"That officer believed there were 'no limitations' on his activities, the report said, because he was on an unpaid leave of absence, and thus exempt from the prohibition against domestic spying by members of the C.I.A."
Not to mention that's probably a tactic they use to skirt the law, so if they assassinate someone, and it gets found out later, the agency is not responsible.
I don't think either CIA or NSA have any respect left for the spirit of the law. They "just do what they have to do", and figure out the legal issues later through whatever loopholes they can find.
I'm not entirely clear whether it meant "he believed he did not have the usual limits regarding being involved in domestic police work," as opposed to "he believed he had no limits - he could assassinate people, spy on anyone, &c." I think it was the former, but am not positive; the headline seems to lead to the latter. If it was in fact the former, then the headline is misleading.
If we're pretending to be severely brain-damaged to the point where we can't see the difference between different things, then yes, the title is totally accurate.
If you are seconded to another organization are you not part of that organization for the duration - any limits would be the same as a NYPD detective surely.
This is similar to the American flying tigers who resigned their commissions with the US army to become mercenarys - which is presumably the precedent that the lawyers woudl have used.
If he was on a leave of absence, and that changes his status, how does he have the authority to be there at all? Surely the exemption exists because while on a leave of absence his is basically not a CIA officer. He is not bound by CIA rules. With out such cover or authority, he must have been there illegally. Either he is CIA, or not.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that he had worked with the NYPD on behalf of the CIA as a counter-terrorism adviser from late 2001-2004. Then he want back to working with the CIA, but the NYPD asked if they could hire him onto staff and he stayed with the NYPD after that, retiring from the CIA in 2009.
I think people have been getting confused by the NYT's use of the word 'embedded' which implies he was working for the CIA while spending his days with the NYPD, much as a journalist files reports to his TV or print media employer while embedded with the military. It's an odd choice of words, as nothing in the report suggests that this was the case.
I should hope not. If the NYPD has been federalized then there are a whole lot of other problems. Although, given how the NYPD has been sending agents to other states, maybe they THINK they are a federal agency.
What I mean is, Federal pensions generally require some * number of years, and if he were to quit the CIA to work for the NYPD then he might lose out on that. So taking an "extended leave of absence" avoids that.
Plus he probably gets to maintain all his contacts at the CIA and leverage them for whatever messed-up stuff the NYPD is up to, like their surveillance of innocent muslims, mosques, etc.
I actually felt the same way, but I think it was used as quoting his justification for the NSA law forbidding him to be involved in domestic surveillance.
Comments
Headline is misleading. From the article:
"That officer believed there were 'no limitations' on his activities, the report said, because he was on an unpaid leave of absence, and thus exempt from the prohibition against domestic spying by members of the C.I.A."
It's not misleading. If the CIA agent believed that he had no limits, then there were no limits.
Not to mention that's probably a tactic they use to skirt the law, so if they assassinate someone, and it gets found out later, the agency is not responsible.
I don't think either CIA or NSA have any respect left for the spirit of the law. They "just do what they have to do", and figure out the legal issues later through whatever loopholes they can find.
I'm not entirely clear whether it meant "he believed he did not have the usual limits regarding being involved in domestic police work," as opposed to "he believed he had no limits - he could assassinate people, spy on anyone, &c." I think it was the former, but am not positive; the headline seems to lead to the latter. If it was in fact the former, then the headline is misleading.
If we're pretending to be severely brain-damaged to the point where we can't see the difference between different things, then yes, the title is totally accurate.
When someone acting under color of law "believes" himself to be without limits, there's no difference.
The brain damage is displayed by those who keep giving authoritarians the benefit of the doubt.
Are you somehow suggesting that if I jump off this building and flap my wings that I won't actually be flying?
If you are seconded to another organization are you not part of that organization for the duration - any limits would be the same as a NYPD detective surely.
This is similar to the American flying tigers who resigned their commissions with the US army to become mercenarys - which is presumably the precedent that the lawyers woudl have used.
If he was on a leave of absence, and that changes his status, how does he have the authority to be there at all? Surely the exemption exists because while on a leave of absence his is basically not a CIA officer. He is not bound by CIA rules. With out such cover or authority, he must have been there illegally. Either he is CIA, or not.
The NYPD asked to hire him temporarily and the CIA granted him a leave of absence. See page 6, section 4 of the IG report: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/717864-cia-nypd-ig.h...
EDIT: I forgot to mention that he had worked with the NYPD on behalf of the CIA as a counter-terrorism adviser from late 2001-2004. Then he want back to working with the CIA, but the NYPD asked if they could hire him onto staff and he stayed with the NYPD after that, retiring from the CIA in 2009.
I think people have been getting confused by the NYT's use of the word 'embedded' which implies he was working for the CIA while spending his days with the NYPD, much as a journalist files reports to his TV or print media employer while embedded with the military. It's an odd choice of words, as nothing in the report suggests that this was the case.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/717864-cia-nypd-ig.h...
Ok. Not sure if that is better or worse, but it does explain my point!! Ta.
Probably helps get him his CIA pension, as he's still "technically" a fed for these years but working for NYPD.
I should hope not. If the NYPD has been federalized then there are a whole lot of other problems. Although, given how the NYPD has been sending agents to other states, maybe they THINK they are a federal agency.
What I mean is, Federal pensions generally require some * number of years, and if he were to quit the CIA to work for the NYPD then he might lose out on that. So taking an "extended leave of absence" avoids that.
Plus he probably gets to maintain all his contacts at the CIA and leverage them for whatever messed-up stuff the NYPD is up to, like their surveillance of innocent muslims, mosques, etc.
Not misleading at all. Just a lame excuse he used.
What's incredible is that people will take the excuse at face value --or even believe he really was on "unpaid leave" and still allowed to be there.
I actually felt the same way, but I think it was used as quoting his justification for the NSA law forbidding him to be involved in domestic surveillance.