Malicious Threat: James E Cartwright Gen Leak Benign Threat: Henry Wells Bio American Express

Insider Threat Assignment

Malicious Threat: James E Cartwright Gen Leak

Benign Threat: Henry Wells Bio American Express

1. Information about the Malicious Attack

1. Provide a detailed description of what the malicious insider did.

James Cartwright is a retired U.S. Marine Corps four-star general who served as Vice Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff from 2007 to 2011. In June of 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice started an investigation into a leak of information of Operation Olympic Games (Gates, n.d.) . This operations target was Iranian nuclear missile programs.  A computer virus known as Stuxnet was used in a cyberattack against Iranian centrifuges.  Federal Investigators reportedly suspected Cartwright of leaking details of the operation to a New York times reporter, David E Sanger.  Sanger later released a book entitled “Confront and Conceal.”  Although, the book discusses Operation Olympic games and the leaked information about Stuxnet, General Cartwright was never named as a source of the leak.  The Times released statements regarding Sanger, Cartwright and the sources, “In researching his book ‘Confront and Conceal’ and his stories for The New York Times, David E. Sanger relied on multiple sources in Washington, Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere. Most of them spoke on the condition of anonymity.”  “As in the past, neither The Times nor Mr. Sanger will discuss whether a particular person was a source or the sourcing of particular information that was published, beyond what has been disclosed in our stories and in the book,” the statement continued. (Savage, 2016).  On October 17th, 2016 Cartwright plead guilty for making false statements during the investigation, but ultimately denied he was the source of the leak. “It was wrong for me to mislead the F.B.I. on Nov. 2, 2012, and I accept full responsibility for this,” General Cartwright said. “I knew I was not the source of the story and I didn’t want to be blamed for the leak. My only goal in talking to the reporters was to protect American interests and lives; I love my country and continue to this day to do everything I can to defend it.” (Savage, 2016).  A sentencing hearing in the case is set for January 17, 2016.

1. Characterize the attack as occupational fraud, sabotage, or other.

If the attack can be substantiated that it was indeed General Cartwright that was the source of the leak a case can be made that this was sabotage.  Leaking of top secret military information would definitely constitute “harm to the organization.”  In this case the organization being the U.S. Government.  Another point would be Republicans in Congress accused the White House of deliberately leaking this information through Cartwright to make President Obama appear tough on foreign policy in an election year.  Again, sabotage or other attack type made be needed to describe a political maneuver of this nature.

1. Did the malicious insider serve in an accounting-related position? If so, describe the position or provide their title.

No, General Cartwright held the position of General of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and would not be considered in an accounting-related position.

1. Is this attack towards the organization in a whole or individuals in the   organization?

The attack in general would be considered directed toward the organization as a whole.  Although depending of the type of leaked information in this case, an argument could be made that individuals may have been put in danger by revealing certain details of Operation Olympic Games.  With all cases of leaked classified information in the U.S. a successful prosecution must show violation of the 1917 Espionage act and show the leaker realized it could harm the U.S. of help a foreign government (Gjelten, 2012).

1. Is this attack an expressive one or instrumental one? Explain your reason.

Without a direct confirmation of fault or conviction, the guilty plea of the lesser charge leads us to believe this attack was instrumental.  The stepping stone in the situation being, leaking this information on the hope of getting a better public opinion of President Obama in an election cycle.  If it can be hypothesized that President Obama would not have been reelected without the help of the information being leaked, then an instrumental crime would be the case.

1. Is this attack task-related or non-task related?

Although the scope of the job description for a Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is assumed to be extremely broad, talking to reporters about a top secret operation could not be thought of as task-related (Joint Chiefs of Staff, n.d.).  In this instance the attack would be considered non-task related.

1. Was the malicious insider disgruntled before the attack?

No, from all accounts Cartwright was considered “Obama’s favorite general” (Savage, 2016).  There is no evidence to support he was disgruntled at the time of the attack and Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D.-Calif,, described Cartwright as, “he’s always been one who acted in a way to defend the country and do so in a way that is beyond reproach (Isikoff, 2013).”

1. Background information

1. Was this a malicious insider attack?

General Cartwright would definitely be considered an insider.  As Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff he would have had significant power, right to access, represent, and decide about assets of the organization.  Although Republican congress members feel as if his intent was malicious without direct evidence or conviction there is no way to label General Cartwright as malicious in his intent.  In his words he was even attempting to protect the organization, not harm it. “I knew I was not the source of the story and I didn’t want to be blamed for the leak. My only goal in talking to the reporters was to protect American interests and lives; I love my country and continue to this day to do everything I can to defend it. (Savage, 2016)”

1. Gender of the malicious insider, age when attack happened.

Male, 63 years at time of investigation, 66 years at time of guilty plea.

1. Position of the malicious insider and job responsibility.

Vice Chairman Joints Chiefs of Staff - performs such duties as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may prescribe, he is the second ranking member of the Armed Forces and replaces the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in his absence or disability. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the principal military adviser to the President, Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council (NSC), however, all JCS members are by law military advisers, and they may respond to a request or voluntarily submit, through the Chairman, advice or opinions to the President, the Secretary of Defense, or NSC (Joint Chiefs of Staff, n.d.).

1. Information about the Malicious Insider

1. What was the subject’s childhood experience like?

Born on September 22. 1949 in Rockford, Illinois.  Attended West High School before going to the University of Iowa.  Obtained a full ride scholarship for swimming.  he earned an advanced degree from the Naval War College.        He completed a fellowship at MIT (Office of the Press Secretary, 2007).

1. What was the subject’s relationship with colleagues?

Many people, including congressman, came out in support of General Cartwright after the initial investigation was started but there had been some contention within his circle of colleagues.  “The break between Cartwright and his two bosses, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen, came after the contentious debate in late 2009 over the surge of troops in Afghanistan. Cartwright worked with Vice President Joseph Biden on a plan that placed a greater emphasis on counterterrorism than counterinsurgency, and included a smaller footprint with fewer additional troops. They presented that plan to Obama without the prior approval of Gates and Mullen.”  Even after this event Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated, "Hoss Cartwright is one of the finest officers I’ve ever worked with (Rogin, 2011)."

1. What was the subject’s relationship with friends?

Due to the nature of subject’s position, no factual information on friends could be located.

1. What was the subject’s relationship with family members?

Again, due to the nature of the subject’s position little information is available about his family.

1. Is there events indicating unmet goals, removal of positive stimuli or present of negative stimuli for the insider before he/she launched the attack?

It may be possible to assume not receiving the promotion to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs would have led General Cartwright to leak the information but as the information leaked would have been considered helpful to the Obama administration, the person who would have had direct control over his promotion, it is unlikely there was negative stimuli.  A case could be made that this was his chance to make his promotion to Chairman and leaked the information with positive stimuli.