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.
Comments
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.