The Army War College’s TRANS…gression! Did They Violate Our Civil and Constitutional Rights?
The Army War College’s TRANS…gression!
Did They Violate Our Civil and Constitutional Rights?
The following is a summary of events and chronology that involves
myself and two instructors at the Army War College (AWC), the DOD IG, DOJ, US
Army IG and FOIA office, and two US Senate offices regarding my concerns and
belief that not only my civil and constitutional rights were violated, but also
those of the two instructors that invited me to speak at the Army War College
as guest lecturer for the fifth year – given my expertise in Cognitive Warfare.
There are two key elements to consider here.
·
First, if our senior officers at the
AWC are willing to violate one’s constitutional and civil rights, what is to
stop them from obeying an illegal order to fire on innocent civilians
demonstrating those rights?
·
The irony of this issue, as you read
the details below, is that my lecture on Cognitive Warfare to AWC students
discusses how our adversaries use various ways (ideology, religion, and issues)
to subvert our freedoms, Constitution, and independence. The means by which
they do so vary from the use of our legal, education, economic, and now
military system. The actions by AWC staff appear to exemplify my point.
I ask the readers to come to their own conclusions on
whether our civil and constitutional rights were violated, and if the DOD and
Army are purposefully obstructing the release of record information to avoid
embarrassment or to protect others.
I contend that the reaction by the AWC staff to myself and
two instructors can now serve as a Case Study of such subversion. The continued
efforts to indoctrinate our military via the service academies, military
universities, and war colleges using DEI, CRT, must be stopped – less we find a
military no longer loyal to our Constitution and more beholden to dystopian
ideologies.
I’ve detailed this warning (noted below with specific highlight
below) in my original paper on Cognitive War in February 2019, and again in my
recently released book “The Cognitive War: Why We Are Losing and How We can Win,” now on Amazon.
Unless we
adjust our future to account for the paradigm shifts that have occurred under
our feet, our nation and its intelligence operations will once again awaken too
late, to a different reality, which is likely to end badly with significant and
long-term impacts to our nation’s security and place as world leader.
I project such a negative and reactive outcome to occur
either because we lost the cognitive war totally, our adversaries succeed
undermining our institutions and democratic foundation to such an extent they
are no longer viable, or, because our efforts to counter in the cognitive
domain came too late.
If we fail to
act in the cognitive domain, we will likely end up in a major kinetic conflict
resulting in devastating outcomes, in physical and human toll – from which
recovery is questionable.
Edward L.
Haugland
27 Feb 2019
To try an address the circumstances involved, I opened a
DOD IG Hotline complaint in November of 2023, after engaging the AWC for
answers on this issue. The DOD IG noted that the complaint was closed on 4 Jan
2024, and that I could seek information via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Request. I did, but when following up, I was then told in February 2024 the
FOIA could not be responded to, as the case was still open, and is an ongoing
investigation.
Key questions for the readers to consider include:
-
Did
the AWC violate Mr. Haugland’s constitutional rights, and those of his two colleagues
(a retired US Army Colonel and a retired US Army Command Sergeant Major)?
-
Why
is it that neither he nor his colleagues have been contacted since October of
2023 given there is now a so called “ongoing” investigation as of February
2024, after he was informed in January 2024 that the Hot Line Complaint was
“closed.”
-
Does
the AWC promote academic freedom, or did they take inappropriate actions
against the three former military involved?
-
Did
the AWC, through their actions, reinforce the whole point of Mr. Haugland’s
lecture that in this ongoing Cognitive War, the “issue” of transgenderism is
being used to silence and subjugate others – not to advance any individual
rights?
-
Why
is there such an alarming lack of understanding of our Constitutional rights by
the staff at the AWC?
-
Will
the AWC, or military academy students given the push for DEI, CRT, and other
woke agendas be educated on the Constitution and on what an illegal order is –
so that our own military is not used against citizens exercising their
Constitutional rights?
-
Will
accountability occur – as this is not a political issue – but an issue of
following our laws and ensuring trust in our military?
A short background on myself for context:
Edward Haugland is a retired federal Senior Executive and
US Air Force veteran. Ed had over four decades of service, including service as
senior leader in the Intelligence Community and Department of Defense,
Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy, and State.
Ed served as the senior advisor to several IC agency
heads, the Assistant Inspector General for Inspections for the Intelligence
Community, the Chairman of CIA’s strategic planning, a Deputy team leader for
the INF On-site nuclear arms inspections in the former Soviet Union, and an
award-winning CIA intelligence analyst. His four decades of experience informs
analysis and solutions to “the” existential threat, to world freedom in his
just released book - The Cognitive War: Why We Are Losing and How We can Win.
Mr. Haugland also served as the
first Assistant Inspector General (AIG) for Inspections for the Intelligence
Communities Office of Inspector General.
Background - AWC lecture and response to criticism
Each year, for the last five years (2019-2023) – I’ve
been invited lecturer at the Army War College on Cognitive War. My opening
remarks state:
·
I intend to challenge the audience and
make them uncomfortable, as if they are comfortable given the threats we face,
then you’re not paying attention
·
I note that each officer or senior
civilian has taken an Oath of office to the Constitution – and in doing so have
signified they are willing to give up their life (military) for their country.
I then ask – are you willing to give up your job for your country? Especially
if given an unlawful order. And, do you know what an unlawful order is?
·
I then provide them with my definition of
Cognitive War – from my book and original paper I wrote on this subject)
·
Definition -
Cognitive War - A primarily an ideological war, between
tyranny and freedom, control and independence, subjugation, and democracy. It
is a war fought primarily in the cognitive domain using strategies which apply various ways (e.g., ideology, religion, issues) and means
(e.g., academic, economic, agriculture, social, military, etc.) to influence.
In its most basic form, it is a war between good and evil. Cognitive war can
and does include irregular warfare and kinetics. It is a war that has been
ongoing for more than a millennium. It is timeless as mankind exists. Cognitive
war is truly the existential threat that is global and domestic. In today’s
U.S.A, few understand it, can defend against it, can compete in it, or win it.
It can be won, but not if we are unwilling to change.
In my lecture during July 2023, I spoke to the use of
the “issue” of Transgenderism being used not to advance rights, as all
Americans have same civil and constitutional rights, but to cancel, silence,
and subjugate others while pushing an ideological agenda. I highlighted this
issue, as it remains a predominant area of discussion across the US, in
universities, businesses, etc.
Two students seemed very concerned about this. One,
noted he has a transgender friend and so asked “was he an enemy?” I stated
absolutely not! I noted that support for a friend is different from using the
issue of transgenderism (which has been misappropriated) as an ideological tool
and weapon to silence, subjugate, cancel, or censor people. I also stated that
the issue has nothing to do with advancing individual rights. I reinforced this
by noting that all Americans have same civil and constitutional rights,
including transgenders, and all deserve to be treated with respect.
Unknown to me at the time, another student went to
the lead AWC staff director for second year studies, who manages the course,
and stated that I was spewing “hate speech.” What you’ll read next is a
chronology of events that occurred after my lecture, from which I learned that
I was silenced, cancelled, and my Constitutional rights and civil rights – from
my view – were violated by the AWC staff. More so, a similar fate rendered to
the two retired US Army military because they had “invited” me to lecture.
In simple terms, my lecture on the use of issues,
including transgenderism, is part of an ongoing Cognitive War to subvert
America. The use of the issue is not about rights, it’s about using the issue
to silence, cancel, and subjugate. And that’s exactly what happened to me at
the AWC, along with the two retired Army staff who invited me as guest
lecturer. But you can be the judge.
Chronology of events –
-
Lecture July 21, 2023
·
During my lecture three issues raised by
some class members – I either addressed the issues during the class or provided
additional substantive information after the class as noted below.
§
Transgenderism – addressed as noted in my opening comments.
§ Fauci Covid lie
– Students asked for an example when I noted Dr. Fauci lied when stating one
cannot catch Covid if one is vaccinated. I couldn’t produce one at that moment
– so some students thought I was lying.
§ Department of State’s Global Engagement Center (GEC)
bias and culpable in censorship – I
had noted that the GEC was culpable in censoring Americans, but some students
took this as my demeaning the whole GEC. That was not the intent, and I
clarified later.
July 22, 2023 - The day after the class, in an email to the class
instructors, I provided additional information to pass onto the students to
address the latter issues. I provided the following:
-
A. Transgenderism: A paper on transgenderism –
by Joanna Williams, “The Corrosive
Impact of Transgender Ideology”
June 2020, CIVITAS - civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society is a
registered educational charity
·
Author - Joanna Williams is director of the Freedom, Democracy
and Victimhood Project at Civitas. Previously she taught at the University of
Kent where she was Director of the Centre for the Study of Higher Education.
Joanna is the author of Women vs Feminism (2017), Academic Freedom in an Age of
Conformity (2016) and Consuming Higher Education, Why Learning Can’t Be Bought
(2012). She co-edited Why Academic Freedom Matters (2017) and has written
numerous academic journal articles and book chapters exploring the
marketization of higher education, the student as consumer and education as a
public good.
·
Summary In less than two decades ‘transgender’
has gone from a term representing individuals and little used outside of
specialist communities, to signifying a powerful political ideology driving
significant social change. At the level of the individual, this shift has
occurred through the separation of gender from sex, before bringing biology
back in via a brain-based sense of ‘gender-identity’
·
"We
draw a distinction between transgenderism and transgender individuals. The
term transgenderism is used to refer to an ideological movement that challenges
sex-based rights and actively promotes the idea that a person’s gender identity
has no connection to their anatomy. This political agenda has been embraced by
activists and campaigning organisations. As a movement, it has proven to be
far more influential than a numerical count of transgender individuals may
suggest.
· This highlights a significant difference between today’s
transgender activists and the gay rights movement of a previous era. Whereas the gay rights movement was about demanding more
freedom from the state for people to determine their sex lives unconstrained by
the law, the transgender movement demands the opposite: it calls for
recognition and protection from the state in the form of intervention to
regulate the behavior of those outside of the identity group. Whereas in
the past, to be radical was to demand greater freedom from the state and
institutional authority, today to be radical is to demand restrictions on free
expression in the name of preventing offence.
-
B. Fauci – in the
same email I noted the class had asked me to show proof of where Fauci stated
if you got the vax you couldn’t infect, I couldn’t at the moment in the class
but followed up. I provided the following link: https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/553773-fauci-vaccinated-people-become-dead-ends-for-the-coronavirus/
· Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser to President Biden, said during a discussion on
Sunday about the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) decision to
drop mask recommendations for fully vaccinated individuals that vaccinated
people become “dead ends” for COVID-19.
-
C. Third on GEC – I stated I had warned internal GEC staff, while working
as there as a independent consultant, about their closeness to social media
companies, and that they needed to ensure caution given the criteria that some
of the companies and non-governmental organizations they were collaborating
with were using criteria for censoring that (in my view) was clearly biased. A
few of the students attending the AWC class, who also had worked with GEC, took
offense as they thought I was painting the whole GEC as complicit. I did not
and clarified. But I also noted in follow up email to the instructors that all
staff should have been familiar with the Twitter files and journalist Matt
Taibbi’s work The Twitter Files are
a series of releases of select internal Twitter, Inc. documents published
from December 2022 through March 2023 on Twitter. And one can also
look to Congressional investigation on this -GEC facts led by Congressman Jim
Jordan either from Congressional records or on X (formerly known as Twitter)
(11) Weaponization Committee
(@Weaponization) / X (twitter.com)
After the Lecture – An Infringement of Civil and
Constitutional Rights (timeline and info)?
-
Sept early Oct
2023 – I had to reach out as normal to seek
reimbursement for my lecture for the agreed upon nominal fee. AWC was typically
two months late in payment 2019-2022, so I reached out.
-
Oct 10, 2023 Email
notified me of a decision by COL James Frick
Army War College Director of 2nd Year Studies. He said that based on
student complaints about your session during the July seminar, the “AWC has
decided not to invite us back and not to pay your honorarium.”
-
10/24/23 -
Telecon with one of the two instructors who
invited me as guest lecturer, I learned about a request during the actual
course on 21 July 2023 to escort me out of building for hate speech.
·
No due process, 4th Amendment;
selective prosecution white male conservative – civil rights violation; and
stating hate speech – 1st amendment violation at university.
·
Neither myself, nor either of the two
instructors were interviewed. I also learned the instructors would also not be
invited back, and future classes cancelled.
-
10/25/23 - I sent email
to AWC to COL Frick stating –
· “Col Frick, I
wanted to contact you directly to get a formal response from the AWC, as I was
informed you are the POC. I heard, but wished to confirm, that AWC would not
honor my honorarium, but more concerning that both COL (ret) xxxx and CMS (ret)
xxxx would not be welcomed back next year? (Note: I have removed the names using
xxxx of the two instructors to avoid them receiving further retribution)
· “I found this
concerning, given the context academic freedom, freedom of speech, and our
oaths to our constitution – and not understanding the justification for such
actions if true. Could you please explain your action, if the above is
accurate, or if not clarify?”
-
10/27/23 - No response…resent – stating I quote
· “Col Frick, resending
as I've not received a response. I welcome your response to understand
your actions and reasoning. I am perplexed given our oaths to our constitution,
civil and constitutional rights, and AWC being a place of academic freedom
(hopefully) for debate and discussion. Including how issues can weaponized to
subjugate, drive complacency, and conformity among the compliant or complacent.
It seems your actions were based on an emotional reaction/decision. I was, as
part of my lecture, actually discussing with the class on as an example related
to the use of an issue, transgenderism, not to advance civil or constitutional
rights – which all citizens have – but to cancel others who do not conform to a
desired way of thinking. It appears, without your clarification, or even
engaging to xxx, xxx, other class participants, nor myself that your action
exemplifies the exact point I was making. I look forward to your explanation. –
-
10/31/23 - I received three items in an email from one
of the two instructors
· Two memos, one
restating what occurred from COL ret. xxx to his command, and other to general
command chain by my colleague
· A copy of class
survey – noting overall satisfaction less two students (I’ve blanked out a few
names with xxx as prior reason).
-
24 October 2023 Memo states:
MEMORANDUM FOR DR. JOSEPH GOELLNER, TRADOC
G2 RESOURCE MANAGER
SUBJECT: Army War College Decision to
Discontinue the Cognitive Maneuver Elective and Seminar
1. My
colleague, xxxxx, and I worked very hard for months to develop a program of
instruction for the July 2023 Advanced Studies Seminar, previously titled,
Cognitive Maneuver”. This year, although the Army War College did not
officially change the title, our primary point of contact, Lt Col xxxx, asked
us to address two main topics; Great Power Competition and Information
Advantage. During preparation for the seminar, we periodically updated Lt Col xxxx
on our progress so that she would be aware of the content. We selected Mr.
Edward Haugland, retired SES, as our guest speaker because we consider him to
be the most accomplished subject matter expert on the topic of Cognitive
Maneuver. During September 2023, Mr. Haugland published a 544-page book titled,
“The Cognitive War”. Also, he has successfully engaged Cognitive Maneuver
seminar groups each year during 2019 to 2022.
2. Our
pre-seminar sessions with Lt Col xxx included vetting the slides that Mr.
Haugland presented to our seminar group in July. Lt Col xxxx did have concerns
about two or three of his slides because they seemed to negatively portray the
actions of certain members of the DoD chain of command. Lt Col xxx and I agreed
to remove those slides and Mr. Haugland did not object. We also considered
doing a point / counter-point format for the session by bringing in someone who
has liberal views. We explored options, but none seemed like it would enhance
the session. So, I informed Lt Col xxx that I thought based on Mr. Haugland’s
successful presentations to previous seminar groups, we could mitigate any
issues without bringing in another person to directly confront him.
3. During
Mr. Haugland’s presentation as guest speaker, there were a few of the 15 students who reacted
negatively to some of his comments, as detailed in the attached documents. As a
result, I gave the students a 15-minute break to ease the tensions. I informed
the group that we would all show mutual respect while discussing and resolving
the issues. As I explained in my 30 August memorandum, this approach seemed to
work out well, except for one or two students who did not engage in the
discussion.
4. The
results of student surveys were provided to me by Lt xxxx on 30 August 2023.
Student comments were mainly positive or very positive; however, at least one
student made accusations about our guest speaker promulgating hate speech and
me enabling hate speech. I fully reject both accusations, which are shown
verbatim in the attached survey results. I also addressed these accusations
in my 30 August memorandum.
The
instructor, a retired US Army COL, noted in an email:
1.
On
23 October 2023, I received the attached email from COL Frick, the AWC Director
of Second Year Studies. In his email, he informed me that because of the students’ reactions to
our guest speaker, we would not be invited back to present the Cognitive
Maneuver seminar or elective next year. I then asked Lt Col xxx in an
email if that would impact the two, new electives that she had asked us to
prepare for academic year 2024 on Great Power Competition and Information
Advantage. She replied, “It is my understanding that all courses are on hold. I
defer to Buddy [COL Frick] since this is at the Chair level and I don't want to
speak for COL Smigowski.”
-
From:
Frick, James A COL USARMY (USA)
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 1:13 PM
To: xxxx CTR USARMY TRADOC (USA) <xxxx.ctr@army.mil>
Subject: Cognitive Maneuver advanced study
and consequences from Mr. Haugland's presentation - [UNCLASSIFIED -
2023-10-23T17:12:28.463Z]
UNCLASSIFIED
Mr. xxxx,
After both Lt Col xxx and Ms. xxx came to
me reference the teaching of Cognitive Maneuver by your team in the future, or
in providing an honorarium for Mr. Haugland, I went to our Department Chair,
COL Smigowski for clarification and guidance. Bottom-line, we are very
dissatisfied with the direction that the guest speaker took the instruction
during the final afternoon of the advanced studies.
After an investigation into the matter by
interviewing students in the classroom, the leadership (up to the Dean’s level
from my understanding) felt that what happened during class that afternoon did
not align with the USAWC values. If the intent was to open students up to
differing points of view in the cognitive space with ways to mitigate the
negative implications of such views, then it is our belief the event was not
appropriately orchestrated to allow this to happen. Neither, were there
competing views to provide a balance in the design of the course. Note: they do not say how many, or who they interviewed, the
two instructors nor myself were interviewed).
I personally pulled you out of the room
and questioned what was happening based upon student complaints; at which time
you explained your desired outcome, so I provided you some limited leeway to
mediate and salvage the event. It is our belief this was never achieved, and
consequently, the students left the class with a very negative view of the
course, and potentially the USAWC. We have therefore decided not to bring you
or your team back for this elective or advanced study in the future. We are
appreciative of the hard work and support in putting this together and teaching
over the last few years, but the handling of Mr. Haugland’s involvement put a
negative light on the delivery of the course by your team.
In addition to this, we do not feel Mr.
Haugland deserves payment of an honorarium given the negative outcomes of his
involvement. I will remind you that in the discussion of your decision to bring
someone in to support your course, no speaker fees were offered and that an
honorarium was a possible option provided by this institution out of an
appreciation for the support. Within this framework, we are further limited by
our policy on just how much can be provided for either speaker fees or
honorariums. That was part of the course director’s message when telling you
that if we provided an honorarium, we were constrained to no more than a
certain amount. However, there was no contractual obligation to pay him an
honorarium. When we paid him an honorarium last year there were no negative
issues and we paid him out of appreciation; this year was a different
situation, as identified above. Therefore, he will not be paid an honorarium. (What the AWC does not address is that 2019-2022 I was “paid”
with a 1099-NEC non-employee compensation, that is a taxable payment, not a
gift.)
V/r
James A. Frick, Ph.D.
6. On
24 October 23, I informed my TRADOC leadership of this latest email, and I
informed Mr. Haugland that the AWC would not pay his $1,000 honorarium and
would not invite us back next year for the Cognitive Maneuver seminar or
elective. Mr. Haugland expressed his concern about the motivation for and
intent of the AWC’s actions. He is considering options for responding,
including letters to media, Congress, TRADOC CG, and TRADOC G2.
The other memo
attached to the email states:
30
August 2023
MEMORANDUM
FOR WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
SUBJECT:
2023 Army War College Seminar on Information Advantage and Great Power
Competition, also known as Cognitive Maneuver
Situation.
My assistant faculty instructor and I strive each year to keep our
seminar relevant and up to date for Army War College (AWC) students. Doing so
is challenging because the topics we present are dynamic, rapidly emerging, and
critical to our nation’s future. We worked very hard again this year to
incorporate the latest strategic guidance and joint and Service doctrine and
concepts that relate to Great Power competition and information advantage. Most
of our students’ post-seminar comments reflect their appreciation for the
quality of our seminar this year, which is driven by our commitment to clearly
and cogently provide important information to our seminar students.
Unfortunately, there were also two exceptionally negative comments –
(1) “Edward Haugland was a biased disaster and was enabled to voice open hate
speech, being enabled by COL xxx.” and (2) “COL xxxx allowed Ed Haugland to
impart flagrant lies to the class which had nothing to do with cognitive
maneuver. Prior to that presentation he informed the class of Haugland’s bias
which shows he knew that he was facilitating a contested discussion including lies.”
I deeply regret any of my decisions and actions that contributed to
the reaction of the student(s) who made these comments, and I take full responsibility
for inaccurately anticipating the reaction of the student(s) to my bringing Mr.
Ed Haugland into the Army War College as a guest speaker. Also, I fully
understand why we cannot bring Mr. Haugland back to the Army War College as a
guest speaker, despite his unparalleled expertise in Cognitive Warfare. But I
completely reject the accusations made against me.
Facts.
I brought Mr. Haugland in as a guest speaker because he is a retired,
Senior Executive Service Government official who has been a thought leader on
the topic of Cognitive Warfare since 2019. In preparation for this year’s
seminar, I again carefully studied Mr. Haugland’s 2019 paper on Cognitive
Warfare, and I sincerely believe it is the most comprehensive description that
I have read on what Cognitive Warfare is and what the U.S. should do about it.
For the past three to four years, Mr. Haugland has been writing a book
on Cognitive Warfare, which was released this past week. I have not yet read
it. But I expect it to be an even more comprehensive and updated description of
the Cognitive Warfare that is being waged against the U.S. and how we as a
nation can prevail against it.
This year was Mr. Haugland’s fifth appearance as a guest speaker for
this seminar, which began in 2019. During those five appearances, his
contribution to the seminar was often rated as outstanding, excellent, or
superb, and sometimes as “the highlight of the seminar”. I was told last year that there was a
complaint about his presentation, but I was not informed of the actual
complaint. Based on that information, I collaborated with the Army War College
staff this year to remove from Mr. Haugland’s presentation any slides that
seemed to be overly negative or politically controversial.
I advised the class before Mr. Haugland appeared that he “leans to the
right” and that I had asked him to “focus on information and information
advantage”. My intent in informing the class that Mr. Haugland leans to the
right was to help them mentally prepare for the engagement. My intent in asking
Mr. Haugland to focus on information and information advantage was to help him
focus his comments on the subject areas on which our seminar is focused. During
Mr. Haugland’s presentation, it was clear that his comments upset three to five
students. Based on that, I asked the class to take a break and informed them
that we would reconvene in about 15 minutes to bring up and discuss any issues
of concern. My intent was to let everyone cool off, then reconvene to discuss
and resolve the issues.
When we reconvened for that discussion, two or three of the students
did engage Mr. Haugland about their concerns. Mr. Haugland engaged with those
students sincerely and respectfully. It was my impression that those students
were satisfied that their issues and concerns had been resolved. In one case,
for example, Mr. Haugland listened to a student’s concerns with comments he had
made about the Global Engagement Center (GEC). That student had been a member
of the GEC, and their discussion included details about the GEC that only the
two of them understood. Mr. Haugland considered the student’s concerns and
conceded that he might have overstated his comments about the actions of the
GEC. I do not believe that Mr. Haugland intended to lie when making his initial
comments about the GEC.
Also, during that discussion, I was pulled out of the room by an Army
War College staff member who informed me of complaints that some of our seminar
students had made to him during the 15-minute break. Upon then being told to
immediately escort the guest speaker out of the building, I recommended
that it might be a better course of action to allow the guest speaker and the
students to discuss and resolve students’ issues and concerns. It is important
to note that I had been available to all seminar students during that 15-minute
break; however, none decided to discuss their concerns with me and some decided
to complain about me and the guest speaker to someone on the Army War College
staff, without my awareness.
After I rejoined the seminar discussion and there were no more
comments from students, I sensed that one or two students were still upset. I
encouraged the class to raise any other concerns so that we could discuss and
resolve them. After a period of silence, I thanked Mr. Haugland for his
presentation and closed the session. I believe that if any other students had
chosen to discuss their concerns openly and honestly, with mutual respect, we
could have worked them out.
Concerns.
(Items 1-6 below are supported by the PowerPoints slides sent in the 30Aug
email.)
1. National
Security Strategy (NSS), National Defense Strategy (NDS), and DoD
Strategy for OIE strongly support integrated deterrence, which requires
close collaboration within DoD and the USG, and with Allies and partners.
2. NATO,
joint, and Marine Corps doctrine, concepts, and organizational changes related
to integrated deterrence – information advantage and operations in the
information environment (OIE) are progressing rapidly.
3. Army
doctrine, concepts, and organizational changes related to information advantage
and OIE are not progressing at a rate that maximizes close collaboration
within DoD and the USG, and with Allies and partners.
4. Resulting
gap between the Army and our Allies and partners (USMC) could restrict
DoD’s ability to support integrated deterrence and strategic competition.
5.
It is a concern that the decision to cancel our seminar for next year
seems to imply that I have been judged to be guilty of the accusations above
based solely on the accusers’ accounts, without a detailed account from my
perspective. I did
not lie or knowingly facilitate a discussion that included lies. I do not
support or participate in hate speech. For the past 49 years, I have done my
best to live by the West Point honor code, “I will not lie, cheat, or steal;
nor will I tolerate those who do.”
6. It is a concern that students at
the Army War College would write comments with harsh accusations about the
faculty instructor and guest speaker but not demonstrate the moral courage and
emotional maturity to discuss their concerns directly with those whom they are
accusing, despite having the opportunity to do so. Those students may
not be demonstrating appropriate behavior and maturity at this point in their
careers.
Recommendations.
1. Recommend
that the Army War College educate Army senior leaders on how to support
joint and coalition operations and campaigning below armed conflict during
which integrated information forces conduct OIE in support of integrated
deterrence.
2. Recommend
that the Army War College host a Teams meeting that includes one or more
representatives of the Army War College staff, the faculty instructors from our
seminar group, and any students who want to discuss the allegations above.
3. Recommend
that at the beginning of this session described above we all agree to engage
each other directly and honestly while showing mutual respect. Then, I believe,
important character-building lessons will be learned, and the truth will become
clear.
POC
for questions or comments is xxxxx, xxxx.ctr@army.mil,
(xxx) xxx-xxxx.
WHAT
ARE THEY HIDING OR OBSTRUCTING - THE DOD IG COMPLAINT AND THE DELAYS?
o
11/21/23 – I Contacted DOD IG & DOJ CIVIL
RIGHTS DIVISION EEOC from DOD IG – Adrian Bennett, Disability program
manager in EEO – internal to DOD OIG
o
11/21/23 – DOJ REPLIED - What we did:
o Team members from
the Civil Rights Division reviewed the information you submitted. Based on this
information, our team determined that the situation you described does not
appear to be within the jurisdiction of the federal civil rights laws we
enforce. What you can do:
o
Your
issue may be covered by other federal, state, or local laws that we do not have
the authority to enforce. We are not determining that your report lacks merit.
o
Your
state bar association or local legal aid office may be able to help with your
issue even though the Department of Justice cannot.
o
12/15/23 - The
DoD Hotline has reviewed your complaint and determined additional information
is required in reference to the matters raised in your hotline complaint.
o
12/15/23 - I spoke with a Ms. Cassandra from DOD IG
to provide additional information.
o
1/4/24 – DOD IG email
stating - Dear Mr. Haugland: This
is to notify you that the DoD Hotline closed complaint
20231215-090700. The DoD Hotline is not authorized
to release case information or documents. You may file a Freedom of Information Act request with
the Department of the Army Inspector General.
o
1/6/24 - I file FOIA
o
1/11/24 – The office the DOD sent me to for FOIA
request was wrong! “Your FOIA request has been assigned the following case
number: FA-24-0988 / FP-24-007676.
We apologize you were misdirected to
our office.
The correct office to process your request is the Department of the Army
Inspector General Records Release Office.”
o
1/11/24 – received notice my FOIA was received by
the proper office
o
1/17/24 – DOD asked for valid id info to support
FOIA
o
1/18/24 – I asked for valid POC to discuss, as I
had provided that in my first request. I then received aa response stating that
the agency I originally provided such info to did not pass it along.
o
1/22/24 - I resubmitted FOIA and id information
o
1/23/24 – I received this response - Dear Mr.
Haugland: This is an interim response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request received on January 11, 2024, seeking Army Inspector General records. The Army IG Records Release
Office receives a large volume of FOIA requests and cannot always respond to
requests as quickly as we would like. Accordingly, we make it our
practice to respond to FOIA request in the order received. The approximate date of completion on your request is January
11, 2025, or
it could take longer.
o
1/24/24 – I send the following - Under the law,
all federal agencies are required to respond to a FOIA request within 20
business days, unless there are "unusual circumstances. Please explain
those circumstances - Pennsylvania law, where the AWC is located, also requires
agencies to respond to requests within five business days after receiving the
request
o
1/24/24 send info to Senators Warner and Kaine
from VA – Sen Kaine’s office timely and responsive.
o
1/25/24 – provided info and background to case
officer in Sen Kaine’s office.
o
1/29/24 – spoke with case office from Sen.
Kaine’s office, very professional.
o
2/1/24 received added response from Pentagon on
FOIA request noting - The Army Inspector General records responsive to your request are part of a
current or ongoing investigation and are therefore denied pursuant
to Exemption (b)(7)(A) of the FOIA, 5 USC 552. Exemption (b)(7)(A) applies to
information compiled for law enforcement purposes, the disclosure of which
could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.
o
2/1/24 – I ask to clarify on “ongoing
investigation” – given the DOD IG stated they had closed the complaint on 1/4/24
o
1/4/23
– DOD IG email stating - Dear Mr. Haugland: This is to notify you that the DoD
Hotline closed complaint 20231215-090700
o
2/2/24 – I provided added info to Sen Kaine’s
office, they then sent info to request status on FOIA delay to Army
o
2/2/24 – first heard from Sen Warner’s office –
but regurgitated Army reply - Please understand that unless a request to
expedite is approved, requests under FOIA are processed in the order in which
they are received.
o
2/5/24 – received email from Sen Kaine’s office
noting their contacting Pentagon to clarify – given proper credit, very
professional
o
2/8/24 – Pentagon responds to my question – case
was closed, now open? – stating – “Regarding your question below, our office
cannot answer that as we are not IGs that action cases. Please contact the
Assistance Division”
o
3/1/24 – receive note from Sen Kaine’s office
with Pentagon response noting response to Sen Kaine –
o
“Dear
Senator Kaine, This letter responds to your inquiry on behalf of your
constituent Mr. Edward Haugland, regarding the status of his pending request
under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
On
January 25, 2024, the Department of the Army Inspector General Agency (DAIG) Records
Release Office notified Mr. Haugland that the records responsive to his FOIA request
are part of a current or ongoing investigation and are therefore denied
pursuant to Exemption (b)(7)(A) of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552.
Attached please find a copy of our
office’s most recent correspondence with Mr. Haugland, dated January 25, 2024. As of today, February 29, 2024,
the case is still open. Mr. Haugland may resubmit his request to
the DAIG Records Release Office at a future date, which may allow time for the
investigation to be completed.
I trust that this responds to your inquiry
on behalf of your constituent concerning his request for information pursuant
to the FOIA.
In
closing, I ask the reader to do their own assessment and answer the key
questions I noted in the begging of this summary, as I and my two colleagues
wait for this so called “ongoing” investigation to be completed.
Comments
Post a Comment