Holmes admits that Caldwell’s PsyOp wasn’t Psy-ish
LTC Michael Holmes, the fellow who went to Rolling Stone‘s Michael Hastings and told the story repeated breathlessly across the internet that Brigadier General William Caldwell was bending the minds of visiting politicians, has finally admitted that maybe it wasn’t such a big deal as he first indicated. Spencer Ackerman at Wired.com gives Hastings a feather massage;
Lt. Col. Michael Holmes, concedes that Lt. Gen. Caldwell’s effort was little more than spinning legislators — something any press flack could have done innocuously. Holmes’ main message to the inquiry will actually be more meta: he’s a whistleblower, subject to retaliation from Caldwell’s staff after he expressed doubt that an info-ops guy like him should be spinning U.S. citizens.
Caldwell’s command “was all about intimidation and reprisal, making people toe the line,” Holmes tells Danger Room at a Washington D.C. coffee shop.
Toe the legal line.
[T]here was no inherent line crossed. Holmes feared that his training as an information operations officer disqualified him from spinning U.S. legislators, since information operations aren’t supposed to target U.S. citizens. But both Holmes and Caldwell’s team have told Danger Room that the training command didn’t actually perform information operations — like attacking enemy computer networks, psychological warfare, or military deception. Indeed, while Holmes’ September 2010 officer evaluation report refers to Holmes as an “Information Operations Supervisor,” it noted, “there is not an operational requirement for Information Operations” in the training command.
The spin itself, Holmes says, was unproblematic.
Yeah, unproblematic. It wasn’t made to sound unproblematic last month when Holmes’s dramatic retelling was made to sound, as my friend Blackfive said, like “Men who stare at Senators” Jedi mind tricks.
So now with Holmes under oath this morning at the Pentagon with Lt. Gen. William Webster, the investigating officer in this newest investigation, Holmes’ story is suddenly more innocuous than it was in the Rolling Stone. Funny how that works.
And of course, Holmes was claiming that I’m a paid agent of BG Caldwell sent to smear him. Come to think of it, that check is late. Ackerman admits that both Holmes and Hastings are his friends which explains the tongue bath Ackerman gave them today. At this point, I’ll refrain from calling them all three shitbags until my check clears.
Category: Shitbags
‘”Men who stare At Senators”‘
You may have to write a note to my boss on that one. I broke up laughing amidst a bunch of office workers over that…
Now I’m the one being stared at.
Thanks alot.
It’s funny how when you are under oath and a 3 star is staring at you that the story all of a sudden becomes a non-event. Men that stare at Senators suddenly becomes men that stare at navels.
I’d be careful calling Spencer a shitbag. He might punch you right through a fucking plate glass window.
Oh, shit. I think I just caught a glimpse of hipster douchebag glasses from my office.
guys i think he’s here for me.
guys.
help.
*smash*
I do believe we have the talent here to do a radio drama.
Wait.
Can you do a radio drama on-line???
Only if you’re dressed for Wal-mart.
I don’t think Ackerman could punch through a wet newspaper.
Oh.
Will jeans and boots and a little Ford Ranger do?
PN,
No, I was thinking of couture on the order of “That Which Is Seen Can Not Be Unseen.”
Now that’s drama.
If this is played correctly, then it might go from “Men who stare at Senators” to “Men who stare at other men from behind bars”. 😉
“And of course, Holmes was claiming that I’m a paid agent of BG Caldwell sent to smear him.”
Wait, when did this happen?
Let me be clear from the outset that I serve as Michael Holmes’ attorney.
Your supposition as to what transpired is simply inaccurate and misdirected. It is not LTC Michael Holmes’ story that has been modified or allegations withdrawn or points conceded. And I can certainly state that participation in the 15-6 investigation, which we wanted and I attended, had nothing to do with the Ackerman story or any perceived “mea culpa”.
The Rolling Stone story was unfortunately sensationalized and did not properly portray the facts. Regrettably, the Ackerman story also continued to inaccurately convey certain facts.
LTC Holmes was given an order that was determined by military attorneys to be unlawful. It was never a Psy-Ops Order. It dealt with Information Operations, which is different. It was his position with the Army that made the Order unlawful, not what actions were desired. It was as if I were to go practice law in Idaho. I could do it, and presumably I could do it well, but I am not licensed to do so and it would be illegal even though it might not be any different than what I do in DC. Following the determination of unlawfulness, which happened one week later, the Order was properly modified and became lawful. The system actually worked as it should.
That would have been the end of the story except for the fact that LTC Holmes, his team and his supporters suddenly found themselves the subject of retaliation. The real story here is about whistleblower protection, or the lack thereof, and is now a matter I am pursuing before the DoD OIG.
Finally, there are no allegations concerning Lt Gen Caldwell directly. The Order came from those under his command. That mischaracterization also originated with the Rolling Stone article and not LTC Holmes.
Mark S. Zaid, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
Mr Zaid,
Let me be clear from the outset; I serve as Michael Holmes’ tormentor. How did Holmes NOT think that Rolling Stone or Ackerman would sensationalize his fairy tale? I believe that was his (your) intention from the outset. Unfortunately for you, General Petraeus named an investigator before the sun set and now you’re tasked with stomping out all of the little forest fires your client set. He’s no whistleblower, he’s just another doofus who got caught trying to make money on the tax payer’s dime. If he’d done nothing wrong, there’d be nothing for anyone to investigate.
Well, someone is getting nervous.
“LTC Holmes was given an order that was determined by military attorneys to be unlawful. It was never a Psy-Ops Order. It dealt with Information Operations, which is different. “
If that is the case then why is he advertising that he has Psy-Op training and implied its use against Public Officials on Facebook?
“If that is the case then why is he advertising that he has Psy-Op training and implied its use against Public Officials on Facebook?”
My thoughts went right to that photo as well, and I’d like to know the answer to that question also.
I’m a history guy. Love English/UK/Irish history. So I once wondered why lawyers in the US just took the title “esquire”. For one thing, we don’t have titles here. For another, it’s a title of the gentry, which most lawyers today are decidedly not. Or a title of barristers, which most lawyers in the US don’t seem to resemble. So why were lawyers trying to appropriate a title that they did not resemble, had no ‘legal’ right to, and appeared to be far above their station in life.
And then, as I interacted with lawyers further down the line I learned that lawyers are disreputable lying scumbags who bear no resemble whatsoever to gentlemen. So I guess that using the term ‘esquire’ is a way for lawyers to try to trick us and imply that their station in life isn’t really one step above dog shit.
Also, like I said, it has no legal weight. Lawyers just took it. So anybody in the US can use the title “esquire”.
Spade,Esq.,
I called him on that when he used the “Esquire” in his email to me last night. He hasn’t seen fit to answer yet.
Jonn, Esq.
Jonn, Esq.,
I like this idea.
Mark, Esq.,
I’d like this part explained:
“It was his position with the Army that made the Order unlawful, not what actions were desired.”
Thanks,
Spade, Esq.
Spade – I was thinking the same thing. Suddenly it is illegal for a soldier training the ANA (his position) to provide input for CODEL visits? I wish that I had known that when I was in Afghanistan; my workload would have dropped dramatically.
I can see that this is going to be a mature, professional discussion. My apologies but in my responses I will not sink down to your level of name calling or defamatory accusations so admittedly my answers may not be as entertaining. Jonn, I can assure you that neither my client nor I are scared or nervous about anything you write or say, which I am sure will bring a barrage of hateful attack posts now since your mission is unsuccessful. And simply because I do not respond within 5 minutes of your e-mail or a post on this thread does not mean anything other than perhaps (1) I have not seen it yet, (2) I am busy or (3) I actually have a life to lead and have not gotten to it yet. So, to answer some of the rational questions and to clarify some of the facts before you spin them wildly out of control. First, I was not involved with the Rolling Stone article. I read it just like everyone else when it came out. I agree with the assessment that having Rolling Stone cover the story could have been, particularly in hindsight, thought out better. Second, that there is a 15-6 investigation now underway is exactly what LTC Holmes wanted and we welcome it. You can think otherwise if you want but I was there and you were not. Third, LTC Holmes received PsyOps training from the US Army in 2009 at Ft. Belvoir, VA. There is no dispute over this point. Finally, you should read DoD Directive 3600.1, which can be found here: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/360001p.pdf, to learn more about the limitations on Information Operations. SyOps is just one part of IO, and that has been part of the confusion. This is the Directive that the JAG determined rendered the Order LTC Holmes received as unlawful. LTC Holmes’ work was to be directed at the enemy, not US Persons. For those of you familiar with my background, or who might take the time to do so before launching your personal attacks, you might recall there were similar… Read more »
Mr. Zaid:
If nothing Jonn or any of the posters here says concerns you or makes you nervous, why did you bother to involve yourself in our discussion?
And in true legal fashion, the double speak starts straight out the gate.
To quote you:
“I can see that this is going to be a mature, professional discussion. My apologies but in my responses I will not sink down to your level of name calling or defamatory accusations so admittedly my answers may not be as entertaining.”
Well sir, the first sentence is a clear example of what is commonly known as a ‘snide remark’, and makes a lie of your second sentence. Not even 45 words into your response and your credibility is falling apart, nice. The condescending tone and unsubstantiated suppositions which your entire response oozes leaves one wondering why you bothered to reply at all. I should think that if this venue and its denizens are truly a waste of time and energy for you that your time would be better spent working for your clients and not down in the mud with us. A “Washington DC Super Lawyer” (seriously?lol) should have better things to do. Cheers.
“Third, LTC Holmes received PsyOps training from the US Army in 2009 at Ft. Belvoir, VA. There is no dispute over this point.”
Huh, when my buddy did his PsyOps training it was down at Bragg.
“I can see that this is going to be a mature, professional discussion. My apologies but in my responses I will not sink down to your level…”
This is like having a prostitute accuse me of having loose morals and it amuses me so.
“Jonn, I can assure you that neither my client nor I are scared or nervous about anything you write or say”
Then why are you here? And are you billing your client for your time posting about this?
“Third, LTC Holmes received PsyOps training from the US Army in 2009 at Ft. Belvoir, VA. There is no dispute over this point.”
Yes, we all saw the certificate from the week-long course he took that he posted on Facebook. The dispute arises over his subtextual caption: “Or how would you feel if someone with THIS type of training were preparing briefings and background notes for YOUR Congressman or Senator”
Which seems to suggest, in line with the Rolling Stone angle so gleefully repeated by conspiracy fans everywhere, that there was some sort of dirty campaign of subterfuge at hand. This is the point at issue: Holmes, by making statements like this and making himself a tool of Rolling Stone (a publication which any halfway intelligent person would know is not going to write an even-handed article on anything related to the U.S. military) is playing on public ignorance of IO in order to misleadingly insinuate that he was tasked to employ some sort of super-secret mind games that our poor congresspeople stood no chance in the face of.
Adverse fitness report or whatever the Army gives out to officers:
Mark judgement, unsat.
Not qualified for further promotion.
“Third, LTC Holmes received PsyOps training from the US Army in 2009 at Ft. Belvoir, VA. There is no dispute over this point.”
Actually, yes, there is dispute over this point. PSYOP MOS training is conducted at one of two places: FT Bragg, NC., or FT DIX, NJ. It had been done for Reserve components in CA previously, but that ended in 2008.
As an officer, if he is not a 37A, then his PSYOP “training” most likely consisted of a class or briefing that lasted all of an hour or two, giving a brief over-view of what PSYOP is and does. In other words, it was not PSYOP training so much as it was a briefing on PSYOP and how it related to battlefield operations.
In addition, this goes to prove the vast misconception as to what PSYOP really is and does. To honestly believe that attending a class on PSYOP would give one the ability to somehow persuade US Senators and Congressmen is absolutely ludicrous.
Any one of us who has spent more than a day in the military knows how that crap works. Not a big shock that a lawyer doesn’t.
@Brock_Manson on Twitter
Counselor:
Your client is NOT a PSYOP/MISO officer.
The fact that he went though a one week, shake and bake, FAMILIARIZATION course at Ft. Belvoir in 09 no more makes him a PSYOP/MISO qualified officer than the fact that I hold a Criminal Justice degree with an emphasis in law and legal theory makes me an attorney at law.
For those of you familiar with my background, or who might take the time to do so before launching your personal attacks….
Yeah, my sources tell me, and I quote, you’ll sue everything that you can’t fuck or eat.
The interesting thing to me about lawsuits is that disclosure works both ways. 😉
Jonn, that’s more or less why I included the “Washington DC Super Lawyer” crack. I can’t believe he included garbage like that on his practice’s web site, it’s rather, oh I don’t know, grade school-ish? I can hear it now, “Oh, your such a good little boy, here’s a gold star”.
Bletch.
“That would have been the end of the story except for the fact that LTC Holmes, his team and his supporters suddenly found themselves the subject of retaliation. The real story here is about whistleblower protection, or the lack thereof, and is now a matter I am pursuing before the DoD OIG.”
So your case hinges on the fact that he was persecuted as a whistleblower, yet later you said “Finally, you should read DoD Directive 3600.1, which can be found here:” which updates IO policy. So, are you arguing whistleblower or illegal order?
If I have decided that I am going to go head to head with a 3 star, or his representative in the form of a chief of staff, you had better believe that I am going to have my crap straight, to include not screwing around with a subordinate while I was married, not cruising around Kabul in civilian clothes, not trying to drum up business for my civilian company, and not handing my weapon over to an Afghan. You have to expect that that is going to come back at you. If I were representing LTC Caldwell’s staff, I would ask if the outcomes of the investigation were factual, and, regardless of when or why the investigations were started, if they were, that would be the end of the whistleblower.
Let’s face it, LTC Holmes thought that, because he went to a one week school and may or may not have completed a course granting him a functional area 30, he had crossed the line into some spook/3 letter agency/SOCOM world that provided far more privilege than it did, and got pissed off when he was given some menial task of prepping the staff for CODEL visits.
Heh, the training Superlawyer, Esq. is talking about is a one week certificate course? That amuses me. I wrote a term paper in college on Early Irish Apiary Law that got an A so going by Superlawyer, Esq.’s standards I guess I’m as qualified to practice law as he is.
Yeah, my sources tell me, and I quote, you’ll sue everything that you can’t fuck or eat.
And a few things he can. The only difference between lawyers and sperm cells is that the sperm cell at least has a 1 in 30 million chance of becoming a human being.
No offense, TSO.
BTW, Mr. Zaid, are you charging Holmes $250 an hour for posting on here? If you are, keep it up. Hell, I’ll throw in some more posts for you to ramble on ad nauseam if it causes you to throw a ridiculously overinflated bill at your client. Bombs away, fucker!
Sincerely,
NHSparky, Esq.
Pardon me for asking, but when did lawyers become PR flacks? Why would a lawyer be posting to a blog? I must have missed that class in law school.
I think this guy honestly believes that it is a Whistleblower case, but it is a lot like the dude in the titty bar that thinks the stripper is into him. You see what you want to see.
LTC Holmes is a turd on at least 50 different fronts, and his shit about doing it for sergeants still has me incensed. I was sad to see that Zaid works with Neal Puckett, who is an attorney for whom I have immense respect. (He was Wutterich’s attny.)
Zaid doesn’t impress me, and I believe I met him once at a House hearing. But, not even remembering for sure is a sign of how impressed I was with his genius legal mind.
Also, Zaid links to Antiwar.com and shit like that, which makes wikipedia look like the holy bible.
Agreed, TSO, I think he just doesn’t see LTC Holmes for what he is…using this psych ops bullshit in retaliation for being in trouble for violating orders and lying about it.
“I think this guy honestly believes that it is a Whistleblower case”
Or he saw it as a way to make a quick buck and maybe get his name in Rolling Stone which would be an easy way to impress all the mid to late 20’s hipster chicks at happy hour down in Dupont Circle. Well, that and those glasses.
I think Holmes “stared” at Ackerman and Zaid too long and broke their brains.
Is Zaid a classmate of Oily Titz and James Branum? He sounds nearly as qualified as they to lose this case. His rambling here can be charged off to “Representing the Client”? Cooool. Can our rambling here be used to “Prosecute the Defendant”?
Southern Class, Esq.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but…OUCH on all the lawyer jokes. You want to make fun of this dirt bag, be my guest, but leave me, TSO, and the rest of us who went to law school to defend you from the likes of this schmuck out of it. I know you all hate to admit it, but without lawyers to know the law, there could never be a “rule of law.”
Thanks
/rant off
Lordy, lordy…a “gentleman” of the bar coming to TAH to school Veterans on military stuff. A new day dawns.
So Jonn…following all this esquire (which, by the way, I thought was a magazine) stuff does that mean I can be an esquiress? Or am I still just a bitch? Either way I’m happy.
Holmes seems to be a douche from all I’ve read. Who would that make as the douchebag? Just wondering?
It may be that he is a 41-series (IO) officer, rather than a 37-series (Psy-Op). People confuse/combine these all the time- and they are NOT the same; however, I do know IO types who seem to THINK they are Psy-qualled or something.
I call them ‘Men who stare at Screens’
Haha, the plate glass window comment kills me, but the first thing that came to mind was the Beauchamp incident.
Friends? Yeah he’s not the first reporter I’ve seen use that frame. If you interview/talk to an individual, does that make them your friend? I don’t know maybe, in his/their/this case it does, its possible, but I’m doubtful.
To be fair I guess even Ackermann has his moments. I could have sworn he was one of those trying to push the “nothing to see here” in regards to the coming CHICOM menace a few weeks back. I guess he can’t make every post CNAS related and has to do some leg work on occasion.
I post on blogs all the time, and particularly military ones given my work on the anthrax vaccine, Able Danger, Haditha, and other cases in support of the military, so not sure why you would be surprised I would do so here. I think I have even posted on this blog before, but I may be wrong about that and it was somewhere else.
And you guys simply proved my point that you can’t have a rational conversation without personal attacks or gutter language. Do you think it hurts my feelings? Sorry, it doesn’t.
LTC Holmes has never said he was a PysOps officer. I know full well what a 37A is. He wasn’t one. No one at Camp Eggers was.
The problem is that you have all believed what you read as pure gospel and continue to assume facts from it. But obviously we are well beyond that now and I am not going to try and persuade you otherwise as that would be a useless venture because you have already decided what happened and determined what your personal views are about LTC Holmes and me. That’s fine.
But seriously, is all you do is talk amongst yourselves and support each others anonymous rants? Doesn’t that get boring when you preach to the choir? To me this is actually fun to watch. It is too bad you don’t want to have an actual serious conversation about the issues with someone from the inside.
I have a novel idea, how about identifying who everyone is by true name and location so I know who I am talking to? True, I have never been in the military, which is something I honestly regret as I have an intense respect for those who have served, but I don’t hide my identity when I post. Nor do I shy away from publicly standing behind my comments. Are any of you willing to do the same?
BTW, I charge far more than $250/hour. That was actually the only insulting comment someone made. lol
BLUF: this lieutenant colonel is so much chaff in the wind. Bright, sparkly, and over sooner than necessary.
In a functional demonstration in the proper use of IO, he did very, very well: people actually believe the Army engaged in PSYOP against American congresscritters. Through publication in “Rolling Stone,” the myth of covert, psychological operations against innocent, unsuspecting Americans continues in new form for a new generation.
It’ll eventually rank among the best conspiracies of the XXIst century.
Because of the notoriety, any prosecution however righteous will be considered illustrative proof of the covert operation, and of LTC Holmes’s part in it. The paradox is that any NJP will also be considered proof of the Army’s culpability in this incident.
As a demonstration of practical IO, Holmes has played a clever game. He didn’t quite get a way out of the paradox though: to escape the consequences of his alleged mis-deeds, he must become a martyr for the PSYOP conspiracy to be given weight. If he opts out of martyrdom, and is convicted or cops a plea about the alleged mis-deeds, he is likely facing a lifetime label of “felon.”
Still, bravo to LTC Holmes for a good journeyman effort in information operations. Now to see how he and Penelope Pureheart escape this trap.
Mark, I would love to discuss this, and give my direct phone number. Pls email Jonn if you wish to discuss directly and he will let me know and I will call. Again, I give you more credit for your work with wutherich, but am exceedingly skeptical.
Also, I am more than eager to identify by name but last time I did I got death threats to me dad, so please contact.
actually, I will contact work number on monday.
TSO, it would be my pleasure. I appreciate the kind words re: Wuterich. The Haditha case is a complete travesty for our Marines and military.
You can reach me directly at Mark@MarkZaid.com and we can exchange contact information. Skeptical is fine. You should be skeptical. Just be open to change your mind and focus on the facts. That’s all I ask.
Most importantly, I certainly have no interest in anyone receiving any type of threats, real or otherwise.
And you are absolutely correct about Neal Puckett TSO, he is a fantastic person and attorney, which is why we work together all the time and our firms are Of Counsel to one another.
BTW, where in the world do I link to http://www.antiwar.com?
Ok, I now see that on my FB page I linked to an article from http://www.antiwar.org. And that means what exactly?
The article in question was an interview my client, LTC Anthony Shaffer, gave a reporter concerning his book Operation Darkheart and the lawsuit I am handling challenging the classification of the contents: http://original.antiwar.com/vlahos/2011/01/13/lt-col-shaffer-vs-the-pentagon/. I was also interviewed for the article.
You’ll find me mentioned in many articles on FoxNews.com too. Doesn’t mean a thing other than good pr for my client.