media or the public, and by their signatures acknowledge that they are aware of those consequences.

    On the other hand, such documents are often treated by those who are forced to sign them as matters of conscience. Even though they must sign them or face disciplinary action (such as this anonymous employee is being confronted with), employees of national security agencies and foreign services often violate the tenets of such agreements for the good of the country. Should he sign it? If he values his career, yes. Should he abide by it? That is truly a matter of his own conscience.
     
  3. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,279
    Likes Received:
    780
    They could give testimony in a closed hearing. But they have not been able to do even that.
     

Share This Page

Loading...