We have a question about unethical behavior by both civilian and military personnel working at a military intelligence facility in CA and whether such behavior is subject to continuous evaluation. Many of the participants in this scheme have sworn secrecy as a team and they have all justified their actions as being part of counterintelligence protocols to protect the facility from “intruders.” In this case, the “intruder” is a contractor with a federal agency. What the group does is they target, track, intercept and interfere with this person’s movement through the building. The targeting scheme has involved two or more people who listen for the targeted person to come out of their office to go to the restroom or break room or to go outside of the building. Scheme participants then track the target’s location and intercept the target when they show up at an entry point to either enter the building, enter a restroom, enter a break room, or enter a hallway. Scheme participants have treated this like it’s part of a counterintelligence training exercise, one that has been ongoing since the start of 2021. None of the participants are worried that there will be blowback since there is no evidence and no witnesses, other than those who have been participants (more than several) and probably more who are aware of this. It has been completely nonviolent and non confrontational. It’s all psychological and uses counterintelligence methods of deterrence. It’s very ambiguous and easy to deny and hard to prove. But it is extremely unethical what they do.
Should anyone who participates in this be worried that this could affect security and suitability eligibility?
I don’t quite understand what is happening in your story. Are these “intruders” testing the personnel of the facility on their security habits and whether they let unauthorized persons in? Are these employees who act as intruders doing a function of their job or is this a side activity they are conducting without approval?
There are no “intruders.” It’s just a pretext to engage in harassment. It is a side activity that may or may not have approval from a commander. It’s disturbing behavior to say the least. The motivations are unclear but may have ideological roots related to social justice causes.
It sounds ridiculous but it is true. They have treated this like a mission. It has become an obsession for some. Some of these people have nothing better to do and this just shows how they spend their time. Since the pandemic began, there has been a real deterioration in discipline of some units. Target, track, intercept, interfere. The interference part happens by coming out of a door as the target approaches to either enter or exit, or there is someone to follow in behind or in front. The goal is to irritate the target and make the target feel that they are being monitored and pursued when there is no justifiable reason for such behavior. They tend to exploit the target’s schedule: when they arrive, when they tend to take a break, when they leave for the day. The end game seems to be to chase away unwanted people. This behavior is very effective at causing dissonance and disruption to carrying out one’s duties.
Should those who participate in such a scheme be held accountable for such behavior? Are they not potential insider threats? What is motivating such behavior? Are they susceptible to being recruited by hostile actors who may want to target people on the inside?
If it is not part of fieldcraft “homework,” and the targeted person does no know what is going on…and is not part of their PD…they are screwing off. And harassing employees.
Many intell agencies use contractors as cat and mouse role play. If this is merely someone or some group getting off on stalking…it could indicate psychological issues for them. I would be careful…but selectivly engage leadership. Working on any Intel compound is filled with intrigue. But if they are government people…carrying out surveillance on American soil against Americans…that is specifically not legal. The FBI has the role inside the conus.
Im betting they just get off stalking…and may very well stalk off compound as well. Said target should initiate counter Intell moves, double back, divert…observe reflections…cross streets, circuitous travel…vary route taking stalkers far outside their beaten path.
It tells them they are busted. And if they learned it as fieldcraft…they will now evasive maneuver.
An article published in the Wall Street Journal in February 2022 will give you some idea of what seems to be happening in the IC. Not that this post is directly connected to what the Wall Street Journal article talks about but there are similarities. If you can read the article, you will see that there is are behavioral issues affecting certain work environments.
Workplace Harassment Undermines Pentagon Spying in Europe, Documents Say
Pentagon intelligence officers allege they struggle with toxic bosses, say some colleagues spy on each other
Jessica Donati, Warren P. Strobel | Wall Street Journal | Feb. 19
The scheme that has been observed seems limited to just the facility. It’s not a matter of being pursued outside of the building. The layout of the building lends itself to such a scheme because there is only one entrance into and out of the building. There is also a front desk where the security cameras can be viewed. The person who sits here at the front desk is a lookout and key communications contact for other participants. Coincidence and randomness are not factors. This is coordinated and persistent. The reason this is so effective is that it leads to a type of conditioning of the targeted person. They get to a point where they start anticipating an encounter that feels menacing because it introduces an element of uncertainty.
And you are right, you have to be careful about bringing this up with higher-ups because they won’t grasp that any of their people would ever do such a thing and the person complaining about this (the victim) may be imagining things. Maybe they are paranoid. It just seems too fantastic to be believable, but anyone who has ever been targeted and is paying attention to what is a normal flow of people will know if they are being targeted and monitored. You just know when something does not feel right.
The question again: Should people who engage in this type of targeting against another person be considered fit to continue holding a security clearance?
This group seems to be part of some kind of alliance and they obviously have an agenda. Most of these participants seem to have a connection to Cybercom. They have lost sight of the real mission and have drifted into the lane of vendetta. What justifies such behavior especially while on duty for the US Government?
Since some of these people are expert at gaslighting, what questions do you think a person conducting polygraphs should ask? How should they phrase their questions?
I asked if I could submit questions to poly for their everyy 5 repeat…was firmly told “absolutely not”. Apparently that is a big no no.
I would consider an IG complaint. But you need bring the goods. Strength in numbers. Prove they are doing this with multiple peoplle willing to write statements.
There are many witnesses to this scheme and these people need to do the right thing and tell investigators what they have been doing and why. If they continue to deny their involvement they only damage the mission of the IC. Incidents that have allegedly taken place in Europe against members of DIA’s Diplomatic Attache Service shed some light on the willingness of some people to cross the line into nonviolent aggression which ends up being nothing less than harassment and ultimately poses a risk to national security. The surreptitious and conspiratorial nature of targeting and tracking a person for no legitimate reason is menacing and becomes an insider threat because it interferes with a national security mission. While some of the participants may think their actions are noble in support of their personal causes, it is unethical behavior and must be exposed. They know what they are doing is fundamentally wrong and cannot be justified. It’s worse than soliciting a prostitute. It’s shameful, unprofessional and dishonest.
What’s bizarre in this case is that it looks like the philosophies of people like Gene Sharp, who wrote “The Politics of Nonviolent Action,” and Saul Alinsky, who wrote “Rules for Radicals,” have become playbooks adopted by those seeking to engage in political activities in the workplace, the spirit of which is forbidden by the Hatch Act. Combine these concepts with methods of counterintelligence and you have a potent means of projecting menace and harassment without any discernible physical evidence. The act of invading someone’s personal space through covert passive aggression can be an effective means to causing internal chaos. Those who engage in this behavior are no better than those who solicit prostitutes. They cannot justify such bullying behavior and expect to hold a position of trust within the government.
Not saying it’s not happening but 9/10 times they were psych patients. Maybe 1/10 time the person was being “stalked” (surveillance) and they knew why (dealing drugs, money laundering etc)
If what you are writing is true then the victim is already being punished. You can either try and make it stop or come back to the internet strangers and provide a coping response to every suggestion that is given.