Posted on 06/22/2002 10:35:19 AM PDT by callisto
The decision by the leaders of the House and Senate intelligence panels to ask the Justice Department to investigate whether someone on Capitol Hill leaked classified material bypassed the rules of both chambers and raises thorny constitutional questions about the oversight checks between the two branches of government, experts said last week.
Attorney General John Ashcroft on Friday asked the department’s criminal division to begin a probe, Justice sources said. The referral came in response to a classified request Thursday from the four intelligence panel leaders into the origin of news reports about two messages intercepted by the National Security Agency that gave cryptic warnings of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
In announcing the request for a Justice probe, Rep. Porter Goss
(R-Fla.), chairman of the House panel, appeared to give the green light for a broad inquiry of both Members and staff, as well as journalists, that could even involve the use of lie detectors to ferret out the source of the leak.
"We will cooperate with the FBI in any way possible to find out how the information became public," Goss said. His Democratic counterpart on the panel, Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), said, "It is appropriate that we ask for this investigation and let the chips fall where they may." The two Senate leaders of the panel — Chairman Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and ranking member Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) — also expressed support for the probe.
John Feehery, spokesman for Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said that Hastert "supports the referral and wants to get to the bottom of these leaks because this is becoming a real problem."
Experts called the move extraordinary if not unprecedented, and pointed out that it raised the prospect of FBI agents investigating the very Members and staff who are charged with overseeing the agency and its handling of the terrorist threat. An even more serious constitutional question would arise if the investigation fingers a Member of Congress for the leak.
The rules for both the House and Senate specifically provide that leaks of classified information should be investigated by the Congressional ethics committees. That was the procedure used in 1995 when the House ethics panel investigated allegations that then-Rep. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.) leaked sensitive material dealing with CIA activity in Guatemala while he served on the Intelligence Committee.
But the question of whether to have the Congressional ethics committees conduct an internal probe apparently was not considered before the public announcement of the Justice request, according to people familiar with the matter in both parties. The House General Counsel’s office only began to look at the question Friday, a day after Goss and the other leaders appeared before the cameras.
In the current matter dealing with NSA intercepts, however, lawmakers charged that the leak may have constituted a crime under a law governing the disclosure of sensitive electronic information. But the impetus for a criminal investigation came not from within the Bush administration, but rather from Hill lawmakers who are likely to be questioned about the matter.
"Inviting a Justice Department inquiry means using FBI agents and FBI methods, and it potentially creates FBI dossiers on the Senators and Representatives and staff of the intelligence committees," noted one person familiar with Congressional oversight who did not want to be named.
"The FBI would like nothing better than, under the guise of perfecting Hill security, to thoroughly control the intelligence committees’ own activity," this person said.
Morton Halperin, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who was himself wiretapped by a Nixon administration suspicious of leaks, said it would have been appropriate for the FBI, at the president’s request, to initiate a probe since the leak does appear to violate a specific law.
"But I think for the committee to ask the FBI doesn’t make sense," Halperin said, noting that Congress has specific, internal procedures for investigating leaks.
Steven Aftergood, who tracks government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, called the move "highly irregular. One would expect that if anyone was writing to the attorney general it would be the director of the NSA. When the committee does this, it suggests that they are saying that we cannot enforce our own rules and that we are incapable of getting to the bottom of this on our own."
Charles Tiefer, a former House deputy general counsel and University of Baltimore law professor, said that "calling in the Justice Department is absurd because Congress itself would mete out any punishment, and this just undermines the intelligence committees’ vital independence from those who are supposed to be under its scrutiny.
"The power to investigate leak allegations is the power to control," Tiefer said. "You seriously undermine the intelligence committees’ ability, at a critical historic moment, to look independently and critically at the intelligence agencies."
"When the House ethics committee does the investigation, as with the case of Rep. Torricelli, the House remains capable of vigorous independent scrutiny of the intelligence agencies," Tiefer added.
Details of the exact request from the intelligence panel leaders to Ashcroft remained hidden Friday. Spokesmen for panel leaders and the Justice Department said the letter contained classified information and they declined to specifically detail the contents of the inquiry request.
A Justice Department source said the matter was referred to Michael Chertoff, head of the criminal division, who has begun a preliminary review of the situation. The source declined to speculate on whether subpoenas or other investigative methods would be employed or whether lawmakers personally would be questioned.
So many choices!
Democrats: Bob Graham-Florida (Chairman); Carl Levin-Michigan; John D. Rockefeller-West Virginia; Dianne Feinstein-California; Ron Wyden-Oregon; Richard J. Durbin-Illinois; Evan Bayh-Indiana; John Edwards-North Carolina; Barbara Mikulski-Maryland.
Republicans: Richard C. Shelby-Alabama (Vice-Chairman); Jon Kyl-Arizona; James M. Inhofe-Oklahoma; Orrin Hatch-Utah; Pat Roberts-Kansas; Mike DeWine-Ohio; Fred Thompson-Tennessee; Richard Lugar-Indiana.
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Democrats: Nancy Pelosi-Califorina (Ranking Democrat); Sanford D. Bishop-Georgia; Jane Harman-California; Gary A. Condit-California; Tim Roemer-Indiana; Silvestre Reyes-Texas; Leonard L. Boswell-Iowa; Collin C. Peterson-Minnesota; Bud Cramer-Alabama; Richard A. Gerharde-Missouri (Ex Officio.
Republicans: Porter J. Goss-Florida (Chairman); Doug Bereuter-Nebraska; Michael N. Castle-Delaware; Sherwood L. Boehlert-New York; Jim Gibbons-Nevada; Ray LaHood-Illinois; Randy "Duke" Cunningham-California; Peter Hoekstra-Michigan; Richard Burr-North Carolina; Saxby Chambliss-Georgia; Terry Everett-Alabama; J. Dennis Hastert-Illinois (Ex Officio).
Hill intelligence chiefs ask for investigation of leaks
WHITE HOUSE RIPS 9/11 LEAKS (Lie Detector Tests For Committee Members?)
When the name comes out, there won't be a rock big enough for this $#@@# to hide under.
: House
1. Harman
2. Pelosi
Senate
1. Edwards
2. Levin
3. Feinstein
4. Hatch
5. Durbin
6. Inhofe
Can you say, DOUBLE STANDARD!
This is DOA! I just can't understand why the President DIDN'T order this himself. Politics at it's finest! My bet! The source was outside the Comittees! Any takers?
I will bet a 50.00 donation from myself to the Shriner's Hospitals that we will never be allowed to know. When the probe ends, if it is inconclusive (nudge, nudge) I will send the check.
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.