Former DS Special Agent Pleads Guilty to Transportation of Child Pornography

James Charles Cafferty
Federal mug shot

I last blogged about Mr. Cafferty in October 2011 (See Diplomatic Security Special Agent Indicted for Possession and Receipt of Child Pornography).  On January 6, the FBI/Tampa Division announced that Mr. Cafferty pleaded guilty before U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson of Florida. Mr. Cafferty previously worked as an RSO at the US Embassy in London.  The US Embassy in London is one of our mega-embassies although not in the Baghdad scale.  It has approximately 950 employees including about 450 direct-hire American employees, a couple dozens employed EFMs, and some 465 locally employed staff.

WASHINGTON—A Largo, Florida resident pleaded guilty yesterday in the Middle District of Florida to one count of transportation of child pornography, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida Robert E. O’Neill and Special Agent in Charge Steven E. Ibison of the FBI’s Tampa Field Office.

James Charles Cafferty, 45, pleaded guilty before U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson.

According to court documents and proceedings, Cafferty, who was a special agent for the Department of State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, purchased memberships in several child pornography websites. A subsequent search warrant executed at Cafferty’s home revealed hard drives containing thousands of child pornography files. Cafferty admitted during an interview that he had shipped these hard drives from London to his home in Largo.

Cafferty faces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, as well as the possibility of lifetime supervised release. Cafferty also faces a fine of $250,000.

This case was investigated by the FBI, the Department of State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, and the Largo Police Department.

I don't know if Mr. Cafferty quit or was fired.  This presumably is a firing offense under "notoriously disgraceful conduct" that which, were it to become widely known, would embarrass, discredit, or subject to opprobrium the perpetrator, the Foreign Service, and the United States:

"Disqualification of a candidate or discipline of an employee, including separation for cause, is warranted when the potential for opprobrium or
contempt should the conduct become public knowledge could be reasonably expected to affect adversely the person’s ability to perform his or her own job or the agency’s ability to carry out its responsibilities. "

The Center for Problem-Oriented Policing has put together a guide on the problem of Internet child pornography. It notes that "users of Internet child pornography are not necessarily involved in hands-on sexual abuse of children." The guide says that it is not known exactly how many people may access child pornography on the Internet without ever physically abusing a child. Before the Internet, between one-fifth and one-third of people arrested for possession of child pornography were also involved in actual abuse.

Apparently offenders also come from all walks of life and show few warning signs: "[U]sers of child pornography on the Internet are more than likely to be in a relationship, to be employed, to have an above average IQ, to be college educated, and to not have a criminal record. Those arrested for online child pornography crimes have included judges, dentists, teachers, academics, rock stars, soldiers, and police officers."

Related articles

• State department employee pleads guilty to child pornography charges (examiner.com)
• Stung By FBI, Perverted State Department Employee Pleads Guilty In Child Porn Case (gangsgoonsandgunz.com)

Diplomatic Security Special Agent Indicted for Possession and Receipt of Child Pornography

Via DOJ/FBI:

TAMPA—United States Attorney Robert E. O’Neill announces that James Charles Cafferty (45, Largo) was indicted on October 19, 2011 for possession and receipt of child pornography. Cafferty faces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in federal prison on the charge involving the receipt of child pornography, and up to 10 years in federal prison on the possession of child pornography charge. At the time of his arrest, Cafferty was a special agent in Diplomatic Security with the Department of State.

This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, State Department Bureau of Diplomatic Security, and the Largo Police Department. It is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Colleen Murphy Davis.

The case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by the United States Attorneys’ Offices and the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who sexually exploit children, and to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.projectsafechildhood.gov. For more information about Internet safety education, please visit www.projectsafechildhood.gov and click on the tab “other resources.”

The Smoking Gun covered this case in late September here complete with a mug shot. The special agent for Diplomatic Security was reportedly stationed at the U.S. Embassy in London when he was named in an August 29 felony complaint charging him with possession of child pornography.

Thanks to a Hardworking Congress, Some Feds in the Garden Countries of I'Af/Pak to Lose Some Benefits

Stephen Losey of Federal Times reported last week that federal employees deployed to the I'Af/Pak region who are not in the Foreign Service have now lost numerous travel, medical and leave benefits because those benefits were not renewed by Congress after they expired Oct. 1. Excerpts:

The following benefits, which are available to Foreign Service officers, will no longer be available to non-Foreign Service personnel posted in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan, according to the Office of Personnel Management:

• Reimbursement of travel costs when going home on leave.

• Reimbursement of travel costs when obtaining necessary medical care when such care is not available locally.
• Reimbursement of travel costs when evacuating family members who are in imminent danger.
• Reimbursement of travel costs when transporting furniture and other personal effects when moving to another duty station.
• Mandatory leave for employees who have returned home after a three-year deployment. Agencies also will no longer have the option to offer leave to employees who had served in a war zone for 18 months.
• Medical examinations, mental health care, inoculations, vaccinations and other preventative care.
• A death gratuity equal to one year's salary when an employee dies of injuries sustained while supporting military operations.

Read in full here.

I have not read the OPM notice but I am presuming that these changes applies to non-Foreign Service and non-Defense employees serving in those three priority countries.

The 2010 OIG review of US Embassy Pakistan indicates that there are some three dozens non-State and non-DOD personnel in that country (DEA: 16, FBI: 7, DHS: 4, BBG:1, DOE: 1, NAS: 8, Treasury: 1).

On the U.S. Embassy Iraq staffing -- well, trying to pin down the staffing number over there, is of course, rocket science and I simply do not have the brains for it. Also, with the military withdrawal and the embassy taking charge, a whole lot of big numbers are bring thrown around - 5,000 - 17,000.  Security people is a big component but not sure how many non-State/USAID and non-DOD personnel will continue to deploy in Iraq and our consulates there when all is said and done in 2011. 

Due to the recent "flavor of the month" in Afghanistan, the civilian uplift staffing picture there is a bit more clearer.  Seven civilian agencies (State/USAID excepted) account for about 26% of the total civilian uplift.  So all those folks, plus some three dozens in Pakistan and an undetermined number in Iraq will be affected by Congress' non-renewal of warzone benefits.

In short, if they need mental health care after service in the warzones, they're basically out of luck?

This will have an impact to the employees already deployed there, but may have a larger impact on recruitment of employees for the 2012 assignment and onward.

From SIGAR/State OIG

Below is an excerpt from the SIGAR/State OIG review of the civilian uplift in that country:

[...] State increased its civilian personnel deployed to Afghanistan from 192 in January 2009, to 501 in March 2011—an increase of 309 personnel.

State has an additional 81 authorized full-time equivalent positions for the civilian uplift as of May 31, 2011, but the positions are currently unfilled. According to State officials from the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs (SCA), they will continue to place additional civilian personnel in these positions through fiscal years 2011 and 2012.

USAID had the second largest presence of any agency prior to the start of the uplift. USAID personnel increased from 85 in January 2009 to 307 as of March 2011, an increase of 222 personnel. USAID has an additional 80 authorized positions for Afghanistan that are currently unfilled. According to USAID officials, they will continue to place additional U.S. civilians in these positions in fiscal years 2011 and 2012.

As of June 2011, the other seven civilian agencies with a presence in Afghanistan accounted for an increase of 189 personnel, or approximately 26 percent of the total civilian uplift. These agencies provide personnel at the request and direction of the Chief of Mission in Afghanistan and State officials in Washington in order to meet the mission’s strategic goals. The Chief of Mission determines the number of authorized civilian uplift positions in consultation with each department.

DOJ accounted for an increase of 78 personnel, or 11 percent, of the total civilian uplift. The majority of these uplift personnel are employees of the Drug Enforcement Administration who work on mentoring and training Afghan law enforcement entities in an effort to promote the rule of law. In addition, they provide leadership and guidance in the conduct of bilateral counternarcotics investigations and operations. USDA has deployed 59 civilian uplift personnel as of June 2011, representing eight percent of the total civilian uplift. These employees primarily mentor Afghan government officials at the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, and Livestock.

The remaining five agencies account for approximately seven percent of the total civilian uplift. DHS personnel advise, mentor, and train Afghan border, customs, and related entities to enforce Afghan customs and immigration law. Treasury places technical experts at Afghan government ministries where they provide assistance in four areas: strengthening budget and financial accountability, combating economic crimes and corruption, building internal audit capacity and increasing non-tax revenues, and achieving debt relief and improving debt management. Transportation personnel advise officials at the Afghan Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation on issues such as civil aviation law and surface transportation planning. HHS personnel work on health programs, such as programs to strengthen maternal and child health services in Afghanistan. Finally, Commerce personnel assist with efforts to promote Afghanistan’s economic development and trade. 

Related item:       
SIGAR Audit-11-17 & State OIG AUD/SI-11-45 Civilian Uplift | September 8, 2011

State Dept CA CIO Kirit Amin Rants on FSOs, Cronyism, Nepotism, "Doormats"... Two Days Later, Apologizes

In June, I wrote about the OIG review of the Consular Affairs Bureau's Consolidated Consular Database (CCD) ran under the umbrella of CA/CST.

To recap, the OIG arrived at the following conclusion:

The CCD is the backbone of all consular applications and services and supports domestic and overseas passport and visa activities. The CCD is the repository for data from all the individual consular sections and passport office databases. It uses state-of-the-art technology with agile and robust design for scalability and availability. The CCD is accessed by 11,000 Department users, as well as 19,000 users in other agencies (for example, DHS, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Social Security Administration.). The CCD is the personally identifiable data repository for American citizens services, passports, immigrant visas, and nonimmigrant visas. Because of the CCD’s importance to national security, ensuring its data integrity, availability, and confidentiality is vital

CST does not have adequate oversight of CCD operations. [REDACTED]

The report also reviewed leadership and management issues and its impact on CST, and points out that of the total 68 personnel working at CST only 6 are Foreign Service Officers.  Make a mental note of that. Read more here.

On October 5, 2011, Federal News Radio reports that "State's Amin leaving CIO role temporarily."  That's Kirit Amin who has been CIO at the Bureau of Consular Affairs for four years.  Excerpts below:

Kirit Amin, the chief information officer of the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs, said he will take a 120-day reassignment with the State Department CIO.

He cited frustration with senior management decisions and the refusal of employees to change the way they work as some of the reasons for the move.

"I think we've made a tremendous difference in spite of opposition from people entrenched in the government for years," Amin said in an exclusive interview with Federal News Radio. " ... I was saying State was doing some contracts which are bad contracts — that was costing us far more than it should. I said 'Wait a minute,' and they want to cover it up. There is a lot of cronyism and nepotism going on at State."
[...]
"The State Department is ruled by the foreign service. These guys go overseas and have a good time and come here and have no idea what they are doing," he said. "The agency is ruled by them, and even Secretary Hillary Clinton is starting to admit to that. I think the civil service employees are treated like doormats. You fight with them for what's right and they can't take it."

The American Foreign Service Association has objected to Amin's comments, calling them "outrageous."

Read in full here.

Federal News Radio then reports that Daniel Hirsch, state vice president of AFSA, took exception to those comments. Also dated October 5, AFSA objects to Amin's characterization of Foreign Service:

In an emailed statement to Federal News Radio, Hirsch wrote, "These outrageous comments raise serious questions about whether Mr. Amin even understands the basic mission of the agency he is working for, much as protesting that the Department of Defense is "ruled" by the military would raise questions about whether a person understood the purpose of that agency."

On October 6, by great coincidence, Bob Gourley of Sys-Con Media has a piece on the Department of State’s Consular Systems and Technology: A Track Record of Innovation, and Kirit Amin.   

This year, CST also won two awards from the Association For Federal Information Resources Management (AFFIRM), a Leadership Award in Service Excellence for the CEAC team and a Leadership Award in Service of the Country to Kirit Amin.

Leadership Award for Service to the Country: Kirit Amin, CIO, Bureau Consular Affairs, Office of Consular Systems & Tech, US Department of State Presented for excellence in government information services improvement or effectiveness on a national level by leveraging information for mission accomplishment.

On October 7, Mr. Amin released an open letter to AFSA, published by Federal News Radio.

On Wednesday, Federal News Radio reported that I was to be seconded to the Information Resources Management Office within the State Department. That was not incorrect. An article based on the phone conversation that I had with Jason Miller, Executive Editor of that outlet, contained elements of an interview that characterized my opinion on a number of concerns within the State Department, including my comments about professional, Foreign Service Officers who work here. It is worth mentioning, that those comments as stated in the article had nothing to do with, or any relationship to that new assignment.

To my colleagues and peers at AFSA, I offer my complete and sincere apology. The phone conversation with Miller, someone who I have worked with and known for some time, could not have come at a more inconvenient time. I had just learned of my new assignment and was working to put together a transition strategy to honor that obligation, when I took the call. It is never wrong to work with members of the media however in this age of instant communications I should have remembered that an instant answer is not always required.
[...]
During my four years of working at the Bureau of Consular Affairs, I have had the honor to work with talented, dedicated and brave FSOs as they were serving their country, often in very dangerous postings around the world. I have been privileged enough to become close friends with a number of them. Because of that special consideration, I sincerely regret and apologize if my words brought discredit to them or Foreign Service Officers in general.
[....]
I am confident that those of you that recognize the work represented by my team are also aware of my professional frustration of not being able to make the changes more quickly; especially, when I am so sure that they would enable us to serve the FSO community more expeditiously. That every manager, director and senior leader that I know, in government and the private sector, shares this frustration, is little solace.

Read in full here.

I don't know how this will end. But one of the possible scenarios would be Mr. Amin's resignation to spend more time with his family.

Related articles

• Guest Post: A Diplomat's Guide to Reading WikiLeaks (wired.com)
• U.S. Issues Global Travel Alert After Iranian Assassination Plot Revealed (businessinsider.com)

USA vs. Ishmael Jones (Pen Name): Secrecy Agreement Does Not Violate First Amendment Rights

Image via WikipediaVia Secrecy News:

"Judge Gerald Bruce Lee of the Eastern District of Virginia ruled at a June 15 hearing (pdf) that the CIA officer, who goes by the pseudonym “Ishmael Jones,” would be held liable for publishing his 2008 book “The Human Factor: Inside the CIA’s Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture” in the face of a refusal by the CIA’s Prepublication Review Board to clear the volume for publication."

According to the author's website:

"Ishmael Jones, a pseudonym, was born in the United States and raised in the Middle East, East Asia, and East Africa. He attended universities in the US and served as an officer in the US Marine Corps. In the late 1980’s he joined the Central Intelligence Agency where he served as a deep cover officer focusing on human sources with access to intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. His assignments included more than 15 years of continuous overseas service in numerous exotic countries and several rogue nations. He resigned from the CIA in good standing."

On the 2010 CIA lawsuit over Jones' book published in 2008:

"The CIA requires that its employees submit manuscripts before publication in order to make sure that no classified information is revealed. After review, the CIA sends authors a list of what sentences need to be removed or rewritten. For The Human Factor, the CIA was unable to find any classified information in the manuscript, but objected to its criticism of the CIA, and took the unusual step of disapproving every single word in the manuscript. During the year that the CIA spent evaluating the manuscript, Jones repeatedly offered to remove or rewrite anything in the manuscript. 

Initially, the book drew relatively little attention, but as Jones continued to work toward intelligence reform and to meet with members of Congress and the Administration, he began to get more traction. In July 2010, more than two years after the book was published, the CIA filed a lawsuit against Jones. Jones learned about the lawsuit in September 2010, when the CIA served him papers."

Below is Judge Gerald Bruce Lee of the Eastern District of Virginia ruling excerpted from the June 15 hearing transcript obtained by Secrecy News.

Let the record reflect this matter is before the Court on the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment as to liability. And this is a case as we've heard involving the publication of a manuscript that was not approved by the Agency in prepublication review as required by the secrecy agreement.

So the issue is whether the Court should grant the Government's motion for summary judgment as to liability where the plaintiff signed a secrecy agreement which is attached to the complaint as Government Exhibit A. And, the Agency required under the secrecy agreement that the plaintiff obtain written permission from the Central Intelligence Agency's publication review board prior to publishing any work. And the plaintiff did not secure Agency approval prior to having his book published.

The facts are not in dispute, it seems to me. Plaintiff admits that he was signatory to the secrecy agreement. He did prepare a manuscript which he submitted to the publication review board multiple times, and he was given feedback from the Agency about what was publishable and what was not.

His opinion is that the Agency's refusal to approve publication of his book was unreasonable and deprived him of his rights under the First Amendment, and he decided to publish the book without securing Agency approval.

I don't think that this is really a very difficult question. I think the Snepp case would control here. It seems to me that where he signed a binding secrecy agreement that prevented from publishing any materials prior to receiving written consent, that under Snepp this liability for the Government has been established.

His signing a secrecy agreement does not violate his First Amendment rights. And his claim that the Court should deny summary judgment because of genuine issue of fact about whether the plaintiff's counterclaim alleging First Amendment violations creates a genuine issue of fact for trial.

It seems to me that the judgment that he exercised at some risk, according to his own counsel, to publish a matter without securing Agency approval does not demonstrate that the Government breached the contract first because plaintiff acknowledges that under the process in effect that once the prepublication board denied his request for publication, that he had a remedy and that remedy was to come to U.S. District Court and to pursue a claim to have the Court determine if the Agency's withholding of permission was unreasonable. Not having exercised that right, I do not see how the Government could be held liable for breach when they were pursuing the process as set forth in the agreement.

So, I am first of all holding that the Snepp case controls here. They're both -- Snepp was an agent and so is this plaintiff. They both signed secrecy agreements. They both failed to adhere to them knowing what they were -- the agreement said.

I don't think any discovery is necessary because the plaintiff admits that he published without the permission. And the issue of whether the Government breached first because of some sham appellate review, the process was never over. And, his judgment to go forward without the completing -- pursuing his remedies before the court was the breach. It was not the Government's breach. The Government was carrying out it's agreement.

So, for those reasons, it is the -- the case is also very similar to Marchetti, but I don't think we needs to go as far as Marchetti. I think that Snepp is sufficient.

Motion for summary judgment for the Government is granted, and the case will be dismissed as it relates to his claim, counterclaim. So, partial summary judgment liability is granted.

What remains to be done is the issue of what remedy the Government is entitled to because of the breach of secrecy agreement.

The Snepp case mentioned above is SNEPP v. UNITED STATES, 444 U.S. 507 (1980) where SCOTUS held that:

"A former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, who had agreed not to divulge classified information without authorization and not to publish any information relating to the Agency without prepublication clearance, breached a fiduciary obligation when he published a book about certain Agency activities without submitting his manuscript for prepublication review. The proceeds of his breach are impressed with a constructive trust for the benefit of the Government."

In the NYT review of Snepp's book Irreparable Harm in 1999, James Bamford writes:

"[...] The C.I.A. would later admit in court, the book contained no secrets at all.  Unable to go after Snepp for unauthorized release of classified information, the C.I.A. and the Justice Department instead sued him for violating a clause in his original agency contract demanding prepublication review. The goal, Snepp says, was to reduce him to penury and seal his lips and fingers with legal superglue. In court, the Government argued that Snepp should be stripped of all earnings from the book -- virtually every penny he had made in the nearly two years it took to write it -- as well as all future profits. At the same time, the C.I.A. asked the court to impose a lifetime gag order on him, demanding that he submit all writings -- articles, scripts, novels, speeches, everything, true or fictional -- for prior censorship. The only exceptions were cookbooks and treatises on gardening. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, but Snepp ultimately lost, sending him into a financial and emotional tailspin from which he is only now recovering. (Even this memoir had to be vetted before he could give it to his editor.)"

A lifetime gag. Holy mooolly guacamole! A lesson for the ages ... fighting with city hall is a perilous enterprise.

So it looks like -- if you put in your book for prepublication review, and the board tasked with clearing it sits on it like jerks, or even deny you permission to publish it given the secrecy agreement you signed, you cannot just go ahead and publish the book. Even after claiming First Amendment protection.  After denial by a prepublication board, it looks like you have to take the agency/USG to a U.S. District Court so a judge (or jury?) can decide if the denial of permission to publish is unreasonable.  I wonder if anyone has ever tried that.

I haven't read these books but now have an excuse to borrow both books from the library. 

 

 

 

DHS/CBP Inspector Gets 17 Years in Prison for Alien Smuggling, Drug Smuggling and Bribery

Image via WikipediaVia DOJ/U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas

BROWNSVILLE, TX—Former Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspector Luis Enrique Ramirez, 39, has been sentenced to a total of 204 months in federal prison, United States Attorney José Angel Moreno announced today. Ramirez, of Brownsville, Texas, was convicted in March 2011, following his guilty plea to conspiring to transport certain aliens within the United States, bringing in a certain aliens into the United States for private financial gain, accepting bribes in his capacity as a government official, and possessing with intent to distribute a quantity exceeding five kilograms of cocaine.

Ramirez, 38, of Brownsville, pleaded guilty on March 3, 2011. At that time, Ramirez admitted that between November 2007 and January 2009, while employed as a CBP officer, he was a member of a drug trafficking organization. He admitted that on Dec. 17, 2008, he allowed a co-conspirator to drive a vehicle laden with 12 kilograms of cocaine into the United States via a vehicle primary inspection lane he was manning at the time. Ramirez also admitted that between July 2008 through January 2009, he conspired with others to bring illegal aliens into the United States and to transport them furthering their illegal presence in the United States for commercial advantage and private financial gain and accepting bribes to influence him in his official capacity as a CBP officer.

Ramirez received the statutory maximum 120 months for each of the two counts of alien smuggling counts, the statutory maximum of 180 months for the bribery conviction, as well as 204 months for drug smuggling. All sentences are to run concurrently. Following his prison term, he will also serve 10 years of supervised release. As part of his sentence, U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen also entered a money judgment in the amount of $500,000 against the defendant, a sum representing the proceeds of Ramirez’s criminal activity, to the United States.

Ramirez’s sentence includes upward adjustments or increases in his calculated sentencing guideline range because he recruited other individuals, he was a public official, he received more than one bribe, he received more than $5,000 in bribes and he was in a high level or sensitive position and used his position as a public official to facilitate the illegal entry persons and narcotics into United States.

Ramirez has been in custody since his arrest, where he will remain pending transfer to a Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future where he will serve out his sentence.

A public official who sold himself for half a million dollars. This did say for two counts of alien smuggling, but not sure that means he only assisted two individuals gained illegal entry to the United States. Mr. Ramirez also received "more than one bribe" but how many more is that.  In any case, if he serve his entire sentence, he'll be 55 by the time he gets out of jail.

Related articles

• Corruption adds to problems on the border (chron.com)
• National Guard to Deploy Troops to Mexican Border (gloucestercitynews.net)
• "DHS: An Acceptable Level of Illegal Migration; a Downsized Border Patrol?" and related posts (thewesterner.blogspot.com)

 

 

 

Officially In: James H. Thessin to Asuncion

Image via WikipediaOn April 7, President Obama announced his intent to nominate James H. Thessin to be Ambassador to the Republic of Paraguay. The WH released the following brief bio:

James Thessin is a career member of the Senior Executive Service and has served as a Deputy Legal Adviser at the Department of State since 1990.  Prior to this assignment, Mr. Thessin served at  the Department of State as the Assistant Legal Adviser for Management, the Assistant Legal Adviser for Human Rights and Refugee Affairs, and an Attorney-Advisor for Political Military Affairs.  Before joining the Department in 1982,  Mr. Thessin served as an attorney for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Federal Trade Commission.   

Mr. Thessin received an A.A. at Father Judge Mission Seminary, an A.B. from Catholic University and a J.D. from Harvard Law School.

Active links added above. If confirmed, Mr. Thessin would succeed Liliana Ayalde who was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in June 2008 as U.S. Ambassador to Paraguay.

Related items:
President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts, 4/7/2011
Why the Legacy Tours? Rutherford B. Hayes Memorial BP Station | December 30, 2008

$5 Million Reward for Information Re: Shootings of Two ICE Agents in Mexico

Via the DOJ press shop:

The Departments of Justice, State and Homeland Security today jointly announced a reward of up to $5 million for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of individuals allegedly responsible for the murder of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Special Agent Jaime Zapata and the attempted murder of ICE HSI Special Agent Victor Avila.

The FBI, in conjunction with ICE, has established a 24-hour tip line based in the United States to process the information.  Individuals in the United States with information are encouraged to call 1-866-859-9778.  Individuals in Mexico can provide information by calling +001 800-225-5324.  Spanish language speakers will be available using either number.  Anyone wishing to email information can do so by visiting: https://tips.fbi.gov .  All information is considered confidential.

Also today the Government of Mexico announced a reward of up to 10 million pesos for information leading to the arrest of individuals allegedly responsible for the murder and attempted murder.  Individuals can call (55) 53-46-15-44 and (55) 53-46-00-00, extension 4748 in Mexico City.  Outside of Mexico City, individuals can call 01-800-831-31-96 to provide information.  Information may also be sent to the following email address: denunciapgr@gob.mx.  More information about the Government of Mexico’s award can be found at www.recompensas.gob.mx.

Zapata and Avila were ambushed in Mexico on Feb. 15, 2011, as they were traveling in their U.S. government-issued vehicle from the state of San Luis Potosi to Mexico City.  Mexican authorities have detained several individuals in connection with this incident and the investigation continues at this time.

The U.S. reward is being offered by the U.S. government through the U.S. Department of State’s Narcotics Rewards Program, which was established by Congress in 1986.  Additional information on this program can be found at: www.state.gov/p/inl/narc/rewards/index.htm.





Related posts:

US Mission Mexico: ICE Special Agents Killed/Wounded at Fake Roadblock | Feb 16, 2011

"Fast and Furious” gun killed ICE Special Agent Jaime Zapata in Mexico?? | Mar 07, 2011

Related articles

• Suspect in Custody for ICE Agents Shooting (abcnews.go.com)
• Source: Attackers in Mexico ran US agents off road (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Suspect Napped in Killing of ICE Agent in Mexico (foxnews.com)
• U.S. offers $5 million in hunt for killer of federal agent (chron.com)

Former CIA Station Chief to Algeria Gets 65 Months for Sexual Assault on Embassy Property

Via USDOJ today, did not mention that the official was formerly the station chief:

Former U.S. Official Sentenced to 65 Months in Prison for Sexually Assaulting Woman on Embassy Property in Algeria

WASHINGTON - Andrew Warren, 43, a former official with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), was sentenced today to 65 months in prison on charges of abusive sexual contact and unlawful use of cocaine while possessing a firearm, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Ronald C. Machen Jr., and Eric J. Boswell, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security.

Warren pleaded guilty to the charges in June 2010 and was sentenced in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by the U.S. District Court Judge Ellen S. Huvelle.   Judge Huvelle also sentenced Warren to 10 years of supervised release following his prison term.
   
During the plea hearing last year, Warren admitted that on Feb. 17, 2008, he committed abusive sexual contact while on U.S. embassy property in Algiers, Algeria, by engaging in sexual contact with a female victim after he rendered her unconscious.   Additionally, Warren admitted that on April 26, 2010, he unlawfully used cocaine while possessing a Glock, 9 millimeter semi-automatic pistol in Norfolk, Va.

This case was investigated by Diplomatic Security Service; the U.S. Marshals Service in Norfolk; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the Norfolk Police Department; and the Inspector General and the General Counsel of the CIA.   The case was prosecuted by Trial Attorney Christine Duey of the Criminal Division’s Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section, Assistant U.S. Attorney Julieanne Himelstein of the District of Columbia and Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Haynie from the Eastern District of Virginia.

Mr. Warren can now add one more thing to his Wikipedia entry:

Andrew M. Warren (c. 1968–) is an author, spy, former CIA operative, and jailbird, who served as Station Chief of the CIA field office in Algiers during 07-2008.

You can read more about the Andrew Warren saga from our blog pal, The Skeptical Bureaucrat here.

US Mission Mexico: ICE Special Agents Killed/Wounded at Fake Roadblock on Road to Monterrey

Special Agent Jaime Zapata killed, Special Agent Victor Avila wounded

ICE Special Agent Jaime Zapata was killed Tuesday, February 15 when gunmen fired on the diplomatic plate SUV he was riding in an apparent ambushed at a fake roadblock. LAT reported that Zapata and another agent, Victor Avila who was wounded in the gunfire but survived the attack were driving from Mexico City toward the northern city of Monterrey when they were attacked in the state of San Luis Potosi.

LAT also says that U.S. Immigration and Customs officials said Wednesday that Zapata was a native of Brownsville, Texas, and four-year veteran of the department on loan from the Laredo, Texas, ICE office. He and the Agent Avila were attached temporarily to the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City.

Here is a statement from DHS Secretary Napolitano on February 15, 2011:

“I’m deeply saddened by the news that earlier today, two U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) special agents assigned to the ICE Attaché office in Mexico City were shot in the line of duty while driving between Mexico City and Monterrey by unknown assailants.

One agent was critically wounded in this attack and died from his injuries. The second agent was shot in the leg and remains in stable condition.

U.S. law enforcement agencies are working closely with Mexican authorities who are investigating the shooting to ensure the perpetrators of this unconscionable crime are captured as quickly as possible.

Let me be clear: any act of violence against our ICE personnel – or any DHS personnel – is an attack against all those who serve our nation and put their lives at risk for our safety. The full resources of our Department are at the disposal of our Mexican partners in this investigation. We remain committed in our broader support for Mexico’s efforts to combat violence within its borders.

I ask that you join me in praying for our fallen and wounded colleagues. Please keep them, and all our DHS personnel serving abroad or in harm’s way, in your thoughts.”

On February 16, Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric Holder also decided to establish a joint task force between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice "to work with Mexico in tracking down the perpetrators and swiftly bring them to justice." The joint task force will be led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

"This joint task force reflects our commitment to bring the investigatory and prosecutorial power of the U.S. Government to bear as we work with the Mexican Government to bring these criminals to justice," said Secretary Napolitano. "Our thoughts and prayers are with the ICE agents' families and loved ones, as we are reminded of the risks and sacrifices undertaken every day by the men and women on the frontlines in protecting the safety and security of the American people."

"The murder of Special Agent Jaime Zapata and the shooting of another ICE agent provide a sad reminder of the dangers American law enforcement officers face every day," Attorney General Eric Holder said. "Working with our Mexican counterparts, we have already launched an aggressive investigation, and this joint task force will ensure that every available resource is used to bring the perpetrators of this terrible crime to justice."

The LAT adds that ICE has between 25 and 30 agents in Mexico. Agents also have worked with the government to train Mexicans in advanced investigative techniques used in customs and smuggling investigations.

We're not going to hear that these men were victims of a random act of violence and were not targeted, are we?


Updated 2/17 @11:28 pm

On February 17, US Consulate General Monterrey issued the following Warden Message:

On February 15, one U.S. government employee was murdered and another seriously wounded in an attack while traveling in a U.S. government vehicle on Mexican Highway 57 near Santa Maria del Rio, San Luis Potosi.  The Mexican government has assured the U.S. Embassy that all necessary actions to bring the perpetrators of this heinous act to justice will be taken.

American citizens residing in, visiting, or traveling through the geographic area bordered by, and including, the central Mexican cities of San Luis Potosi, Zacatecas, Aguascalientes, Leon, Guanajuato, Dolores Hidalgo and San Miguel de Allende should maintain a heightened sense of alert while the Mexican government investigation into this incident continues.  Americans in this area should monitor local news and information to stay informed about situations that could affect their security. 

The U.S. Mission has instructed its employees and their families to defer travel to the State of San Luis Potosi, effective immediately.  U.S. citizens should defer unnecessary travel to the State.

The most recent data available from state.gov indicates that of the 18 US posts in Mexico, the following six have been designated danger pay posts:

Ciudad Juarez       20%
Monterrey            20%
Matamoros          15%
Nuevo Laredo     15%
Tijuana                15%
Nogales                5%

The danger pay allowance is designed to provide additional compensation above basic compensation to all U.S. Government civilian employees, including Chiefs of Mission, for service at places in foreign areas where there exist conditions of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions which threaten physical harm or imminent danger to the health or well-being of an employee.  These conditions do not include acts characterized chiefly as economic crime.

Related articles

• Drug gang shot U.S. agents, Mexican official says (msnbc.msn.com)
• Gunmen kill U.S. agent, wound another, in Mexico (ctv.ca)
• Feds Probe Murder of U.S. Agent in Mexico (abcnews.go.com)
• Slain ICE agent identified; another agent wounded in Mexico (cnn.com)
• ICE Agent Death Highlights Risks in Drug War (cbsnews.com)

Eight days till election day - do you know your Hatch Act Rules?

The Hatch Act of 1939 is a United States federal law whose main provision is to prohibit federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity.

The 2010 midterm election is predicted to be one of the most expensive and heated elections in recent years. The Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an independent investigative and prosecutorial agency with jurisdiction to enforce the Hatch Act recently cited two Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) decisions to remind all federal employees of the importance of understanding and observing the Hatch Act’s restrictions on political activity. As seen from these decisions, the penalties for violating the Hatch Act are significant. The federal employee in the first case was ordered removed; and the second employee was ordered suspended without pay for 120 days. According to OSC:

The first employee was a Program Analyst/Contracting Officer Technical Representative with the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP). This employee, while on duty and in the federal workplace, forwarded several partisan political e‐mails, including two that solicited political contributions, to BEP employees and BEP contractor employees over whom she had authority and influence. In finding that the BEP employee violated the Hatch Act’s restrictions on using official authority or influence to affect the result of an election, soliciting, accepting or receiving political contributions, and engaging in political activity while on duty or in a room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties, the MSPB found that the employee’s conduct was “little different than distributing campaign literature prepared by others, a clear violation of the Hatch Act.” Special Counsel v. Ware, 114 M.S.P.R. 128, 138 (2010). The MSPB also ruled that “soliciting contributions from persons doing business with an agency is a serious violation of the Hatch Act because of the threat of coercion and the appearance that government contracts are awarded based on political patronage rather than competitive bidding.” Id. at 137.

The second case involved an employee of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The employee, while on duty and in the federal workplace, disseminated a fundraising e-mail to approximately 44 recipients. The e‐mail requested contributions for then‐Presidential candidate Barack Obama, and provided three links for recipients to make contributions online. In affirming the Initial Decision finding that the IRS employee violated the Hatch Act’s restrictions on soliciting, accepting or receiving political contributions, and engaging in political activity while on duty or in a room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties, the MSPB stated that “any Hatch Act violation by a federal employee, on duty and in government offices, [is] a serious matter.” Special Counsel v. Mark, 114 M.S.P.R. 516, 520 (2010). Also, the MSPB determined that the employee’s violation warranted a “significant penalty” of a 120‐day suspension. Id. at 525.

Read the whole thing here.

In the September issue of AFSANet, the organization issued a Hatch reminder and cited the "most recent cable on this issue" (the text unfortunately, appears to be extracted from the original cable and does not contain any daytimegroup indicator, so we can't tell how recent this is). Here is a summary: 

For Foreign Service employees: Hatch Act requirements and Department policy place broad restrictions on what political activities Presidential appointees may undertake. All employees are prohibited from engaging in partisan political activities while "on duty." For Chiefs of Mission serving overseas, this restriction has a large footprint; you are considered to be "on duty" twenty-four hours per day while at your post of assignment. Accordingly, you may not engage in any partisan political activities while at post, including host ing events at the Embassy or official residence on behalf of a partisan political candidate or group (after consultation with L/Ethics, however, the Embassy may be able to meet with such candidates or meet with members of these groups under other limited circumstances). You also may not leave post for the primary purpose of participating in partisan political activities in the United States.

In addition, your partisan activities are considerably restricted even when not at post. You may not endorse or oppose a candidate for partisan political office in a political advertisement, broadcast, campaign literature, or similar medium. You may not attend a political party convention or an election night celebration, unless authorized to attend due to special circumstances by the Department's Designated Agency Ethics Official, Deputy Legal Adviser Jim Thessin. You may not run for a partisan political office or work for a partisan political campaign. You also may not speak, attend or host a fundraising event for a partisan political candidate or party, or conduct any fundraising activity in this regard, even if the candidate is a spouse or family member.

Like other employees, Chiefs of Mission may register and vote; express personal opinions on partisan political subjects; and be a member of a partisan political party or group. You also may make contributions to political parties or candidates, subject to state and federal limitations. Additionally, when authorized by the Executive Secretary of the Department, you may provide foreign policy briefings in your official capacity to candidates and political groups on a nonpartisan basis.

For your ready reference, we have reprinted below the Department's more detailed guidance on political activity restrictions applicable to PAS employees. This is also available on the ethics webpage at http://ethics.state.gov If you have further questions, please contact the attorneys at L/Ethics, preferably by e-mail on the SBU at L-EMP-Ethics-Attorney-Mailbox, or, by phone at 202-647-4646.  We also urge that all employees familiarize themselves with 5 FAM 790, Social Media Use and Policy, which may also affect political activity.

Read the whole Hatch Act Rules and detailed guidance for FS personnel here.


OSC has put together a Federal Q&A on the Hatch Act here.

If you are a Federal employee and is active on Facebook Twitter, blogs, etc., the OSC's FAQ regarding social media and the Hatch Act may also be worth a read. Reposted below via USNavy in Slideshare:

FAQ Regarding Social Media and the Hatch Act - U.S. Office of Special Counsel, 27 July 2010

Related articles

• Federal Employees Told To Be Careful Mixing Politics, Facebook (techdailydose.nationaljournal.com)
• Federal Workers Limited In Social Media Activities (informationweek.com)
• EPA's Jackson Tweets Hatch Act Violation Attacking Christine O'Donnell? (riehlworldview.com)

Officially In: Robert P. Mikulak to OPCW

Image via Wikipedia

On July 9, President Obama announced his intent to nominate Robert P. Mikulak to be the United States Representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) with the rank of Ambassador during his tenure. The WH released the following brief bio:

Robert P. Mikulak is a career member of the Senior Executive Service.  He has served as Director of the Office of Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat Reduction in the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation at the Department of State since 1996.  Dr. Mikulak is also the United States Representative to the Executive Council of the OPCW.  He served between 1993 and 1996 as the Deputy Head of the U. S. Delegation to the Chemical Weapons Convention Preparatory Commission in The Hague. During the negotiation of the 1989 and 1990 U.S.-Soviet agreements on chemical weapons and the multilateral 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention, he served as a Senior U.S. Representative.

Dr. Mikulak received his B.S. from Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota, and his Ph.D. in Chemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.


Related Item:
President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts, 7/9/10

Senate Hearing on Deployed Federal Civilians

Image via Wikipedia

Deployed Federal Civilians: Advancing Security and Opportunity in Afghanistan
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia

Wednesday, April 14, 2010
02:30 PM - 04:30 PM
Dirksen Senate Office Building, room 342

[view archive webcast]


Witnesses

    * The Honorable John Berry [view testimony]
      Director
      U.S. Office of Personnel Management

    * The Honorable Patrick Kennedy [view testimony]
      Under Secretary for Management
      U.S. Department of State

    * The Honorable Clifford Stanley [view testimony]
      Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness
      U.S. Department of Defense

    * Ms. Janet St. Laurent [view testimony]
      Managing Director, Defense, Capabilities, and Management
      U.S. Government Accountability Office

DHS/ICE Lawyer Convicted of Corruption Faces Maximumm Jail Time of 256 Years

From DOJ on April 20, 2010:

Immigration Agency Attorney Convicted of Federal Corruption Charges for Taking Thousands of Dollars in Bribes from Immigrants Seeking Status in U.S.

LOS ANGELES—A senior attorney with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was found guilty today of three dozen corruption-related charges for taking a series of bribes from immigrants who were seeking documentation to remain in the United States.

ICE Assistant Chief Counsel Constantine Peter Kallas, 39, of Alta Loma, was convicted by a federal jury following a three-week trial. The jury found Kallas guilty of conspiracy, six counts of bribery, two counts of obstruction of justice, seven counts of fraud and misuse of entry documents, three counts of aggravated identity theft, nine counts of making false statements to the Department of Labor, four counts of making false statements to obtain federal employee compensation, and four counts of tax evasion.

“Mr. Kallas was a corrupt government official who abused his position of trust to line his own pockets,” said United States Attorney André Birotte Jr. “This case should serve as a warning to any public official who might consider trading a quick buck for illegal acts that making this trade could send them to prison.”

Kallas has been in a federal jail since August 2008, about two months after he was arrested by special agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation at the San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino in Highland, where he and his wife accepted a bribe from an immigrant. The June 2008 bribe was the last in a series of incidents in which Kallas and his wife, Maria, told illegal aliens that Kallas was an immigration official—either an immigration judge or some other type of high-level immigration official—and that Kallas could obtain immigration benefits for the aliens in exchange for bribes which ran as high as $20,000.

Kallas took a $7,000 bribe from his housekeeper is return for using his official position at ICE to dismiss removal proceedings against the housekeeper’s daughter. The Kallases took bribes from four other illegal aliens in return for using two companies they had set up—Botno Inc. and Mississippi Valley Consulting Inc—to file Permanent Employment Certification applications with the Department of Labor that falsely claimed the companies had offered employment to the aliens.

According to court documents, the couple’s bank records show that, beyond Constantine Kallas’ salary, approximately $950,000 had been deposited in the couple’s bank accounts since 2000. When investigators searched the Kallas residence in June 2008, they discovered a hidden floor safe that contained more than $177,000 in cash and two dozen official immigration files.

As a result of today’s convictions, Kallas faces a statutory maximum sentence of 256 years in prison when he is sentenced by United States District Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. on August 9.

Read more here.

More on CG Ciudad Juarez Casualties, Authorized Departure, Threats

Below is an excerpt from the Daily Press Brief on March 15 with Assistant Secretary P.J. Crowley:

MR. CROWLEY: But finally, obviously, we are – we will, as the Secretary and the President pledged, work tirelessly with Mexican authorities to bring the killers of American citizens Lesley Enriquez, who was an employee of our U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez, and her husband Arthur Redelfs – the killers to justice. We are – offer our deepest condolences to the families as well as to the spouse of a U.S. Consular employee who was killed in a separate incident. But the investigation is ongoing. Today is a Mexican national holiday, but the Consulate will be closed tomorrow to review its security posture.
 
QUESTION: Well, can you be – I mean, just generally, what did she do?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. I mean, worked in the Consulate, obviously – it was one of our busier consular sections to process --

QUESTION: Processing visas?

MR. CROWLEY: -- visas for citizens wanting – or for Mexicans wanting to travel to the United States. My understanding, that both of these – the spouse of the – our Consular employee, local national employee and her husband and – as well as Lesley Enriquez and her husband had both been at a private birthday party and were on their way – in the case of Lesley Enriquez, on their way back across the border. They lived on the U.S. side. She was a civil service employee. Beyond that, as to the circumstances of what happened, this is all part of the investigation.

QUESTION: What about the second part about the authorized departure?

MR. CROWLEY: Oh, the authorized departure was something that had – the decision had already been made and was about to be announced. Obviously, we’ve looked at the increased risk and criminality associated with – along the northern border between Mexico and the United States and had made that decision to offer – to authorize dependents to come back to the United States if they choose. I think the population is just over a hundred that would be potentially affected by this. As far as I know, it was just announced yesterday. I can’t say at this point how many have taken advantage of –

QUESTION: When was the decision made?

MR. CROWLEY: It was made last week.

QUESTION: And why –

MR. CROWLEY: Based on an assessment by diplomatic security about the conditions along the northern border.

QUESTION: Well, when last week?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, I learned about it, I believe, on Friday.

QUESTION: Well, why was it not announced until Sunday?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think we were going to announce it as part of our revision of the travel advisory.

QUESTION: Were people able to take advantage of authorized departure before Sunday?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, these individuals that were involved in the incident yesterday would not have been affected by that announcement.

QUESTION: I’m not suggesting that they would have been. I’m just asking were there employees of the Embassy or the employee – families of employees of the consulates able to take advantage of authorized departure before Sunday?

MR. CROWLEY: I do not know.

QUESTION: Can you take that question? Because it goes to the whole double standard issue.

MR. CROWLEY: Double standard being?

QUESTION: The double standard being that when there is – when decisions like that are made, that they are not to be shared only within the Embassy community, but also made public. So if this decision was made and people were taking it and people knew about it and were taking advantage of it before Sunday, that would be (inaudible).

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not aware that anyone was taking advantage of it before Sunday.
[…]
QUESTION: Aside from this incident on Saturday, are you aware, were there any threats directed at – have there been, recently, threats directed at Americans or American diplomats?

MR. CROWLEY: Not to my knowledge.


Read the whole Daily Press Briefing here.

Related Posts:

• Three from US Consulate General Ciudad Juárez Dies in Drive-by Shooting.
• Six US Consulates in Mexico on Authorized Departure.

 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Decision on Americans' departure was before deaths (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Narcos Blamed For Killings Of 3 People Tied To US Consulate (huffingtonpost.com)

HRC Town Hall Meeting – One Year at State

Jan. 26, 2010 | Secretary Clinton holds a Town Hall Meeting with Department of State Employees Marking One Year at State, at the Department of State.

The Full Text is here. Lots of things said but I'm interested in what goes on inside the building.  Quick takes from the town hall.

On the Foreign Service loss:

When I spoke to family members who had lost loved ones – Victoria DeLong – and then I spoke with Andrew Wyllie – they both thanked me as Secretary for the outpouring of support that they had received from colleagues. In Victoria’s case, from people who had served with her, who knew her, who had reached out to the family, who had really demonstrated the closeness of community that exists among us. And for Andrew Wyllie, who inconceivably, unimaginably lost his wife on her birthday and his seven-and-a-half and five-year-old children, he mentioned specifically the names of those who had been working with him in these very difficult days to recover the bodies of his wife and children. And again, the sense that it was not even just a community, but a large and extended family came through in everything he said to me.

On misleading media reports and criticisms:

I have absolutely no argument with anyone lodging a legitimate criticism against our country. I think we can learn from that. And we are foolish if we keep our head in the sand and pretend that we can’t. On the other hand, I deeply resent those who attack our country, the generosity of our people, and the leadership of our President in trying to respond to historically disastrous conditions after the earthquake. So what we’re asking for is that people view us fairly.

And we sent cables to all posts. We asked our entire teams to be prepared to respond to any misleading media report. And we stood up for who we are and what we represent. And we saw the change. We’re not going to leave unanswered charges against the United States of America and the kind of work that we do every single day. That has to be, going forward, what becomes the norm, not the exception. We have a story to tell. We have an important message to deliver. And we need every single person to be part of that. So going forward, we’re going to look in a very clear-eyed way at what we do well, what we could improve on, but to make sure that the extraordinary story that the United States has to tell is presented forcefully and effectively in every corner of the world.

On jobs for family members. Nothing new here, maalesef:
QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you. And my second question is that employment opportunities for eligible family members overseas are an important factor in recruitment, retention, and post morale. Seventy-five percent of eligible family members have college degrees, of whom 50 percent have advanced degrees. Can you comment on the prospects for increasing eligible family member employment overseas and also address the possibility of increasing opportunities for employment through the use of teleworking?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, on the last one, teleworking, we are constantly exploring what more can be done. We think it has a lot of advantages. One that we have been promoting is more conferences by teleconference, SVTS, and the like. It saves money, it saves wear and tear, and it can often lead to the same or better outcome than you would get if people had to travel distances. On the teleworking side, similarly, we’re going to explore all kinds of options. I mean, technology gives us the chance to do that.

With respect to family members, again, this is an area that we are constantly reevaluating. We know that when we send someone to serve in a post overseas, the family serves, whether the family accompanies the officer or stays behind. We know that there is a family that is involved in most cases. It really depends on a case-by-case analysis and a post-by-post situational analysis. Some posts, it’s a lot easier. Some we have, as you know, reciprocal agreements with the host countries, others we don’t. So we’re working on this because we know it’s an impediment for a lot of families, but I can’t give you more than the commitment we’ve made to work through this and the fact that we are trying to push as hard as we can to provide opportunities for those who accompany the person who’s assigned.

Civil servant, Walter Bruce on Ombudsman:

This is a Foreign Service organization. We got no doubts about that. But there should be an infrastructure in place that looks out for the interests and advances of those that we consider to be civil servants. (Applause.) I just wanted a status. So, Madame Secretary, all I want to know is – and I’m sure Pat going to be able to tell me this – where we stand on it. (Laughter.) That’s all I have.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much and thanks for your many years of service to our country, first in the military and now here. We’re going to have that ombudsman, aren’t we, Pat? (Laughter.)

UNDER SECRETARY KENNEDY: Madame Secretary, yes, the law requires that the ombudsman must be a member of the Senior Executive Service. We have no other choice; it’s written in the statute. So we are in the process in all this turnover of recruiting someone because we have to identify an SES position and recruit someone. That process is ongoing.

On Civil Servant Dorothy Burkette who wanted a Civil Service not Foreign Service supervisor:
QUESTION: My name is Dorothy Burkette and I’m sort of coming behind Major Bruce in the sense that I am concerned that I’ve been here 11 years and I’ve never had a good supervisor. I’ve always had – (laughter).

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, shall we give equal time to your supervisors? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Oh, okay. I am concerned because they’re not accountable to anyone. In fact, in the two bureaus I’ve worked in here, the particular supervisor is always supported by management all the way up to the assistant secretary. And whatever they do, as one assistant secretary told me, we don’t ever tell any supervisor what they can do in their office. And so that is a very poor environment to work in and I have experienced that. I’ve been – every office I’ve been in, I’ve been discriminated against. In my present office, one low-line supervisor came in, a young 30-something-year-old, with people in my age group, and with a hard hand and decided to tell all of the supervisory people up to the assistant secretary that I was a terrible person. They accepted it. I had no redress. None of my rights were acknowledged. I was never able to give – I was never given a list of all charges against me. And there is a memo in your office about this, but I’m sure it didn’t get to you. But – so that’s the reason why I’m saying something today.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well --

QUESTION: But we need – as he’s saying Civil Service employees, we need to have Civil Service supervisors. This was a Foreign Service person who knew nothing --

SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m sorry. I --

QUESTION: -- about Civil Service. 

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, then there really is no – we will certainly pay attention to ensuring that people get their grievances heard. But this is a mixed workplace and Foreign Service officers have a lot of responsibility, Civil Service officers also have a lot of responsibility, and it’s just not possible to say that you can only be supervised by one or the other. That just is not possible.

QUESTION: I just want you to know the organizations I’ve been to which were the Office of Civil Rights, which at one time was known as affirmative action. As you know now, they are – they have to take a neutral approach. So even if what I’ve told is – even if they see a problem, they can’t speak to it.

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s just not the case.

QUESTION: So that was out with that.

SECRETARY CLINTON: That is not the case. I’m sorry, ma’am.

QUESTION: Well, I’m just telling you this is what happened.

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, I know. But I think we’ve heard that you have some questions that you feel strongly about, and I’m sorry that that’s been your experience, but I think there are a lot of people in the Office of Civil Rights and in the management chain who can listen to that. That doesn't mean they’re going to always side with you. I mean, just because someone feels --

QUESTION: Of course not. Of course not.

SECRETARY CLINTON: -- I mean, I’ve had more criticism in my life than probably whole countries have had. (Applause.) And it doesn't mean that I’m always right or I’m always wrong. But especially when we do have these systems for your grievances to be heard, I really urge you to do that and pursue those and do the best you can under the circumstances.

QUESTION: So what can I do if the union didn’t help me and the Office of Civil Rights didn’t help me?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think you need to ask yourself why nobody is agreeing with you.

QUESTION: Okay. No, I’m not saying that’s what the problem is. But thank you for listening.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Okay, thank you.