From the failing Unpatriot to the terminator Journalist; How is Adam ciralsky?

#Adamciralsky #ciralsky #SirManuel #vanityfair #SirAnthonyRitossa #Ritossafamilysumit

David Zurawik, a well-known writer, journalist and professor, wrote that “the journalistic holes in the efforts of Ciralsky and his team are too many to count” (Zurawik).

Kelly McBride, a faculty member and the ethics group leader at The Poynter Institute, said that Ciralsky “collaborated with organizations that have motives that are different than journalistic motives” (Guthrie).


David Zurawik, a well-known writer, journalist and professor, wrote that “the journalistic holes in the efforts of Ciralsky and his team are too many to count” (Zurawik).

Kelly McBride, a faculty member and the ethics group leader at The Poynter Institute, said that Ciralsky “collaborated with organizations that have motives that are different than journalistic motives” (Guthrie).

On 19th October 2022, Vanity Fair published an article called “Inside Wealth-Conference Con Man Anthony Ritossa’s Wild Web of Lies”, written by Adam Ciralsky (link: -wild-web-of-lies ).

The article contains ridiculing statements about H.E. Prof. Sir Manuel Freire-Garabal y Núñez (Sir Manuel in future reference), who is the founder and chairman of UK-based Al-Khalifa Business School (AKBS).

For example, Ciralsky makes an offensive comment about Sir Manuel by saying that “grammar and spelling are not his strong suits” while he has a Bachelors Degree in Law, MBA and has completed more than 300 courses and specializations in different areas from IVY league and Elite Business Schools. This statement was deliberately made by Ciralsky to expose Sir Manuel as an uneducated person, while in reality this is not true.

Here Ciralsky is trying to prove to readers that Sir Manuel is allegedly a fan of collecting titles and awards and strives to make his resume stand out too much, although it is not true, because in reality Sir Manuel received a lot of positive feedback thanks to his contributions and collaborations. All awards that Sir Manuel received are official and they were given for specific achievements.

While it is true that Sir Manuel holds the mentioned titles as well as many other personalities from different areas.

Sir Manuel has been recognised by the Governor Andy Beshear and the Secretary of State Michael Adams with the title of Kentucky Colonel. Kentucky Colonel is the highest title of honor bestowed by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Commissions for Kentucky colonels are given by the Governor and the Secretary of State to individuals in recognition of noteworthy accomplishments, contributions to Kentucky society, remarkable deeds, and outstanding service to a community, state, or the nation. The Governor of Kentucky bestows the honor of a colonel’s commission, by the issuance of letters patent. Among the ranks of the Kentucky Colonels are distinguished leaders such as Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Ronald Reagan and English Prime Minister Winston Churchill, volunteer firemen and teachers – people from all walks of life who have performed in an extraordinary manner.


Sir Manuel also received in the United States the appointment of the Arkansas Traveler by official State appointment from the Governor of Arkansas Asa Hutchinson and the Secretary of State John Thurston. The Arkansas Traveler is an honorary title bestowed on notable individuals who, through their actions, serve as official goodwill ambassadors for Arkansas’s US state. Among the different notable recipients, there are President Donald Trump, President Ronald Reagan, Muhammad Ali, Maya Angelou, or Steve Forbes.

He also received several city recognitions from cities such as Machu Picchu (given by the Mayor Darwin Baca Leon), Medley by Mayor Roberto Martell and North Miami Beach (given by Mayor Anthony DePhillippo). Sir Manuel also received the Honorary Citizenship and Keys of the Region of Vakinankaratra and the City of Antsirabe.


On 2020 Prof. Sir Manuel was appointed with the Grand Cross of Ruby Ars Longa. Among the most outstanding winners of the first-class degree are Fidel Alejandro Castro Rus, President of the Republic of Cuba; Sheikh Hamada ibn Isa Al Khalifa, King of Bahrain; Mikhail Gorbachev, President of the USSR or Emomali Sharipovich Rakhmonov, President of Tajikistan. As well as second and third-class personalities of art and culture such as Alek Baldwin, American actor; Owen Wilson, American actor or Rutger Hauer, Dutch actor.

He also received the Medal of the Congress of Peru Professor Manuel Freire-Garabal y Núñez has received the Medal of the Congress of the Republic of Peru, by nomination of the Foreign and Tourism Commission. The recognition has been delivered by Congressman Alexander Lozano Inostroza. “conferred in the framework of the bicentennial of the independence of Peru. Merit to his permanent work of cooperation with the peoples of Peru and his unconditional support to spread our cultural and tourist wealth “as expressed in the certificate


This is another attempt to discredit Sir Manuel and try to portray him as a “dishonest” person.

As Ciralsky said: “He states that he has served as a “contributor of Higher Education” to UC Berkeley, USC, and Yale, and as a “professor, collaborator and advisor to many universities across the globe, including the Harvard Medical School.” All at age 27.”

Sir Manuel works with different many universities in advising, lecturing and researching  around the world in Asia, Africa and North America. He also has been invited to participate in many blogs and media from different universities and newspapers around the world

Nowadays  in mass media Sir Manuel is also a  contributor to The Economic Times and The Times of India (through his own blog Disruption on Higher Education)  and (as a member of the Entrepreneur Leadership Network).

Ciralsky continues to create statements that are made up. For example, he supposedly asked a representative of Harvard Medical School about Sir Manuel’s role as a professor, collaborator [and/or] advisor, and anonymous representative supposedly said that “We are unable to find any records of this individual being or having ever been on our faculty, working as a researcher, instructor or a student at HMS.” First of all, the anonymity of the representative of HMS makes it difficult to prove that the statement made is true. Secondly, the Washington Mail, an authoritative American newspaper, acknowledges the fact that Sir Manuel indeed advises “many universities across the globe, including the Harvard Medical School”. The source is .

Regarding his relation with Harvard Medical School he has been working for several years in  the field of Health development with Dr. Reza Radmand (Research Collaborator from Harvard Medical School). They are currently involved in several collaborative clinical studies at Harvard Medical School’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Division of Sleep Medicine, particularly in Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA), a common disorder caused by repeated obstruction of the area of the back of the throat during sleep.

 The article also contains defamatory statements about Prince Assaf that do not have any evidence. Their purpose is clearly to ridicule the members of AKBS and to portray AKBS as a not serious organization. Ciralsky attempts to damage the well established reputation of an accredited fully functioning university that offers a range of different degrees. Ciralsky claims that Mahmoud Salah-Al-Din Assaf, is called a “milk sheikh” by Middle Eastern royal watchers. There is no evidence that the Prince was ever called like that and Ciralsky does not name any of these royal watchers. Then, Ciralsky writes that “Assaf, by his own admission, certified his status with the Heraldrys Institute of Rome, which sells documents online depicting a family history, blazon, crest, coat of arms, and references to nobility—for $200 to $300, depending on whether the customer wants a PDF or a version on handmade paper”. It is true that Prince Assaf certified his status with the Heraldrys Institute of Rome, however, this institute clearly says that a preliminary heraldic research and origin of surname are needed before the client asks for a heralding document. How would a client ask for a heraldic document without doing research anyway? And the pricing is reasonable, since heraldic art is very specific and only trusted for the professionals to create it.


Ciralsky failed initial polygraph testing that was conducted on 19th August 1997. Considering that Ciralsky’s position as an Attorney Advisor in the Agency’s Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) required a “top secret” security clearance (Shanstrom, 2010), it is understandable that he needed to further prove his reliability. Polygraph testing, along with comprehensive background research, is a process that a job seeker must complete (Office of the Director of National Intelligence, n.d.) regardless of his nationality and/or religion. Therefore, what Ciralsky was asked to complete was a regular procedure and did not have anything to do with his Jewish origin and religion. He encountered later problems with accessing documents specifically because he failed polygraph testing on 19th August 1997 while taking an important position in the CIA, and thus he contributed to growing suspicions that understandably led to more interviews conducted by CIA employees and concerns about giving him access to secret documents.

Ciralsky demonstrated lack of candor regarding several contacts that were or may have been involved in the Israeli security establishment. For instance, it became known that Ciralsky’s father, who was a wealthy person, could support Israeli political/social causes, specifically the Likud party. Ciralsky also hid information about the fact that an Israeli chaperoned a trip to the Jewish state he took with the Milwaukee federation when he was 15 years old. He also did not reveal the connection to his great-grandfather’s first cousin, Chaim Weizmann, Israel’s first president (Dorf 1999). Furthermore, CIA investigators determined that Ciralsky failed to disclose that Israeli citizen who accompanied Ciralsky during the trip to Israel was later introduced to his boss at Berner Lanphier and Associates (BLA), a Washington-area defense contractor. Furthermore, Ciralsky did not fully reveal his relationship with two people with dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship who work for Israeli defense firms and have possible ties to Israeli intelligence (Loeb 2000). He was eventually asked about all this information in polygraph tests and interviews that were conducted in 1998. Ciralsky failed two polygraph tests and, as a result, his top-secret clearance was removed (Shannon, 2000). Furthermore, according to the CIA official report, Ciralsky had once tried to facilitate the transfer of classified information to Israel. During the investigation, the CIA appointed a panel of prominent citizens, including American Jews to review the case. The panel concluded that anti-Semitism played no role in firing of Ciralsky. The problem therefore is with Ciralsky himself and his background. Being a Jew and/or practicing a Jewish religion does not create a problem. For instance, former director of Central Intelligence John Deutch said that “I am Jewish and during my entire experience with the CIA — since I first came into contact with it in 1975 throughout my tenure as director which concluded in 1997 — I never encountered any hint of anti-Semitism at any point.” (Dorf 1999).

Ciralsky failed to bring up subject matter jurisdiction in his claim XIX, which stated that the CIA breached his employment contract by extending his term of service without paying him. However, the district courts only have jurisdiction over any claim against the United States, not exceeding $10000 in amount, and Ciralsky’s claim exceeded $10000 in amount. Therefore, this Court could hear this claim (Shanstrom, 2010).

Ciralsky could not find a congressional directive that could grant judicial review of security clearance decisions based on invidious discrimination. This is the only way the Court could have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s case. That means the claims made by the Plaintiff were dismissed for the lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12 (b) (1). All of Ciralsky’s claims and damages relate to the same act: the revocation of his security clearance and subsequent termination. Ciralsky’s counsel at oral argument stated that the claims arise not from the revocation of his security clearance but from the constitutional violations that led to the revocation. This distinction is illusory. The District of Columbia court found out that “the CIA’s decisions on his security clearance and termination cannot be viewed as unrelated events.” (Brinkema, 2010). So, it turns out that revocation of Plaintiff’s security clearance had a clear undeniable reason and is not based on a more broad term like “anti-semitism”.

Ciralsky brought constitutional torts via a Bivens action, but his claims do not meet the standards of Bivens action. A Bivens claim is a civil rights lawsuit. Victims can file a claim if their civil rights have been constitutionally violated by a federal agent. Ciralsky could not bring Bivens claims against the agency. Only the actions of individual defendants can be the basis of Bivens claims. There was only a vague claim about former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet. The Second Amended Complaint made by the Plaintiff fails to identify any specific actions of individual defendants, instead stating that its allegations are “against each and every Defendant, jointly and severally”. Therefore, Ciralsky’s complaint does not fit in the standards of Bivens action (Brinkema, 2010).

Ciralsky did not present facts that specifically form a constitutional violation. The Plaintiff did not present concrete facts that proved any violation of his constitutional rights. The Plaintiff argued that the CIA found it suspicious that he was very sympathetic to Israel. However, it was determined that the CIA’s actions were within its broad discretion for granting and denying access to national security information. The CIA simply wanted to predict future behavior of the employee and assess the risk of compromising sensitive information. Based on conducted interviews and polygraph tests, as well as investigation of the Plaintiff’s background, the CIA decided that the employee was very loyal to foreign power. The law provides great discretion to the executive branch in revoking a security clearance, particularly when there are concerns similar to those related to Adam Ciralsky (Brinkema, 2010).

Ciralsky did not file a valid FISA claim and the Fourth Amendment Claim. FISA stands for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. This act restricts the circumstances of when a United States government agency can perform and governs surveillance of “foreign intelligence information” between “foreign powers” and “agents of foreign powers.” The Plaintiff claims that the government searched his computer, later provided him a laptop computer and monitored communications from that computer. However, Ciralsky has not alleged anything other than broad, conclusory statements about a search conducted by unknown officials. Moreover, Ciralsky does not allege that any of the communications constituted foreign intelligence information, nor does he allege that the communications were between foreign powers or their agents. Ciralsky merely alleges that “defendant’s conduct also violated” FISA. Furthermore, the court decided that the issuance of a special computer to the CIA employee had a legitimate, work-related purpose and involved a computer that it provided, not Ciralsky’s personal computer. Therefore, apart from failure to file a valid FISA claim, the Plaintiff also failed to state a valid Fourth Amendment claim, which usually protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government (Brinkema, 2010).

The Plaintiff failed to file a valid complaint related to the Privacy Act that regulates how a federal agency keeps records on individuals. According to Plaintiff, the CIA committed violations by disclosing official records pertaining to him to uninvolved government officials, the Jacobs Panel, and the Washington Post journalist. However, the disclosure of Ciralsky’s records to the Jacobs Panel does not go against the law, because this done as a part of investigation that looked for the signs of anti-semitism. The investigation was conducted by an official agency, and thus the disclosure of information is simply an intra-agency communication under the Privacy Act. Section 552a(b)(1) of the Privacy Act does not require an agency to list those of its officers eligible to look at protected records, nor does it demand that an agency official be specifically assigned to examining records. What must be determined . . . is whether the official examined the record in connection with the performance of duties assigned to him and whether he had to do so in order to perform those duties properly.” Therefore, the disclosure of Plaintiff’s records to the Jacobs Panel was a permissible intra-agency disclosure. Regarding the disclosure of information to the Washington Post journalist, it should be noted that this action did not cause any emotional or even physical damage to the Plaintiff. Ciralsky never demonstrated that he suffered any kind of injury and he did not explain in detail how the disclosure detrimentally affected him. Therefore, there was nothing wrong with the access to information given to the Washington Post journalist (Shanstrom, 2010).

Ciralsky chose an incorrect venue for his claims. He maintains that the District of Columbia is an appropriate venue for this action under § 1391(b)(2) because CIA and FBI officials conducted certain activities and meetings there related to investigating Plaintiff and because the National Security Council position that Plaintiff lost would have been in the District of Columbia. However, the actual workplace of Adam Ciralsky was located in CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and therefore the correct venue would be the Eastern District of Virginia. All significant events that were part of the investigation occurred in Virginia (Shanstrom, 2010).

The CIA has a right to check its employees, especially with Israeli connections, because of events that happened in the past. For example, there is a famous case of Jonathan Pollard, who was not a CIA employee (he was a former US navy intelligence analyst), however, he still worked for an intelligence service and created a great deal of damage because he spied for Israel. Pollard supplied officials working at Israeli embassy in the United States with boxes and suitcases full of information from the Departments of State, Defense, and Justice, the CIA, and the National Security Agency. Pollard pleaded guilty to having conveyed classified information to a foreign state and cooperated with investigators. Pollard greatly compromised the US national security. It is also worth knowing that in 1977 he was rejected for a job with the CIA after an investigation uncovered his use of drugs and his penchant for telling stories that gave the impression that he was an agent of Israeli intelligence (Encyclopedia Britannica). Therefore, the CIA uses former high-profile cases to prevent future damages to the US national security.


Apparently, Ciralsky helped Erik Prince, former Navy SEAL and chief executive of Blackwater, to graymail the US Government (Scahill 2009). Graymailing is a legal tactic that has been used for years by intelligence operatives or assets who are facing prosecution or fear they soon will be. The US Government back then was investigating Blackwater, which used to be Prince’s private military company, on a range of serious charges, ranging from gun smuggling to extralegal killings; multiple civil lawsuits alleging war crimes and extrajudicial killings; and Congress was investigating the assassination program in which Prince and his company were central players.

In 2009, Ciralsky published in Vanity Fair his very well known article “Tycoon, Contractor, Soldier, Spy”. In this article, Erik Prince gave Adam Ciralsky, who was a former CIA employee, unprecedented access to information about sensitive, classified and lethal operations not only of Prince’s forces, but Prince himself. In the article, Prince is revealed not just as owner of a company that covertly provided contractors to the CIA for drone bombings and targeted assassinations, but as an actual CIA asset himself. Prince was clearly in the dangerous trap and he knew that early or late he would be charged. Therefore, he began to act ahead of the curve. It is also clear that Prince carefully chose whom to tell his story, and his choice of Adam Ciralsky was not random: Ciralsky seriously struggled against the CIA and he was also a lawyer, and therefore, he was an ideal partner who could help to prepare Prince’s legal defense that included charges against the CIA. The article became sort of a plan which could be used as a basis of legal defense. Furthermore, graymailing tactics tend to be very effective against the government, according to Scott Horton, a national security expert.

Graymailing operatives or assets like Erik Prince usually threaten to reveal details of sensitive or classified operations in order to ward off indictments or criminal charges, based on the belief that the government would not want these details revealed. Basically, that means Ciralsky helped the criminal to show his alleged innocence and avoid punishment. Also, Ciralsky was Prince’s business partner, and therefore Ciralsky helped Prince to promote himself in a better way (Isenberg 2018). Moreover, Ciralsky broke the law by revealing that Erik Prince was basically a CIA spy: CIA employee’s names should usually be hidden. Scott Horton was surprised by the fact that Vanity Fair published the article and accused the editors of misunderstanding what was actually going on (Scahill 2009). Ciralsky’s article should not have been published in the first place.

In 2013 Ciralsky, again in Vanity Fair, published a controversial article “Will It Fly?”. In the article, Ciralsky revealed mismanaged development of the Joint Strike Fighter, also known as the F-35 Lightning II. First of all, the question is who is “Charlie”, a mysterious source of origin that he references in the article. Secondly, this source just regurgitates what is already public knowledge with a heavy dose of his own opinion. Therefore Ciralsky simply revealed an open secret (F16 forum, 2013). Finally, why would Ciralsky publish an article about military details in a magazine that is mostly about gossip and covering popular celebrities? This magazine is simply not the right place to publish these kinds of articles.

Adam Ciralsky is also known for being a director in NBC News that aired its controversial investigative program, which was called “The Wanted”. After much controversy about both the subject and Ciralsky himself (because of his firing from the CIA), reviewers condemned the show, calling it: “scorned by critics and snubbed by viewers.” “The Wanted” was criticized heavily and this reveals that Ciralsky does not always know how to develop his projects.

“It’s like nothing you’ve ever seen on TV before,” promised executive producers Charlie Ebersol and Adam Ciralsky in a statement. It should be noted that it was Ciralsky’s idea to create the show. Ebersol was not even a NBC employee and he was invited to participate only in this show. Then, they said: “the pairing of rigorous investigative journalism with high-end production values has resulted in a fast-paced show, which we hope will leave viewers wanting more.” But some experts question the “rigorous investigative journalism” description, as some media ethicists doubt such dramatic flourishes in what is being billed as a news program. “If you’ve got a journalist who is essentially playing the role of an action-adventure figure, if it looks like a post-9/11 “A-Team,” then you would be further stretching the already flexible boundaries between journalism and entertainment,” Mark Jurkowitz, associate director of the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, said. “There have to be some traditional journalistic values. And journalists pay fealty to getting the sequence of things correct, of not manipulating fact for effect.” (Ferguson 2009).

Furthermore, the show has also drawn criticism from government officials who say that Ciralsky and Ebersol could interfere with ongoing criminal investigations. Journalists often cross the line, and Ciralsky is not an exception. Human rights advocates, meanwhile, voiced concern the program would make false accusations. Ciralsky and his partner used too much drama and labeled people as “terrorists” and “criminals” in advance, and the guilt of those people still had to proven. Ciralsky wanted to create a useless sensation out of the show and this is not professional journalism. Ciralsky wanted to use loud slogans such as “NBC hunts terrorists” just to improve his personal controversial reputation and present himself as a “hero”. He believed he was once a victim of injustice and tried to prove that he personally can bring people to justice and arrogantly tell officials who are officially part of the process of prosecution/investigation/deportation of criminals what to do. For example, tell the Norwegian government that they needed to deport Mullah Krekar. Ciralsky, who just led an TV entertainment program, was just not in the position to tell government officials what they should do. Subordination matters. David Zurawik, a well-known writer, journalist and professor, wrote that “the journalistic holes in the efforts of Ciralsky and his team are too many to count” (Zurawik 2009). Journalist Sanford J. Ungar said the idea of “hunting down criminals among us” seemed strange. He even wrote an open letter, saying: “Some question the unusual circumstance in which the prosecutor traveled around the United States with a television producer and camera crew, rather than talking with the appropriate U.S. government officials through standard channels.” Ciralsky didn’t realize that sometimes there are standard procedures that have to be done, and journalism should not penetrate into them. Also, when Jack Shafer, a famous American journalist, hoping to learn more about “The Wanted” tried to contact Ciralsky, Ciralsky refused to answer questions (Shafer 2009).

Moreover, “The Wanted” seemed more like a tabloid television rather than an investigative show. What was happening was a collision of two different worldviews: the investigative mindset of journalists and prosecutors, with its normative emphasis on evidence, guilt, and verdicts; and the academic mode of inquiry, which is more discursive and wary of definitive judgments. The disdain between the two sides was mutual. Kelly McBride, a faculty member and the ethics group leader at The Poynter Institute, said that Ciralsky “collaborated with organizations that have motives that are different than journalistic motives” (Guthrie 2009). Seeing that the show casted former intelligence and military personnel including a retired Navy SEAL and a former federal prosecutor on the international war-crimes tribunal, McBride’s opinion seemed to be a valid one. Ciralsky also legitimized vigilantism and compromised the role of those in the media as impartial observers (Guthrie 2009). Furthermore, when “The Wanted” was about to be launched, Ciralsky’s proposal had its genesis in a disconcerting fact: that in an age of easy migration, no conflict is confined. An estimated 1,000 immigrants currently living in the United States have pasts that involve violations of human rights. Why not track such criminals down, Ciralsky proposed, and put them on camera? This demonstrates that Ciralsky has ambitious and unrealistic goals, even though it is an interesting one as for a journalist. Firstly, why would he again label those 1000 immigrants as “criminals”? They all have a different degree of guilt, if any, and their guilt still has to be proved. Accredited officials are already doing this, why would a journalist enter the area of knowledge which he does not fully understand. By labeling people he just wanted to stand out as a “great prosecutor”. And obviously, who of them would want to be shown on camera, especially those who committed serious crimes? For what purpose? To be condemned by society and lose the last bits of reputation? And finally, how would Ciralsky and his team track down 1000 people? That was simply not realistic.




Comments are closed