Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chinese immigrants face single count after broad allegations (failure to register as foreign agents)
ap on Bakersfield Californian ^ | 11/16/05 | JEREMIAH MARQUEZ - ap

Posted on 11/16/2005 1:55:45 PM PST by NormsRevenge

LOS ANGELES (AP) - The federal government's case against three Chinese immigrants first accused of a broad plot to steal secrets involving U.S. warship technology yielded a single, dressed-down count of failing to register as foreign agents.

While government authorities said they may seek more charges, some counterintelligence analysts see parallels with other cases against alleged Chinese spies that eventually unraveled.

"There's one case after another where senior officials allege serious activities ... and then the case just falls apart and you end with minor-looking charges," Paul Moore, a former China chief analyst for the FBI, said Wednesday.

"This looks like small potatoes compared to what was originally alleged," he said.

Chi Mak, 65, of Downey, his wife and brother were Indicted Tuesday on the sole charge of acting as agents of a foreign government without prior notification to the U.S. attorney general. The brothers remained in custody.

Last month, however, all three suspects were accused in an FBI affidavit of stealing government property, aiding and abetting, transportation of stolen goods and conspiracy.

The initial accusations carry a maximum combined sentence of 25 years. In contrast, the charge filed this week could bring 10 years at most.

The affidavit said Chi Mak stole computer disks from Anaheim defense contractor Power Paragon, where he was lead engineer on a sensitive research project involving propulsion systems for Navy warships.

He and his wife, Rebecca Laiwah Chiu, 62, allegedly copied the information to CDs and delivered them to his brother, Tai Wang Mak, 56, who was scheduled to fly to Hong Kong on Oct. 28 before heading to Guangzhou, China, to meet a contact.

The indictment contained none of those allegations.

Prosecutors held off on more counts - at least for now - partly because the military data in question was highly sensitive but not classified, said Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office. Some information was openly discussed at conferences.

"We've charged them in the indictment with being agents of the People's Republic of China. That's a serious charge," Mrozek said.

Defense attorneys have maintained their clients' innocence, said they have no criminal record or refused to comment.

The fact that more severe counts - espionage, for example - weren't filed highlights the problems prosecutors have faced, according to intelligence specialists.

A Los Angeles case against Katrina Leung - a Chinese-American businesswoman accused of taking documents from the briefcase of her longtime FBI handler - was thrown out in January because of governmental misconduct.

In the Wen Ho Lee case, all but one of 59 counts accusing the former Los Alamos National Laboratory nuclear scientist of mishandling sensitive information were eventually dismissed and then-President Clinton apologized for his treatment.

Lee was held in solitary confinement for nine months then released in September 2000 after pleading guilty to a single felony count.

Rodger Baker, a senior analyst at the private intelligence firm Stratfor, said initial allegations are sometimes overblown because investigators tend to assume the worst in national security cases.

"There's a lot of concern about not jumping the gun," Baker said. "But there's equal concern about seeming that you're not doing anything."

TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government; US: California; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: allegations; california; chinese; failure; foreignagents; immigrants; powerparagon; register; singlecount
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

1 posted on 11/16/2005 1:55:48 PM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Last month, however, all three suspects were accused in an FBI affidavit of stealing government property, aiding and abetting, transportation of stolen goods and conspiracy.

The initial accusations carry a maximum combined sentence of 25 years. In contrast, the charge filed this week could bring 10 years at most.

The affidavit said Chi Mak stole computer disks from Anaheim defense contractor Power Paragon, where he was lead engineer on a sensitive research project involving propulsion systems for Navy warships.

2 posted on 11/16/2005 1:57:11 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Monthly Donor spoken Here. Go to ...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Lee was held in solitary confinement for nine months then released in September 2000 after pleading guilty to a single felony count.

Lee was innocent. The govt. offered a plea deal of being held without bond until the trial finished (years) or pleading guilty and getting "time served".

3 posted on 11/16/2005 2:06:23 PM PST by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head; Travis McGee


4 posted on 11/16/2005 2:06:45 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Monthly Donor spoken Here. Go to ...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

What are three Chinese immigrants doing working on sensitive military projects to begin with???

That sounds incredibly stupid from the get-go.

5 posted on 11/16/2005 2:06:52 PM PST by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
What has happened to this country!
We must have a foreign PR campaign with the slogan
America Come piss on us!
6 posted on 11/16/2005 2:07:09 PM PST by txroadhawg ("Stuck on stupid? I invented stupid! " Al Gore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
RE: " Lee was innocent."

Do you know of any unbiased sources that document that Dr. Lee lived up to his agreement to tell the federal government what happened to the tapes, etc.?

If I remember correctly that was part of the deal and his lawyers assured the judge that Dr. Lee had accounted for them and would turn over the information and he would then cooperate with the federal government in all ways, for a period of at least a year I believe.

I've read several items that reported that Dr. Lee did not live up to his agreement and the federal government still does not know what happened to the tapes, etc.

7 posted on 11/16/2005 2:46:44 PM PST by WilliamofCarmichael (Hillary is the she in shenanigans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: staytrue; Alamo-Girl; JohnHuang2; kattracks; ALOHA RONNIE
Lee was innocent.

In what alternate universe?

Withdrawn charges (by who, precisely?) and apologies from Comrade ("We like your President") Xlinton don't reverse realities.

You have seen this, haven't you?

Spy Stories: The Wen Ho Lee Cover-Up
By David Horowitz | October 3, 2000

FBI DIRECTOR Louis B. Freeh got my attention when he tried to explain why the Justice Department dropped 58 of 59 charges against suspected nuclear spy Wen Ho Lee. “The Department of Justice and the FBI stand by each and every one of the 59 counts in the indictment of Dr. Lee,” Freeh told the Senate Judiciary and Select Intelligence committees. (AP 9/26/2000) “Each of those counts could be proven in December 1999 [when Lee was indicted], and each of them could be proven today.” Justice had agreed to a deal of guilt on one count (and a sentence of time served) in order to secure Lee’s cooperation in locating the missing files he had stolen from the nation’s top nuclear weapons lab. But the real reason for the cave-in was that the rules of a trial “posed serious obstacles to proving those facts without revealing nuclear secrets in open courts.” It was that statement that got my attention.

These were the same words, almost verbatim, that a Harvard Law Professor had said to me 28 years ago, in 1972. Not coincidentally, he was advising me on how to get away with violating the same code of the U.S. Espionage code that Wen Ho Lee had been accused of breaking.

The professor’s name was Charles Nesson, and I was, at the time, one of the editors of Ramparts, the largest magazine of the New Left. I had called Nesson in Los Angeles where he was serving as part of the defense team for Daniel Ellsberg, a Pentagon official who had copied a classified history of U.S. Vietnam policy (subsequently known as “The Pentagon Papers”) and illegally delivered them to the New York Times. I had been delegated to make the call by my fellow editors to seek advice from a man who was one of the leading constitutional law experts in the country, because of a story we were about to publish.

The story had been brought unsolicited to us by a man who told us his name was “Winslow Peck” (this later was shown to be an alias). He had come to the Ramparts office with a tale about a secret U.S. spy agency called the National Security Agency, which was tasked with all U.S. electronic intelligence operations. He himself had been an intelligence operative, stationed in Turkey, but had become disaffected because of the Vietnam War. Now he wanted to reveal to the world - including America’s enemies - the secrets to which he had been privy.

When we sat down with him, tape recorders running, “Winslow Peck” told us how the National Security Agency operated and what America’s intelligence professionals knew. He gave us the code words that they used to describe their operations. (One of our staffers, Bob Fitch, who had served in intelligence in the 82nd Airborne Division during the Cuban Crisis, was so shaken to recognize these codes that he refused to work on the article. He was that sure he would be sent to jail.) “Peck” told us that he had listened in on the last-minute telephone conversation that Soviet premier Alexi Kosygin had with a doomed cosmonaut whose rocket was not going to make it back to earth. He told us he had intercepted the communications between the Israeli command center in Tel Aviv and General Moshe Dayan that relieved Dayan of his post. He told us that the United States knew the name of every Russian pilot and the destination of every Russian airplane, around the clock.

The real secret that “Peck” was revealing to us (a fact I did not even realize at the time) was that United States intelligence had cracked the codes of both the Soviet Union and Israel, and was able to read all their electronic communications. This information would have been among the most guarded intelligence secrets of all. By making public to both ally and enemy that the United States had broken their codes, our informant was, in fact, alerting the intelligence agencies of both countries to change them. Thus the information “Peck” gave us was, or might have been (we had no way of knowing), a major blow to the United States’ national security in the midst of the Vietnam War.

As New Leftists, my fellow editors and I may have been arrogant, irresponsible and reckless, but we were not crazy. We understood that we had skated onto dangerously thin ice, with consequences we could only dimly imagine, and we wanted to know as clearly as possible what we might be facing if we decided to publish the story that “Peck” had brought us. I was delegated by my fellow editors to put in a call to the Ellsberg defense team to see just what risks we might be taking. That is how I happened to be talking to Harvard Law Professor, Charles Nesson. I have reported the conversation that took place in my autobiography Radical Son:

“After I had outlined the situation, Nesson explained the law. Technically, he said, we would be violating the Espionage Act. But, he added, the act had been written in such a way that it applied to classified papers removed from government offices, or material copied from government files. The government was able to indict Ellsberg because he had reproduced actual papers. It was important for us, in insulating ourselves from possible prosecution, not to acknowledge that any papers existed.” If any did exist, he added, destroying them would be helpful.

I now cannot help but ask myself whether this same calculation might have been behind Wen Ho Lee’s destruction of 310 of the classified computer files he had illegally removed from the Los Alamos Lab after finding out that the FBI was on his tail.

But to continue my story: “If we took his advice, Nesson suggested, we might get away with publishing [Peck’s] article. To make its case in a court of law, the government would have to establish that we had indeed damaged national security. To do so, it would be necessary to reveal more than the government might want the other side to know. In fact, the legal process would certainly force more information to light than the government would want anybody to know. On balance, there was a good chance that we would not be prosecuted.”

Reading my account of this incident, I am struck by the fact that Nesson’s strategy, which columnist William Safire has called “graymail,” of daring government prosecutors to go into open court and reveal their hand, is precisely the reasoning that Freeh volunteered to the congressional committee to explain the prosecution’s decision not to proceed with their case against Wen Ho Lee. To prove in a court of law that a defendant has endangered national security requires a prosecution to reveal far more information about a nation’s national security systems than any government may want to reveal. In concluding my account of the conversation with Nesson in Radical Son, I observed: “I had just been given advice by a famous constitutional law professor on how to commit treason and get away with it.”

Is Wen Ho Lee guilty? Wen Ho Lee illegally removed 400,000 files from the nation’s top nuclear weapons lab during a period of years when he had repeated contacts with Chinese government scientists and at a time when the Chinese Communist dictatorship was systematically stealing the secrets of America’s most sophisticated nuclear arsenal. His response to the FBI investigation was that of a seemingly guilty man. He destroyed files in his possession and repeatedly tried to break into the lab after his access was denied. Yet, Wen Ho Lee has acquired an almost martyr-like status as a victim of government persecution, and even of government “racism.” The presiding judge roundly condemned the ineptitude of Lee’s prosecution and his “punitive” treatment, in particular the fact that he was held in solitary confinement for months, and threatened by his interrogators with the specter of the Rosenbergs, who were executed for a crime similar to the one of which he was accused. The President himself has apologized for his own Justice Department’s handling of the case. And the nation’s editorial rooms have resounded with outrage at the entire affair.

Yet it is all very unconvincing. Begin with Clinton’s peculiar apology (without explanation) for a prosecution he himself was responsible for. The U.S. Attorney who handled the Lee case is Clinton’s friend and former college roommate. Within a week of Clinton’s apology, he was in New Mexico to raise money for the same prosecutor’s run for a state office. The argument of some of Lee’s supporters that an anti-Chinese bias was behind an intemperate Justice Department prosecution is hard to square with the fact that the current Deputy Attorney General in charge of civil rights is Chinese himself.

Columnist William Safire and others have suggested a more plausible explanation. The zealous pursuit of Lee followed the release of the bi-partisan Cox report detailing the theft of America’s nuclear arsenal by the Chinese government. Much of this theft took place during Clinton’s watch. Moreover, the Clinton Administration had been aggressive in lifting security controls on satellite, missile and computer technologies particularly instrumental in developing nuclear-tipped ballistic weaponry. The Clinton Administration had then sold those technologies to the Chinese.

The Cox Report had come on the heels of congressional investigations by government oversight committees into the unprecedented access given by the Clinton-Gore Administration to Chinese military and intelligence officials and their agents, possibly in exchange for illegal contributions to the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton-Gore campaign. Senator Fred Thompson had opened his hearings with the charge -- based on CIA testimony -- that the Chinese government had systematically set out to influence the presidential elections of 1996, which put Clinton and Gore in the White House. More than a hundred witnesses called to testify about these facts took the Fifth Amendment or fled the country. Finally, among the charges leveled at the Clinton-Gore team was that the Administration routinely authorized electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens (some seven hundred wire taps were approved) but that the Administration had turned down the FBI’s request for a tap on Wen Ho Lee. In fact, this was virtually the only tap the Clinton Justice Department refused.

In sum, the zealous prosecution of Wen Ho Lee, according to this theory, took place only after a period of endless foot-dragging and dangerous laxity on security issues, followed by the sensational revelations of the Cox Report. At this juncture, Clinton’s personal political interest dictated a vigorous effort to establish his vigilance, particularly in relation to the security threat from the Chinese. Only when his personal political jeopardy was over (for example, now) was he able to resume the posture of minimizing the problem itself.

The support for Wen Ho Lee and the view that he is an innocent victim of overzealous government security concerns is a familiar trope in American politics. The same attitude can be seen as a dominant feature of American liberalism in its approach to the Hiss case over half a century, and even to the Rosenbergs. It is not insignificant that the Rosenbergs were actually the last spies executed in America.

Charles Nesson, the professor who counseled me on how to commit treason, is still a highly respected law professor at Harvard and thus a legal lion of the establishment culture. In fact, the culture of Harvard is completely comfortable with professor Nesson who has never, so far as I know, expressed regret for his subversive advice in the Sixties. At the same time, the political culture of Harvard, is completely uncomfortable with someone like myself, who has. This is not an anomaly. The most prominent scholars to have used the newly opened Soviet archives to establish the guilt of Hiss, the Rosenbergs and other American spies are without exception conservative intellectuals and are shunned outsiders to the university culture. On the other hand, the most prominent scholars of American communism, in that same culture, are almost without exception apologists for American communism and partisans of the political left. The defining argument of their historical perspective, in fact, is to deny either treasonous activity or treasonous intent by actual communist party activists in the Forties and Fifties.

These are but two indicators of a phenomenon that is well known but rarely discussed. A large swathe of the American intelligentsia that is shaping opinion towards the Wen Ho Lee case is what is often euphemistically called the “adversarial” culture. It is a community that is indifferent at best to perceived American national interests, including the national security interest. Since World War II, this community has never been persuaded that America has enemies it does not deserve. The adversary culture can find a moral equivalency between American democracy and virtually any oppressive regime that is not American. I have a vivid memory of the late conductor Leonard Bernstein being interviewed on television during the election of 1988, which was one year before the fall of the Berlin Wall and a time when the Soviet dictatorship was still intact. Bernstein practically spit into a television news camera the following comment: “I infinitely prefer Mr. Gorbachev to Mr. Bush.”

The “adversarial” culture assumes that America is so powerful as to be invulnerable to any foreign threat. It is typified by Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary’s pronouncement at the outset of the Clinton Administration, on declassifying 11 million pages of nuclear information, including the records of all American nuclear tests, that nuclear secrecy was part of a “bomb building culture” that it was necessary to end. It would be ended, in her view, by sharing America’s national secrets with everyone, and thus “leveling the playing field.” This was, in fact, precisely the attitude that inspired me and the other editors of Ramparts to divulge the secrets of America’s electronic intelligence agency to the world. We viewed it as an effort to level the military playing field so that America would no longer be the superpower that was able to lord it over everyone else.

In retrospect, the most important lesson of my Sixties encounter with a defector from our own intelligence service was the tolerance, sympathy and even support for treason that can be found in mainstream liberalism itself. Even though we thought of ourselves as radicals, the mainstream culture that we despised was so tolerant and even supportive of our radical postures, that we were never prosecuted for the crime we had committed. We were given a kind of hero status, instead, for our “journalistic coup” in printing the revelations of “Winslow Peck.” The New York Times gave our story front-page coverage.

It is obvious to me now that the adversarial attitude that inspired me in the Sixties (and which I have since rejected) lies behind the sympathy for Wen Ho Lee and the preposterous belief that his activities were “innocent.” This attitude is both typified by and given ominous expression in the role played by an old comrade of mine, who preceded me at Ramparts and who later became a national correspondent and then a powerful columnist at the Los Angeles Times - which is the very paper that led the attack on the Cox Report and also the defense of Wen Ho Lee.

There is perhaps no more outspoken champion of Wen Ho Lee in American journalism than L.A. Times pundit Robert Scheer, who has authored more than a dozen columns on Lee (including one filed from Albuquerque where Lee was indicted and held). Scheer has even called Lee “an American Dreyfus,” after the French Jew who was falsely accused by anti-Semites of treason in the 19th Century: “In a case that parallels the frame-up of Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish captain in the French army a century ago,” Scheer wrote at the time of Lee’s arrest, “the U.S. government is hell-bent on destroying Wen Ho Lee, a naturalized American citizen and former Los Alamos nuclear weapons scientist,… In both cases, the ‘foreignness’ of the suspect was used by officials and the media to stoke fears of betrayal of the nation's security to a dangerous enemy.”(LA Times, December 19, 1999)

The idea that the Administration of Bill Clinton singled out Lee for ethnic persecution is laughable. The notion that Dreyfus (a Frenchman), and Lee (a Chinese immigrant whose nation of origin is a nuclear power hostile to the United States), are parallel cases is simply ludicrous.

Even before taking up the cause of Lee, Scheer had led the attacks on the bi-partisan Cox Report, released in the spring of 1999, which documented the theft of America’s nuclear arsenal, including the miniaturized W-88 warhead suited for placement on cruise-type ballistic missiles. Attacking Cox and the Democrats who supported him as “fear-mongers” and national security hysterics, Scheer actually claimed that there were no nuclear secrets to begin with, so the Chinese couldn’t have stolen them. “The dirty secret of the nuclear weapons business is that there are no secrets,” Scheer wrote in the Times on August 3, 1999. “Nothing has happened since Hiroshima and Nagasaki to render these weapons any more plausibly useful as weapons. A crude nuclear weapon dropped from a propeller-driven plane or carried in a suitcase does the job of terrorizing civilian populations -- the only function of nuclear weapons -- as effectively as the modernized warheads, whose technology some claim Beijing has stolen.”

The statement betrays an astounding ignorance of modern nuclear strategy for a columnist at the Los Angeles Times. But as though even this howling claim was not sufficient to make Scheer’s point, he also invoked Hazel O’Leary’s “level playing field.”. Whatever weapons the Chinese Communist dictatorship did not already have, Scheer wrote, the United States should provide to them, in the interests of peace! “It would be in our national security interest to supply the Chinese with a Trident-class sub that works, as opposed to their lone sub contender that leaks radiation so badly that it isn’t operational. And, heresy of heresies, we should give the Chinese some submarine-suitable missiles armed with the miniaturized W-88 warhead that they are supposed to have stolen. That way, even if they thought a nuclear weapon was en route to them, they would not have to instantly respond, being secure in the knowledge that they possessed survivable retaliatory power.” (Los Angeles Times, August 3, 1999).

Where do such bizarre, alienated and delusional attitudes come from? As I have already mentioned, Robert Scheer preceded me as the editor of our radical left magazine, Ramparts. In fact, I and my co-editors fired him in 1969, less than three years before we published the revelations of national security agent “Winslow Peck.” Although our firing of Scheer was not political, it turned out that he subsequently veered further to the left than any of us were ever tempted to go. While we were divulging the secrets of America’s electronic intelligence agency in the pages of Ramparts’, Scheer was joining the Red Sun Rising Commune and becoming an acolyte of North Korean dictator Kim Il-Sung.

Unlike myself and others who have had second thoughts (but just like Charles Nesson), Robert Scheer has never had second thoughts. He has probably changed some of the beliefs he held in the Sixties and has probably reconsidered some of the actions he took. But he has never repudiated them, never acknowledged how wrong he had been, and never relinquished the adversarial attitudes that led him astray in the first place. That is the real national security problem that the latest turn in the Wen Ho Lee case reveals.

8 posted on 11/16/2005 2:53:34 PM PST by Paul Ross ("The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the govt and I'm here to help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Thank you for posting the Horowitz column. I ran across it during one of my "what happen to the Lee tapes" searches. I intended to go find it again.

As I recall reading the transcripts from Dr. Lee's sentencing there were seven tapes which Dr. Lee promised to account for.

Anyone reading Horowitz's article must surely realize that it ain't just Abel Danger, it's everywhere.

. "The same attitude [defending Dr. Lee] can be seen as a dominant feature of American liberalism in its approach to the Hiss case over half a century,"

Hiss-Lee. I like it. I remember Hiss. Who's today's Whitaker Chambers? The security guy at the lab?

I used to read Ramparts, East Village Other, Berkeley Barb, and several other "alternate" sources. Today's hate-America lefties are absolute DUmmies compared to "the old days' New Left."

"The 'adversarial' culture." I like that too. It's a fact.

9 posted on 11/16/2005 3:28:03 PM PST by WilliamofCarmichael (Hillary is the she in shenanigans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: WilliamofCarmichael; JohnHuang2; tallhappy; Black Jade
Oh, THAT deal.

Move along, nothing to see there.

Only for public consumption, of course, the FIX for the Chinese was in...Comrade Xlinton had his payoff from John Huang...

10 posted on 11/16/2005 3:41:16 PM PST by Paul Ross ("The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the govt and I'm here to help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WilliamofCarmichael; ntrulock
There was "Tape L" which he was, pursuant his plea agreement (transcript), supposed to relate the disposition of or location thereto, and the techniques he made in acquisition of the illicit information, in Paragraph 7(e) of his plea.

This was a political deal from the get-go, likely worked out with the oversight of Janet Reno no doubt...who badly bungled the case and as we all know, tried to make Notra Trulock the fall guy.

11 posted on 11/16/2005 4:07:51 PM PST by Paul Ross ("The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the govt and I'm here to help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Wen Ho Lee was a Clinton/Reno patsy to draw attention from their real escapades with actual Chinese communists.

Think Billy Dale.

That's what I think.

12 posted on 11/16/2005 4:19:34 PM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

Thanks for the ping!

13 posted on 11/16/2005 8:22:17 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
Lee was innocent.

Really?! He admitted to giving away his password to a secure computer in a nuclear facility so his daughter at UCLA could "play games" on it.
14 posted on 11/16/2005 8:27:01 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WilliamofCarmichael; hedgetrimmer

First, the judge said this case was BS.

Personally, I can't find a motive. There was no cash changing hands. No mistress. No drugs. No ideology.
If lee was a spy, I can't find a motive.

Every spy case I know of has cash, sex, drugs, or ideology involved.

15 posted on 11/16/2005 8:57:17 PM PST by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
Thanks for responding but my question was not about spying. I cannot find where Dr. Lee lived up to his plea bargain agreement. That's all.

Did he turn stuff over to the Chi-coms; i.e., was he a spy? I don't know. Perhaps if he did spy he was coerced.

Knowing that he lived up to his plea agreement will be a strong indicator IMO that he was not a spy and it will suggest that the judge was right.

16 posted on 11/17/2005 3:00:26 AM PST by WilliamofCarmichael (Hillary is the she in shenanigans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: staytrue; GOP_1900AD; ntrulock; JohnHuang2
If lee was a spy, I can't find a motive.

You're not looking very hard, are you?

They said the same thing about Alger Hiss.

He likely always has been a closet Chi-Comm agent. That IS who he helped, after all. He expressly tipped off another Chi-Comm agent at Lawrence Livermore by a recorded phone call that the FBI was onto him.

And if you're gullible enough to believe Lee's story that, after his dedicated, time-consumingly tedious surreptitious measures to sneak the information out of the secure computer system onto his portable syquest drive...Lee suddenly just "lost track" of the device...then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

I would bet a million dollars that the drive now resides in China and has for over 8 years.

And if it isn't a closet communist sympathy...How about something as simple as Chinese nationalism. Seems to be working BIG TIME with a lot of expatriate Chinese community.

And as far as other you happen to know whether there aren't massive bank accounts for Dr. Lee in Swiss or other foreign banks deposited for him by his "friends" in Bejing?

As for the Xlinton-appointed judge, need anything more be said? NOTHING in the public or private realm vindicated Lee of being a spy. It was purely Xlinton disinformation to shelter his own connections to China, which did not bear close scrutiny...and would have been the PROPER reasons to bring him up on articles of impeachment.

Lastly, if you persist in your slanted "disbelief" in the original FBI case against Lee (which was never disproven, or given an opportunity to be tried), then you are implicitly buying into the Xlinton goat-scaping of loyal patriots, such as Notra Trulock.

I believe Notra.

17 posted on 11/17/2005 7:51:54 AM PST by Paul Ross ("The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the govt and I'm here to help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Wen Ho Lee was a Clinton/Reno patsy to draw attention from their real escapades with actual Chinese communists.

If that was the case, then they likely were embarassed to find out he truly was a guilty SOB and they had to apologize for accidentally interfering with one of the agents of their buddies in Beijing. Don't upset the paying cash customer. And don't, at all costs, wake up the SHeeple to their being betrayed for partisan gain.

Wen Ho Lee's constellation of behaviors is pretty dispositive.

18 posted on 11/17/2005 7:56:18 AM PST by Paul Ross ("The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the govt and I'm here to help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

CIA should kill them.

19 posted on 11/17/2005 9:10:43 AM PST by Jimbaugh (Fear the Base !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy; staytrue; Dr. Marten
Author Archive
E-mail Author
Send to a Friend
<% dim printurl printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%> Version

February 26, 2003, 9:20 a.m.
Domestic Breaches
Los Alamos — as much of an issue as ever.

A Q&A by Kathryn Jean Lopez

n Wednesday, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight begins hearings on theft and corruption at Los Alamos National Laboratory. On the eve of the hearings NRO called on a former U.S. government nuclear-lab insider, Notra Trulock, to talk about security problems, espionage, and reform as these issues involve Los Alamos and other similar facilities. Notra Trulock was an director of intelligence at the U.S. Department of Energy's nuclear labs in the late 1990s who became a whistleblower during the Clinton administration when officials within the administration ignored his warnings about security problems at Los Alamos (you can read more about what happened to him on NRO here and here). His recently released book, Code Name Kindred Spirit: Inside the Chinese Nuclear Espionage Scandal is a memoir and history of what he encountered at those labs, and what happened to him as a result of him going public with his knowledge of security breaches by Wen Ho Lee, a scientist at the Los Alamos lab, and other compromises.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: A reporter from Wired magazine says he slipped through into a top-secret area of the Los Alamos nuclear lab on Saturday. Does this surprise you?

Notra Trulock: I am surprised at the ease with which the Wired magazine reporter accessed top-secret areas at Los Alamos. After all the scandals at Los Alamos over recent years and the current nation-wide high-alert status, I would have thought that security would be air-tight at the lab. I wonder what the lab is doing with all the additional funding it has received since 9/11 that supposedly has been devoted to enhanced security measures. Technical Area 33, penetrated by the reporter, is particularly sensitive since so much "black work" is done there.

Lopez: What could possibly be a reason for the government not to have top-notch security at the likes of Los Alamos? Besides Sept. 11 realities, they have already had problems at this lab!

Trulock: Lax security at Los Alamos or any of the nation's nuclear weapons labs is inexcusable — even before the 9/11 tragedy. This latest incident seems to demonstrate that nothing ever really changes at Los Alamos, no matter how embarrassing the scandal or how damaging it is to U.S. national security.

Lopez: Lab workers at Los Alamos have reportedly worried about a "brain drain," as the University of California disassociates itself with the lab. Should Los Alamos be closed?

Trulock: I do not believe that Los Alamos should be closed. I think it should be brought under new management. "Brain drain" is the card that the labs play whenever there might be a prospect of increased oversight or tighter management. I recommend to Energy Secretary Abraham that he fire the University of California and find a contractor to run the lab that will enforce security, counterintelligence, and other national-security mandates.

Lopez: How many labs like Los Alamos does the U.S. have? Do you know if others are in such disturbing security shape?

Trulock: There are two other "nuclear-weapons labs" at Sandia in New Mexico and Livermore in California. These three are the only Energy Department labs directly involved in the design and development of U.S. nuclear weapons. Each has had security problems in recent years. Livermore has recently settled a major whistleblower case involving security problems, but there continue to be concerns about physical security at this California lab. Sandia is operated by Lockheed-Martin and seems to do better, although it has been lax in enforcing export-control regulations. The labs' ability to bury or classify problems is inexhaustible.

Lopez: What do we know China got from Los Alamos? Do we have any idea if it has been passed on to other nations/groups?

Trulock: We know that the Chinese acquired classified nuclear-design information on seven U.S. nuclear warheads, including most notably the W-88 thermonuclear warhead and the U.S. enhanced radiation warhead (the neutron bomb). We also know that classified data on 22 other U.S. nuclear warheads, including design information, were compromised by the placement of this information on an unclassified, unprotected server at Los Alamos. We must be concerned about China's long-time nuclear relationship with Pakistan and the latter's with North Korea; direct evidence of transfers is likely to be nearly impossible to obtain.

Lopez: Some whistleblowers get Time magazine praise. Your life was turned upside down and you seemed to get more probing treatment than Wen Ho Lee (certainly none of the sympathy)? In hindsight, would you have done anything different? Wish the government had?

Trulock: I did not draw a government paycheck to cover up nuclear espionage or ignore the deplorable security and counterintelligence conditions at Los Alamos and elsewhere that made successful espionage inevitable. My job was to protect the nation's nuclear secrets from foreign intelligence services and efforts to steal those secrets. It is asking too much to wish the Clinton administration had done things differently, but I do wish the Bush administration would take lab security more seriously. All of these problems have been well known for decades, but the administration failed to take the steps necessary to clean out high-level lab managers and their federal protectors in Washington who exacerbated these problems in the 1990s. Consequently, further scandals and embarrassments were inevitable.

Lopez: Do you believe Wen Ho Lee was/is a spy?

Trulock: There was a mountain of circumstantial evidence implicating Lee. In 2000, a federal prosecutor told then Attorney General Janet Reno that his review indicated there was sufficient "probable cause to believe that Wen Ho Lee was an agent of a foreign power, that is to say, a United States Person currently engaged in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of the PRC which activities might involve violations of the criminal laws of the United States…" The only real question is why the FBI failed so miserably in its investigation of Lee.

Lopez: In your estimation, has the FBI even begun to adequately clean up?

Trulock: Director Mueller seems to be making some good efforts at cleaning up the Bureau. Most of the culprits of the Lee debacle have left, either through retirement or transfer. (Incredibly, one now directs counterintelligence at the Energy Department.) But the damage that was done over the past decade to the bureau's counterterrorism and counterintelligence capabilities cannot be fixed in a month or even in a year. The reconstruction of the Bureau, done properly, will take years.

Lopez: What's the most important falsehood regarding Wen Ho Lee and your situations that Codename Kindred Spirit reveals?

Trulock: The two most important falsehoods are that no espionage occurred and Wen Ho Lee was the victim of racial or ethnic profiling. The Clinton administration used sympathetic journalists to spread the story, unsourced, that no espionage had occurred beginning in 1999. But note that no official has contradicted on the record the U.S. Intelligence Community 1999 judgment that "China obtained by espionage classified U.S. nuclear weapons information that probably accelerated its program to develop future nuclear weapons." Likewise, 1996 was the third time that Wen Ho Lee had fallen under FBI counterintelligence suspicion since the early 1980s. It was Lee's actions and security breaches that brought him to the bureau's attention.

Lopez: Congress is holding a series of hearings involving Los Alamos that begin this week. What would you like to see them focus on?

Trulock: First and foremost, Congress must find a way to hold the nuclear labs and the Energy Department accountable for their actions. The trail of studies and assessments of what needs to be done to fix security and management overall at the labs stretches back over 20 years. Many know what needs to be done, but never are able to overcome the labs' resistance, the timidity of federal managers in Washington, or the obstruction by lab patrons on Capitol Hill. And, sooner or later, the Congress will have to return to the Cox Report and assess how much if any progress has been made fixing the problems exposed by that effort.



20 posted on 11/17/2005 9:41:23 AM PST by Paul Ross ("The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the govt and I'm here to help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson