[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 127 (Thursday, October 12, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H9880-H9894]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INVESTIGATION AND TREATMENT OF WEN HO LEE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mica). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to express my deep
concerns about the overall unfortunate circumstances that have revolved
around Wen Ho Lee.
On March 6 of 1999, the New York Times reported that government
investigators believed that China had accelerated its nuclear weapons
program with the aid of stolen American secrets. This report, along
with other reports that came subsequently, led to a frenzy of activity.
In fact, 2 days after the March 6, 1999 New York Times report, Wen Ho
Lee, who was identified, was then fired from the laboratory; and soon
after that, he was charged with the various offenses.
In September of this year, September 26, 2000, the New York Times
took the very exceptional opportunity to explain the backup of their
reporting, going back to March 6, 1999. Although they really made no
overt apologies for the conclusions that they drew in their March 6,
1999 article, it is interesting to note that they made various
observations.
First, they said looking back, and I quote from this article of New
York Times Tuesday September 26: ``But looking back, we also found some
things that we wish we had done differently in the course of the
coverage to give Dr. Lee the full benefit of the doubt. In those
months, we could have pushed harder to uncover weaknesses in the FBI
case against Dr. Lee. Our coverage would have been strengthened had we
moved faster to assess the scientific, technical and investigative
assumptions that led the FBI and the Department of Energy to connect
Dr. Lee to what is still widely acknowledged to have been a major
security breach.''
The Times neither imagined the security breach, as they go on to say,
nor did they initiate the case against Dr. Wen Ho Lee. But, however, it
was the March 6 article that set the tone for the coverage against this
individual in the ensuing months.
The New York Times editorial of September 26, 2000 goes on to say,
``The article, however, had flaws that are more apparent now that the
weaknesses of the FBI case against Dr. Lee have surfaced. It did not
pay enough attention to the possibility that there had been a major
intelligence loss in which the Los Alamos scientist was a minor
player,'' and perhaps maybe even uninvolved.
``The Times should have moved more quickly'', it said in this
article, ``to open a second line of reporting, particularly among
scientists inside and outside the government.''
This article is a very unique and interesting attempt on the part of
the New York Times to respond to severe criticism that other
journalists had leveled against the New York Times for its March 6,
1999 article.
But in any event, the ensuing events that evolved around Dr. Wen Ho
Lee is what prompts me to come to the floor tonight to speak about this
incident. It is very strange that, if there was such an egregious
breach of national security presumably organized and conducted by Dr.
Wen Ho Lee, that it took 9 months to obtain an indictment against him,
during which time he was completely free.
At that time, 9 months later, they charged him with 59 separate
felony offenses. Thirty-nine counts alleged that Dr. Lee violated the
Atomic Energy Act because he mishandled material containing restricted
data with the intent to injure the United States and with the intent to
secure an advantage to a foreign Nation. Ten counts alleged that Dr.
Lee unlawfully obtained defense information in violation of the law,
ten counts of willfully retaining national defense information in
violation of the law.
What safeguards did the government take to make sure that Dr. Wen Ho
Lee did not flee or transfer the tapes to some individual during those
9 months? Nothing that I am aware of. He was certainly a security risk
from the time that he was fired from the Los Alamos laboratory until he
was finally charged on December 10, 1999.
Now suddenly we read in the newspapers in September of the year 2000
that 58 charges leveled against Dr. Wen Ho Lee were dropped under a
plea bargain involving the plea of guilty on one count only and a
pledge to cooperate with the government to disclose why he did it and
how he disposed of the
[[Page H9881]]
tapes that he has pled guilty to having taken. It is very strange.
The reason I take this floor to raise this issue is not to discuss
the innocence or guilt of this man. He has already pleaded guilty. But
the one thing that has concerned the Asian American community
tremendously is the way that he was treated after he was finally
charged with these various 59 crimes and incarcerated.
Suddenly, after he was picked up, he became a huge national security
risk. Yet, for 9 months, he was allowed to come and go as a free
citizen. Only upon his indictment in December of 1999 did he become a
security risk.
In his plea for bail, release on bail and other things that came up
at that hearing, it was pointed out by the prosecutors that he
constituted a real risk and that he might transfer the tapes to
unauthorized individuals. The whole matter lay in a situation in which,
as one reporter said, that, short of the charges of espionage and
naming him a spy, that he was incarcerated under arraignment under
very, very serious conditions.
It is that level of concern that the Asian community has raised many,
many questions. They have met with the Attorney General to discuss it
and other officials that will listen to him.
My reason for rising here tonight is that we believe that there was a
serious mistake made by the government in the way that they dealt with
Dr. Wen Ho Lee. There is absolutely no justification that he was
allowed to be a free person for 9 months if, in fact, the government
had suspicion for at least 3 or 4 years that something was awry, that
the tapes had been missing and he was under surveillance.
In fact, they had gone to the Justice Department asking for
permission to look at his computer and to make determinations as to
whether something was done that violated the security restrictions of
the laboratory, and the Justice Department denied the request of the
investigators.
Yet, here on December 10, he was denied bail. Out of that denial came
this extraordinary disclosure through the family and through his
lawyers and through others who became acquainted with the nature of his
confinement, that he was kept in a cell, completely enclosed, maybe 4
feet by 16 feet in dimension. The entrance to his cell was not the
regular bars, but it was a door with a little window. He was kept in
there virtually, except for meals, the complete time that he was
incarcerated, from December 10 until he was released on September 20.
The other egregious thing, besides being kept in such solitary
confinement for this length of time, because he constituted a serious
security risk to this Nation, he was kept in chains whenever he was
allowed to go out to exercise, which was only 1 hour a day. He was
required to be in chains. His ankles were chained. His wrists were
chained. His wrists were chained, They were connected to his waist
chains. He was expected to go out into the open air and exercise under
those circumstances.
It is an absolutely inexplicable situation that they had leveled upon
him. Many of the people who have looked at this situation, and, indeed,
those who testified over on the Senate side indicated that this was
probably done to him in an effort to try to force him to disclose
information that led him to make the tapes and to disclose where these
tapes were in fact placed. So it was all a matter of trying to
intimidate this individual prior to going to trial, prior to any
particular finding of specific guilt.
Probably most of the Asians were reluctant to speak up, including
myself, during this whole tragic event, because we did not quite know
exactly the extent to which this individual was actually guilty of the
59 charges.
Then out of the clear blue, we find that a judge has, not only
condemned the Justice Department and the Attorney General for the
mishandling of his incarceration, but by a plea bargain with the
Justice Department, he is totally exonerated of 58 of the charges,
pleads guilty to one, and he is a free person, no longer a security
threat to the United States, and they still do not know where the tapes
are as far as I know.
{time} 1930
This is an incredible situation that we find ourselves in, with one
person being put under such severe personal jeopardy before trial,
before an absolute finding of guilt, and to know that in the end he was
allowed to be a free person.
So the questions have to be raised, I think. And many of the people
from the Asian community are asking these questions: Was his
apprehension in the first place triggered because he was an Asian? Many
people are suggesting that others at the Los Alamos laboratory
committed even more serious violations with respect to secret,
classified documents, and with respect to the procedures that had been
in place as to how individuals were supposed to deal with security
items; yet these people were not investigated, were not put through the
same extent of inquiry as Dr. Lee was. So we are troubled with his
selective prosecution.
Many people are alleging that this was a racial profiling situation,
and they are raising all sorts of questions with respect to why Dr. Lee
and not all the other individuals. We know about some very, very
difficult cases that are involving high-ranking officials, with
extremely important information, and who took classified information,
put that on tapes, and are still, for all that I know, not under any
particular arrest warrants or incarcerated or charged for their
conduct.
So the people are very, very concerned. They want to know why his
bail was denied. Was there really an intent here to pressure this
particular person to come forward with information? Was there a
deliberate intent to make his detention so severe that he would be
forced to cooperate?
The reason why this case really came to its final conclusion, with
Wen Ho Lee being released, was that the judge had been told at the
final bail hearing that came up in August that the information that the
FBI had presented to the judge back in December was not all true. As a
matter of fact, it came out in the testimony to the judge in August
that Wen Ho Lee had been told by the FBI agents that he had flunked the
polygraph test when in fact he had passed it. This was another incident
of the government's deliberate attempt to try to force a confession
from someone who was constantly saying that he had not breached the
national security of the United States. What he had done was probably
wrong and contrary to the rules, but certainly not anything that
constituted a breach of national security.
Nowhere in the investigation was the FBI able to show in any context
whatsoever that he had passed any information on to fellow scientists
or to foreign scientists, or that in his travels to China he had
breached the security requirements of his occupation. They charged him
for failure to report contacts that he had made in his trips, which
were all authorized trips that he made to China. He was accused of not
having filed reports; yet in the August hearing, before the judge, it
came out that he had indeed filed the reports and that all of those
arguments that had been made in December were simply not true.
The judge had gone along in December with this harsh treatment of
solitary confinement because he believed that there was here a
defendant who was deliberately trying to obfuscate his actions, had
failed to file the necessary reports that he was required to file as an
employee of Los Alamos laboratory. And when all of this exploded in the
face of the truth at the August hearing, even the judge made the
statement in his final recommendation for release of Dr. Lee that he
was astounded that this sort of situation could be tolerated, and he
was absolutely shocked at what had happened to this individual. So he
ordered the release.
The release was appealed by the government. The other courts simply
dismissed the appeal and shortly thereafter Dr. Lee was released a free
man. The only requirement is that he not leave the country for a year,
I believe, and that he cooperate in a debriefing type of contact with
the Justice Department in an effort to try to find out where the tapes
are located and what has happened to them.
So we have to look back on this situation and say, okay, the FBI
agents erred in their anxiety to find this person guilty of egregious
violations against the government and to show
[[Page H9882]]
that this individual was a deliberate liar and trying to withhold
information from the government. But what happens to the FBI agents who
perpetrated this misstatement to the courts? I hate to say that these
were specific deliberate lies. They claimed that they were simply
mistakes. But what happens to these agents that misled the court and
caused this grievous harm against this individual insofar as how he was
treated? He was shackled as an animal. Even when he was allowed to go
to see his lawyers, he was still shackled. It is an incredible,
unbelievable story of inhumane treatment of an individual under
these circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, I have letters that have been sent to the U.S. Attorney
in New Mexico, Norman C. Bay, making an inquiry about the conditions of
his confinement and the responses that were received. Many, many
individuals wrote to the Justice Department: the American Association
for the Advancement of Science sent a letter; the New York Academy of
Science wrote to the Attorney General protesting the harsh treatment of
Wen Ho Lee; the Human Rights Committee of Scientists; the Episcopal
Church of the United States wrote in protest of his harsh treatment;
the National Academy of Sciences; the National Academy of Engineering
and the Institute of Medicine sent a joint letter on June 26 to the
Attorney General protesting the severity of his confinement; and the
Amnesty International on August 16 also sent a letter. On August 31,
the National Academies protested that in all the letters they had
written, they had failed to get any responses from the Justice
Department.
Mr. Speaker, I will be submitting the letters that I have just
mentioned for inclusion in the Record. I also will put in the Record
letters that are dated way back in January of this year from the
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, writing to the
Attorney General and expressing their concerns about his detention; as
well as the Organization of Chinese Americans and their letters; the
National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, also writing to the
Attorney General about his treatment; and the comments of Robert S.
Vrooman, the former chief of counterintelligence at Los Alamos
regarding specifically his being targeted for confinement.
Mr. Speaker, I note that my colleague from California is here with
me, and I yield to him at this time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
gentlewoman for yielding to me, and thank her very much for taking this
time and this special order to raise the concerns that she has. I have
been watching the special order, and I want to tell her how much I
appreciate it, because I think that the treatment and the prosecution
of Wen Ho Lee and the manner in which it was handled raises serious
concerns for every American.
Once again we see that when the incredible power of the government
comes down on a single individual, all too often that individual's
rights are crushed under the full force. And in this case we saw almost
a hysteria that ran through the government, through committees of
Congress, within the Department of Energy and Justice and Defense, in a
frenzy to try to prove something that they may, in fact, not have had
the evidence to prove. And in doing so, they focused on this
individual, Wen Ho Lee, and then proceeded over the next 9 months to
treat him in a manner that no American would want to be treated or have
a member of their family treated.
The gentlewoman has recited the litany of harsh treatments to this
elderly man during his time in solitary confinement, when in fact at
the same time the evidence was starting to suggest that maybe he was
not guilty of all that he was charged. This is not to suggest that
perhaps that Wen Ho Lee did not violate rules of protocol and perhaps
even security rules. But the jump from that to that he was one of the
most dangerous men in the United States; that he had transferred the
crown jewels, we now find that what this was was a lot of prosecutorial
hyperbole. They were trying to make their case. They were trying to
push the public to focus in on this individual because they felt it
would solve a problem.
We know that one of the major mistakes that law enforcement can make
is to focus on a single individual too early in an investigation. So
now we find out 9 months later that not only have they dropped all of
the charges with respect to Wen Ho Lee, except for one out of 79
counts, but we are no further along in knowing what happened to this
information and how it got into the hands of the person who walked into
our embassy and dropped it on to a table. So in fact not only were his
rights compromised, but in fact maybe the very investigation has been
compromised because so much energy and effort was put on to the focus
of Wen Ho Lee.
I just want to again thank the gentlewoman for taking this time.
People should not look at this case as a case against a Chinese
American or an Asian or a person who is a threat to the United States.
They ought to think of this in terms of every American. We understand
that this Congress has taken action against prosecutors who have
exceeded their authority way beyond what can be justified, or the
Internal Revenue Service. And what we really ought to have, and what I
have asked for and written the President and spoken out on this floor
for, is somehow we need a truly independent investigation.
I am afraid that investigation will have to come from outside of the
government, because the government is so compromised in the manner in
which the investigation was handled by the various agencies and by the
committees of this Congress in their rush to judgment, in their frenzy
and their hysteria over this issue. But I would hope that this
administration would in fact appoint an outside panel of experts who
can have that security clearance, who can determine what in fact
happened here, because the damage runs to our civil liberties. The
damage runs to Wen Ho Lee and his family, his reputation; and it also
runs to the integrity of this body, to our agencies that participated
in that. The American public needs to know what happened there.
Unfortunately, I think the damage also runs to the labs and to our
ability to recruit. The gentlewoman is aware, as I am aware, of what
has happened in the Asian community with scientists and others who
wonder now if they go to work for these labs whether they will be
profiled; whether they will be treated differently; are they suspect
because of their travels, because of their family, because of their
heritage, because of their culture?
{time} 1945
And when you see the treatment of this individual, you would be
asking the same question of yourself if you wanted to determine. And
yet, because of this action, we may be denying this country some of the
very best scientists, mathematicians, engineers and others that are
available in the world today who would love to come to work for the
United States and in fact are not any of those suspected things.
So I think it has been a real cost to us, to the labs and to our
resources available to work on the kinds of scientific endeavors that
so many at the lab do on a day-to-day basis. So people ought to
understand, this is not just about Wen Ho Lee. This is the ripples of
this case, and how it has been handled go far beyond far beyond this
individual and his treatment.
But we ought to make sure that we do not forget nor can an agency
simply not answer for their actions. That is what has to be done. But I
do not think that they can investigate themselves because in fact they
were part of the frenzy that took place around the arrest and
prosecution and detainment of Wen Ho Lee.
So we owe the gentlewoman a debt of gratitude for taking this time
for putting these documents in the Record so that the broader public
will have access to them. I want to thank the gentlewoman very much for
doing so.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving a
larger perspective on this. I came to the floor because so many Asians
have expressed a dismay that a situation like this could happen in
America and many of them expressed the belief that it could only happen
to an Asian. That to me is a very damaging aspect to have this country,
so great and so wonderful in terms of its definition of democracy, to
have a segment of our community believe that this occurred to this one
gentleman because he was Asian and that the outcry did not come
[[Page H9883]]
until after he was more or less exonerated.
The outcry should have been there, as many of the organizations did,
but it was sort of scuffled. Nobody really paid much attention to it. I
agree absolutely that we have to call for an investigation, and it
cannot be the one that the Attorney General has told the community that
she would do. It is simply not adequate. It has to be taken to a
different level and a situation where this whole matter can be
reviewed.
But it is a terrible thing. The Asian community feels burdened with
this suspicion, and the wreckage of this whole incident has sort of
fallen on all Asians, not just the Chinese-Americans, but all Asians.
And so, I truly believe that the Congress has to take some
responsibility in this matter and look at it.
The Senate has investigated it, has called several hearings. And I
applaud them for it. I hope that when we return here next year that we
will take the time to make sure that this kind of treatment of a human
being can never again occur to anyone under our judicial system. I
plead with the Members of this House to look at this situation
carefully and dispassionately. And if they do, I believe they will come
to the same conclusion that the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) and I have come to.
Mr. Speaker, on March 6, 1999 New York Times reported that Government
investigators believes China had accelerated its nuclear weapons
program with the aid of stolen American secrets.
Two days later, Wen Ho Lee was identified and fired.
[From the New York Times, Sept. 26, 2000]
The Times and Wen Ho Lee
On March 6, 1999, The New York Times reported that
Government investigators believed China had accelerated its
nuclear weapons program with the aid of stolen American
secrets. The article said the Federal Bureau of Investigation
had focused its suspicions on a Chinese-American scientist at
the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Two days later, the
government announced that it had fired a Los Alamos scientist
for ``serious security violations.'' Officials identified the
man as Wen Ho Lee.
Dr. Lee was indicted nine months later on charges that he
had transferred huge amounts of restricted information to an
easily accessible computer. Justice Department prosecutors
persuaded a judge to hold him in solitary confinement without
bail, saying his release would pose a grave threat to the
nuclear balance.
This month the Justice Department settled for a guilty plea
to a single count of mishandling secret information. The
judge accused prosecutors of having misled him on the
national security threat and having provided inaccurate
testimony. Dr. Lee was released on the condition that he
cooperate with the authorities to explain why he downloaded
the weapons data and what he did with it.
The Times's coverage of this case, especially the articles
published in the first few months, attracted criticism from
competing journalists and media critics and from defenders of
Dr. Lee, who contended that our reporting had stimulated a
political frenzy amounting to a witch hunt. After Dr. Lee's
release, the White House, too, blamed the pressure of
coverage in the media, and specifically The Times, for having
propelled an overzealous prosecution by the administration's
own Justice Department.
As a rule, we prefer to let out reporting speak for itself.
In this extraordinary case, the outcome of the prosecution
and the accusations leveled at this newspaper may have left
many readers with questions about our coverage. That
confusion--and the stakes involved, a man's liberty and
reputation--convince us that a public accounting is
warranted.
In the days since the prosecution ended, the paper has
looked back at the coverage. On the whole, we remain proud of
work that brought into the open a major national security
problem of which officials had been aware for months, even
years. Our review found careful reporting that included
extensive cross-checking and vetting of multiple sources,
despite enormous obstacles of official secrecy and government
efforts to identify The Times's sources. We found articles
that accurately portrayed a debate behind the scenes on the
extent and importance of Chinese espionage--a debate that
now, a year and a half later, is still going on. We found
clear, precise explanations of complex science.
But looking back, we also found some things we wish we had
done differently in the course of the coverage to give Dr.
Lee the full benefit of the doubt. In those months, we could
have pushed harder to uncover weaknesses in the F.B.I. case
against Dr. Lee. Our coverage would have been strengthened
had we moved faster to assess the scientific, technical and
investigative assumptions that led the F.B.I. and the
Department of Energy to connect Dr. Lee to what is still
widely acknowledged to have been a major security breach.
The Times neither imagined the security breach nor
initiated the case against Wen Ho Lee. By the time our March
6 article appeared, F.B.I. agents had been looking closely
into Dr. Lee's activities for more than three years. A
bipartisan congressional committee had already conducted
closed hearings and written a secret report unanimously
concluding that Chinese nuclear espionage had harmed American
national security, and questioning the administration's
vigilance. The White House had been briefed repeatedly on
these issues, and the secretary of energy had begun prodding
the F.B.I. Dr. Lee had already taken a lie detector test;
F.B.I. investigators believed that it showed deception when
he was asked whether he had leaked secrets.
The Times's stories--echoed and often oversimplified by
politicians and other news organizations--touched off a
fierce public debate. At a time when the Clinton
administration was defending a policy of increased engagement
with China, any suggestion that the White House had not moved
swiftly against a major Chinese espionage operation was
politically explosive.
But the investigative and political forces were converging
on Dr. Lee long before The Times began looking into this
story.
The assertion in our March 6 article that the Chinese made
a surprising leap in the miniaturization of nuclear weapons
remains unchallenged. That concern had previously been
reported in The Wall Street Journal, but without the details
provided by The Times in a painstaking narrative that showed
how various agencies and the White House itself had responded
to the reported security breach.
The prevailing view within the government is still that
China made its gains with access to valuable information
about American nuclear weaponry, although the extent to which
this espionage helped China is disputed. And while the circle
of suspicion has widened greatly, Los Alamos has not been
ruled out as the source of the leak.
The article, however, had flaws that are more apparent now
that the weaknesses of the F.B.I. case against Dr. Lee have
surfaced. It did not pay enough attention to the possibility
that there had been a major intelligence loss in which the
Los Alamos scientist was a minor player, or completely
uninvolved.
The Times should have moved more quickly to open a second
line of reporting, particularly among scientists inside and
outside the government. The paper did this in the early
summer, and published a comprehensive article on Sept. 7,
1999. The article laid out even more extensively the evidence
that Chinese espionage had secured the key design elements of
an American warhead called the W-88 while showing at the same
time that this secret material was available not only at Los
Alamos but ``to hundreds and perhaps thousands of individuals
scattered throughout the nation's arms complex.''
That article, which helped put the charges against Dr. Lee
in a new perspective, appeared a full three months before the
scientist was indicted.
Early on, our reporting turned up cautions that might have
led us to that perspective sooner. For example, the March 6
article noted, deep in the text, that the Justice Department
prosecutors did not think they had enough evidence against
the Los Alamos scientist to justify a wiretap on his
telephone. At the time, the Justice Department refused to
discuss its decision, but the fact that the evidence
available to the F.B.I. could not overcome the relatively
permissive standards for a wiretap in a case of such
potential gravity should have been more prominent in the
article and in our thinking.
Passages of some articles also posed a problem of tone. In
place of a tone of journalistic detachment from our sources,
we occasionally used language that adopted the sense of alarm
that was contained in official reports that was being voiced
to us by investigators, members of Congress and
administration officials with knowledge of the case.
This happened even in an otherwise far-seeing article on
June 14, 1999, that laid out--a half year before the
indictment--the reasons the Justice Department might never be
able to prove that Dr. Lee had spied for China. The article
said Dr. Lee ``may be responsible for the most damaging
espionage of the post-cold war era.'' Though it accurately
attributed this characterization to ``officials and
lawmakers, primarily Republicans,'' such remarks should have
been, at a minimum, balanced with the more skeptical views of
those who had doubts about the charges against Dr. Lee.
Nevertheless, far from stimulating a witch hunt, The Times
had clearly shown before Dr. Lee was even charged that the
case against him was circumstantial and therefore weak, and
that there were numerous other potential sources for the
design of the warhead.
There are articles we should have assigned but did not. We
never prepared a full-scale profile of Dr. Lee, which might
have humanized him and provided some balance.
Some other stories we wish we had assigned in those early
months include a more thorough look at the political context
of the Chinese weapons debate, in which Republicans were
eager to score points against the White House on China; an
examination of how Dr. Lee's handling of classified
information compared with the usual practices in the
laboratories; a closer look at Notra
[[Page H9884]]
Trulock, the intelligence official at the Department of
Energy who sounded some of the loudest alarms about Chinese
espionage; and an exploration of the various suspects and
leads that federal investigators passed up in favor of Dr.
Lee.
In those instances where we fell short of our standards in
our coverage of this story, the blame lies principally with
those who directed the coverage, for not raising questions
that occurred to us only later. Nothing in this experience
undermines our faith in any of our reporters, who remained
persistent and fair-minded in their newsgathering in the face
of some fierce attacks.
An enormous amount remains unknown or disputed about the
case of Dr. Lee and the larger issue of Chinese espionage,
including why the scientist transferred classified computer
code to an easily accessible computer and then tried to hide
the fact (a development first reported in The Times), and how
the government case evolved. Even the best investigative
reporting is performed under deadline pressure, with the best
assessment of information available at the time. We have
dispatched a team of reporters, including the reporters who
broke our first stories, to go back to the beginning of these
controversies and do more reporting, drawing on sources and
documents that were not previously available. Our coverage of
this case is not over.
It took 9 months later to obtain an indictment against Wen Ho Lee. It
charged him with 59 separate felony offenses; 39 counts allege that Dr.
Lee violated the Atomic Energy Act because he purportedly mishandled
material containing restricted data, with the intent to injure the
United States, and with the intent to secure an advantage to a foreign
nation; ten counts allege that Dr. Lee unlawfully obtained defense
information in violation of 18 U.S.C. & 793(c); and ten counts of
willfully retaining national defense information in violation of 18
U.S.C. & 793(e).
What safeguards did the Government take to make sure Wen Ho Lee
didn't flee or transfer the tapes?
Why wasn't he a security risk prior to December 10, 1999?
Why now in September 2000, 58 charges are dropped for a plea bargain
involving only one plea of guilty and a pledge to cooperate.
Suddenly Wen Ho Lee is no longer a risk. Today Wen Ho Lee is a free
man. The tapes are still missing.
I rise tonight to express my great concern that hysteria and cover-up
were the real reasons for Wen Ho Lee's indictment.
The managers of our national nuclear labs had mismanaged the security
of these institutions. Access to these secrets was not monitored and
vast numbers of people could easily obtain access without signing in or
out.
Wen Ho Lee was queried about this contacts in the People's Republic
of China.
In 1993-94--Wen Ho Lee was under investigation--for knowingly
assembling 19 collections of files, called tape archive (TAR) files,
containing secret and confidential restricted data relating to atomic
weapons research, design, construction, and testing.
The FBI had Wen Ho Lee under investigation for 3 years.
In 1997, the FBI asked for authority to search Wen Ho Lee's computer.
The Attorney General Janet Reno denied this request as not justified
based on the facts.
The issue is not the prosecution.
The issue is why was Wen Ho Lee singled out for this witch hunt.
After he was indicted, why was he treated as though he was already
convicted?
Why was his request for bail denied?
Why was his detention so severe?
Was it designed to coerce his cooperation?
Why did the FBI lie to Wen Ho Lee ``telling him'' he had failed the
polygraph test when in fact he had passed? A polygraph test was
administered on December 23, 1998, by the Department of Energy in New
Mexico. DOE said he unequivocally passed, FBI said failed. The FBI then
did its own testing of Dr. Lee, and again claimed he failed, but didn't
tell him that he failed. CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson for
CBSNews.com.
Wen Ho Lee's Problematic Polygraph
Three Experts Gave The Nuclear Scientist Passing Scores
But The FBI Later Reversed The Findings
CBS Investigation Fuels Argument That He Was A Scapegoat
(CBS) Wen Ho Lee either passed--or failed--his first spy-
related polygraph, depending upon who was interpreting the
results.
As CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports for
CBSNews.com, the test was given December 23, 1998 by a
Department of Energy (DOE) polygrapher in Albuqerque, N.M.,
where Wen Ho Lee worked as a top secret nuclear scientist.
Because Lee, a Taiwanese-American, had recently been to
Taiwan, had visited China in the past, and purportedly had
access to America's top nuclear secrets, the FBI focused on
him as the prime suspect in the emerging case of alleged
Chinese espionage.
The FBI still wasn't close to making an arrest or even
beginning an interrogation, but the DOE's head of
counterintelligence, Ed Curran, was reluctant to leave Lee in
his highly sensitive job in the lab's X-Division, so he
ordered the polygraph test. FBI agents were standing by
during the DOE test, ready to interrogate Lee if his
polygraph answers proved to be deceptive.
Lee was asked four espionage-related questions:
``Have you ever committed espionage against the United
States?''
Lee's response: ``No.''
``Have you ever provided any classified weapons data to any
unauthorized person?
Lee's response: ``No.''
``Here you had any contact with anyone to commit espionage
against the United States?''
Lee's response: ``No.''
``Have you ever had personal contact with anyone you know
who has committed espionage against the United States?''
Lee's response: ``No.''
The polygrapher concluded that Lee was not deceptive. Two
other polygraphers in the DOE's Albuquerque test center,
including the manager, reviewed the charts and concurred: Lee
wasn't lying.
The polygraph results were so convincing and unequivocal,
that sources say the deputy director of the Los Alamos lab
issued an apology to Lee, and work began to get him
reinstated in the X-Division. Furthermore, sources confirm to
CBS News that the local Albuquerque FBI office sent a memo to
headquarters in Washington saying it appeared that Lee was
not their spy.
But key decision-makers in Washington remained unconvinced.
Several weeks after the polygraph, the DOE decided to
assign it the unusual designation of ``incomplete.''
Officials in Washington also ordered a halt to Lee's re-
instatement of the X-Division.
When FBI headquarters in Washington finally obtained the
DOE polygraph results yet another interpretation was offered:
that Lee had failed the polygraph.
The FBI then did its own testing of Lee, and again claimed
that he failed. Yet sources say the FBI didn't interrogate
Lee at this time, or even tell him he had failed the
polygraph--an odd deviation from procedure for agents who are
taught to immediately question anyone who is deceptive in a
polygraph.
In early March 1999, the FBI did interrogate Lee. It was
the day CBS News broke the story of a soon-to-be-released
congressional report on alleged Chinese espionage at the
labs, and the day before The New York Times printed an
article that described Lee as a suspect, without using his
name. One investigative source tells CBS News that after this
particular day of questioning, the lead FBI agent verbalized
that she thought Lee was not the right man.
But others still remained unconvinced.
So on March 7, 1999, the day after the New York Times
article, the FBI ordered another interrogation of Lee, this
time a ``confrontational'' style interview.
One special agent doing the questioning told Lee no fewer
than 30 times that he had failed his polygraphs, and
repeatedly demanded to know why. Here are some selected
excerpts:
FBI special agent: ``You're never going to pass a
polygraph. And you're never going to have a clearance. And
you're not going to have a job. And if you get arrested
you're not going to have a retirement . . . If I don't have
something that I can tell Washington as to why you're failing
those polygraphs, I can't do a thing.''
Lee: ``Well I don't understand.''
FBI special agent: ``I can't get you your job. I can't do
anything for you, Wen Ho. I can't stop the newspapers from
knocking on your door. I can't stop the newspapers from
calling your son. I can't stop the people from polygraphing
your wife. I can't stop somebody from coming and knocking on
your door and putting handcuffs on you.''
Lee: ``I don't know how to handle this case, I'm an honest
person and I'm telling you all the truth and you don't
believe it. I, that's it.''
FBI special agent: ``Do you want to go down in history
whether you're professing your innocence like the Rosenbergs
to the day that they take you to the electric chair?''
Lee: ``I believe eventually, and I think God, God will make
it his judgement.''
During this time period, Washington officials began leaking
to the media that Lee had failed his polygraphs, and that he
was ``the one'' who had given to China information on
America's most advanced thermo-nuclear warhead, the W-88. A
stunning charge that, in the end, investigators were unable
to back up.
One question at hand is how could the exact same polygraph
charts be legitimately interpreted as ``passing'' and also
``failing?'' CBS News spoke to Richard Keifer, the current
chairman of the American Polygraph Association, who's a
former FBI agent and used to run the FBI's polygraph program.
Keifer says, ``There are never enough variables to cause
one person to say (a polygraph subject is) deceptive, and one
to say he's non-deceptive . . . there should never be that
kind of discrepancy of the evaluation of the same chart.''
As to how it happened in the Wen Ho Lee case, Keifer
thinks, ``then somebody is making an error.''
We asked Keifer to look at Lee's polygraph scores. He said
the scores are ``crystal clear.'' In fact, Keifer says, in
all his years as a polygrapher, he had never been able to
score anyone so high on the non-deceptive scale. He was at a
loss to find any explanation for how the FBI could deem the
polygraph scores as ``failing.''
[[Page H9885]]
The FBI has not explained how or why it interpreted Lee's
polygraph as deceptive. When asked for an interview, the FBI
simply said it would be ``bad'' to talk about Lee's
polygraph, and that the case will be handled in the courts.
The prosecution has not turned over the charts and many other
polygraph documents to Lee's defense team. And so far, the
prosecution has withheld other key documents, including the
actual charts from the DOE polygraph.
Since Lee was never charged with espionage (only computer
security violations), the content of the polygraph may be
unimportant to his case. But the fact that his scores
apparently morphed from passing to failing fuels the argument
of those who claim the government was looking for a
scapegoat--someone to blame for the alleged theft of masses
of American top secret nuclear weapons information by China--
and that Lee conveniently filled that role.
Why did FBI Agent Robert A. Messemer lie? What penalty has he been
given? Was his lie perjured testimony? Is he still working for the FBI?
Was this a conspiracy within the FBI?
Why didn't the court give Wen Ho Lee the benefit of the doubt?
Why was he locked in a secure enclosed cell? Why was he required to
wear ankle and wrist shackles when allowed out for his daily one hour
exercise?
Whose idea of ``exercise'' includes the words ``while shackled''? I
am told that at the court house while meeting with his lawyers, even
when escorted to the toilet, he was shackled.
We are told that the Justice Department approved this severe
treatment--that the Department of Energy requested it--
Attorney General Reno testified on September 28 in the Senate that
she was unaware that Wen Ho Lee was shackled and was not in receipt of
any complaints. A petition dated January 4, 2000 was signed by 3,000
people and forwarded to the Attorney General on March 8, and again on
June 8, 2000.
Los Alamos, NM, March 8, 2000.
Re: Petition for Independent Polygraph Test for Dr. Wen Ho
Lee and for Improved Conditions of Imprisonment for Dr.
Lee
Norman C. Bay,
Interim United States Attorney for the District of New
Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
Dear Mr. Bay: Copies are enclosed of petition signatures of
over 2000 people seeking your agreement to an independent,
qualified polygraph test for Dr. Wen Ho Lee to confirm that
the tapes at issue in the bail proceeding were destroyed and
not copied.
It is unconscionable that your office has refused to agree
to an independent polygraph, which was offered by Dr. Lee and
his counsel. The federal Judge who presided at the bail
hearing indicated the Court welcomes such a polygraph to
address the alleged concern of your office that the tapes
which Dr. Lee swore he destroyed were indeed destroyed and
not copied. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently
upheld the Judge's reasoning. Confirmation that the tapes do
not exist would verify that concern over transfer of the
tapes is not a roadblock to the pre-trial release of Dr. Lee.
An independent polygraph on the status of the tapes presents
a straightforward means to allay the government's alleged
fear about Dr. Lee's release on reasonable bail pending
trial. The right to reasonable bail is guaranteed by
Amendment VIII of the United States Constitution to all
American citizens, including Dr. Lee.
It is not acceptable for the United States Attorney's
office to deny any American the opportunity of reasonable
bail due to the possibility that the outcome of the
independent polygraph would weaken the government's case.
Every prosecutor's first duty is to achieve justice and
fairness, not to convict at all cost.
The Petitioners also seek improved conditions for Dr. Lee,
who continues to be shackled in prison awaiting trial to
clear his name. The conditions under which Dr. Lee is
imprisoned are shameful. No person should be subject to such
arbitrary and harsh conditions, especially one who, like Dr.
Lee, is presumed to be innocent.
Your immediate response to the request of the Petitioners
is anticipated. All original petition signatures are
available for inspection by you or your representative at my
office, by appointment.
Sincerely,
Phyllis I. Hedges.
____
Fight Unjust Treatment of Dr. Wen Ho Lee!
Dr. Wen Ho Lee continues to be shackled as a prisoner in a
Sante Fe jail although his trial is months away. Excessive,
punitive restraints have been imposed on Dr. Lee while he
waits for the opportunity to clear his name which was smeared
by government leaks accusing him of being a spy. When the
FBI, DOE, and United States Attorney found no evidence of
spying by Dr. Lee they rationalized their botched
investigation, laced with racism, by bringing criminal
charges against Lee for placing classified information on
non-classified computer tapes.
The U.S. Attorney swayed the Albuquerque judge to deny bail
by conjuring fear that Lee might somehow spirit the destroyed
tapes and himself abroad. The judge indicated Lee should be
released pending trial and suggested the U.S. Attorney agree
to a polygraph examination offered by Lee's attorneys to
verify the tapes were destroyed. The U.S. Attorney insists
that Lee must agree to a polygraph administered by the FBI as
well as FBI interrogations before and after the polygraph.
You can do something to fight this injustice. Below is a
petition to the U.S. Attorney for New Mexico to agree to an
independent polygraph as well as more humane conditions for
Dr. Wen Ho Lee during his incarceration.
Please clip, sign, and return the petition to me at P.O.
Box 1288, Los Alamos, NM. I will send the petition to the
U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, listing your name with many
others who have signed. Or, call me at 662-7400, to obtain a
copy of the petition. For further information see
www.wenholee.org.
petition
Petitioners request that the United States Attorney for the
District of New Mexico agree to an independent polygraph
examination of Dr. Wen Ho Lee, to be administered by a
reputable organization not associated with the defense or the
prosecution in the proceeding by the United States against
Dr. Lee, to confirm the status of the seven ``missing'' tapes
at issue in that proceeding.
Pending resolution of Dr. Lee's pre-trial release,
Petitioners request that the United States Attorney for New
Mexico institute improved conditions for Dr. Lee during his
confinement, including increased recreation and visiting
opportunities.
____________
(your name)
Another letter from Cecilia Chang signed by thousands of others were
sent to the Attorney General in April 2000.
WenHoLee.Org,
Fremont, CA, April 10, 2000.
Re: Review of Special Restrictions Imposed on Dr. Wen Ho Lee
Hon. Janet Reno,
U.S. Attorney General,
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC.
Dear Ms. Reno: The enclosed petition was signed on behalf
of Dr. Wen Ho Lee by 1,288 of Dr. Lee's fellow American
citizens, urging that you exercise your authority to release
Dr. Lee from the harsh detention conditions imposed at your
direction under 28 CFR Sec. 501.2. This petition, sponsored
by WenHoLee.Org, also has been endorsed by organizations with
combined membership of over 100,000, 106-faculty members from
64 colleges and universities, and many community leaders,
scientists and elected officials.
Dr. Lee has spent the past 120 days shackled in jail in
Santa Fe, New Mexico, awaiting trial to clear his name. The
conditions under which Dr. Lee is imprisoned are shameful.
Such arbitrary and harsh detention conditions are unjustified
and should not be extended. there is no factual basis to
infer any threat of disclosure by Dr. Lee, and his treatment
is not regular, particularly in contrast with the treatment
of others for classified information lapses.
In national security cases the guide for implementing
special detention restrictions under Sec. 501.2 is the
prevention of disclosure of classified information. The
restrictions must serve that goal.
Dr. Lee is charged with transferring classified information
to non-classified tapes at his workplace, with the illegal
intent to harm the United States or to secure an advantage to
a foreign country. He is not charged with any espionage or
spy activity and there exists no allegation that Dr. Lee
transferred or ever attempted to transfer any sensitive
information to any unauthorized recipient. The only
``evidence'' of the alleged criminal intent to harm the U.S.
or assist another country is his transferring classified
information to a non-classified system at his workplace.
Although there are several possible innocent explanations
for such a transfer, your prosecutors chose to assume mal
intent from Dr. Lee's transfer of work files that included
some classified material. Their assumption is not well
founded. Los Alamos National Laboratory has thrived as an
exemplary scientific institution because of its university
atmosphere, including its long history of tacitly
disregarding security restrictions that impede efforts to
achieve scientific and work-related goals.
It is imperative to seek accuracy in the national security
justifications for causing Dr. Lee to suffer the demeaning
and cruel conditions imposed on him. The original harsh
detention conditions were imposed on the basis of conjecture
rather than any reality of threats to national security. At
the bail hearing for Dr. Lee, government witnesses and
prosecutors engaged in preposterous rhetoric that distorted
the nature of the classified information involved and its
value to foreign entities. You have previously received
letters sent by premiere scientific organizations, such as
the American Physical Society, American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Federation of American Scientists,
New York Academy of Sciences, The Committee of Concerned
Scientists, American Chemical Society, Overseas Chinese
Physical Society, and others, protesting Dr. Lee's treatment
and the voodoo science used to alarm the public. We ask that
you consider these letters in arriving at your decision about
Dr. Lee's detention.
Of particular note is the contrast of Dr. Lee's treatment
with that of former CIA Director John Deutch. Handling of the
Deutch
[[Page H9886]]
and Lee cases reveals the irregular treatment of Dr. Lee. Mr.
Deutch's security violations, which went uninvestigated for
years, exposed the United States to far greater harm than the
security lapses by Dr. Lee. Mr. Deutch made accessible at his
home, current and top secret information significantly more
important to national security than the information
transferred by Dr. Lee, which was not top secret and in fact
can be found in the open or developed by other countries such
as China on their own. The actions of Mr. Deutch posed a
clear and present threat to national security whereas Dr.
Lee's actions did not.
Nevertheless the only consequence to Mr. Deutch was loss of
a no longer required security clearance. Last year Dr. Lee
lost his security clearance and with it the ability to
continue his work at LANL to which he had dedicated the past
20 years. Then in March 1999 Dr. Lee lost his job and his
retirement, consequences unheard of for any security
violation at the national laboratories. Whereas mishandling
of classified information should have been an internal matter
for DOE and LANL, on December 10, 1999, the United States
Attorney brought federal criminal charges that threaten him
with life in prison, made a media display of having him
arrested at home, and worked relentlessly to deny bail and
any conditions of release. Since December 10, 1999, under
your authority, Dr. Lee has been subjected to inhumane
conditions during his pre-trial imprisonment.
The conclusion is inescapable that this overblown federal
case emerged from the false accusations that Dr. Lee was
engaged in espionage. The FBI has publicly stated the ensuing
investigation of Dr. Lee was based on racial profiling. The
FBI used intimidation, threats of execution, and lying, to
try to force a confession during their interrogation of Dr.
Lee. It can only be inferred that Dr. Lee's cruel treatment
reflects bias against Dr. Lee, which should not have any
place in the prosecutorial duty to achieve justice and
fairness.
Yours is a critical responsibility to stem the improper
treatment of Dr. Lee, who is presumed to be innocent of
criminal wrongdoing. Continuing the cruel conditions of his
detention would afflict all American citizens by diminishing
the rights and freedoms we cherish.
Sincerely,
WenHoLee, Org
(By: Cecilia Chang, Executive Director, Chair, Steering
Committee Wen Ho Lee Defense Fund.)
____
Free Wen Ho Lee!
Petition Recipients: Janet Reno, U.S. Attorney General;
Bill Richardson, U.S. Energy Secretary; Vice President Al
Gore.
Petition Sponsored by: Wenholee.org, 3785 Armour Court,
Freemont, CA 94536.
To The Honorable Janet Reno: We, the signers of this
petition, urge you to take advantage of the opportunity
afforded you under Title 28 of the Code of Federal
Regulations to free Dr. Wen Ho Lee from his harsh and unjust
confinement in the New Mexico jail.
Section 501.2 of Title 28 requires you to periodically
reauthorize Dr. Lee's confinement. Under this law, you have
the power to have Dr. Lee be confined to his home, with all
necessary security precautions imposed at your discretion.
Although Dr. Lee's movement will remain restricted under this
arrangement, he will at lest be at home in humane conditions.
If you do not free Dr. Lee from jail, then you must at
least order that his conditions of confinement, which have
been more fit for a mass murderer, be significantly improved.
The use of shackles on Dr. Lee under any circumstances is
ridiculous.
As we make these requests of you, we would like to remind
you that the government authorities already have conceded
that the targeting of Dr. Lee has been entirely racially
motivated and that there is no evidence of espionage by Dr.
Lee. Yet, the government authorities continue to persecute
Dr. Lee, singling him out on the basis of his race. The
authorities' behavior and action have angered not just
Chinese Americans across the country--but all Americans who
believe that no one should be treated on the basis of his or
her race or ethnicity, and that discrimination, especially by
the government, is simply not acceptable!
Furthermore, the discriminatory persecution of Dr. Lee not
only shames the United States of America and its citizens, it
also impedes our nation's efforts to improve human rights
conditions to the victims of government oppression everywhere
else around the world.
Therefore, we, the people of America, ask you to do the
right thing and free Dr. Lee!
The views expressed here are those of the petition sponsor,
not of One Democracy.com
On February 29, 2000 the American Association for the Advancement of
Science sent the Attorney General a letter protesting Wen Ho Lee's
inhumane treatment in prison at the Sante Fe County Detention Center.
American Association for the Advancement of Science,
Directorate for Science and Policy Programs,
Washington, DC, February 29, 2000.
Hon. Janet Reno,
Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Dear Madame Attorney General: I write on behalf of the
Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science
concerning the matter of the continued denial of bail and the
conditions of pre-trial incarceration of Dr. Wen Ho Lee. The
AAAS is the world's largest multi-disciplinary scientific
organization. The Committee on Scientific Freedom and
Responsibility is charged by the Association to, among other
things, address issues related to the human rights of
scientists.
Our purpose is to inquire into the reasons for the
extraordinarily restrictive conditions to which Dr. Lee has
been subjected. Our disquiet with the government's treatment
of Dr. Lee does not extend to the issue of his guilt or
innocence, which will be decided by our courts on the basis
of the evidence. Our concern stems from the possibility that
Dr. Lee is being maltreated and may have been the target of
special scrutiny because of his ethnic background.
This case has had an adverse impact on many of our
colleagues and could damage our national labs as a result of
the hemorrhaging of skilled scientists through resignation or
attrition, falling recruitment and a decline in the
international collaboration that are so vital to the success
of DoE programs. There is some evidence that such losses are
already occurring.
Our concerns relate to the following:
We have been informed that the original conditions of
detention were--and remain--harsh in the extreme. He is
confined to his cell 23 hours each day and was, until
recently, kept completely indoors. When moved about within
the confines of the prison, his arms and legs are shackled.
His weekly meetings with family members are curtailed and
monitored and, early on, he was required to speak English. He
has no access to TV and, at first, was denied newspapers.
While we understand that these conditions are now slightly
modified, we are concerned that continuing restrictions not
only serve as intimidation, but may inhibit his ability to
prepare his defense and place an enormous emotional and
physical burden on him, his family and his attorneys. From
our perspective, Dr. Lee's pretrial treatment appears to be
exceedingly cruel. Court records and prosecution documents
give the distinct impression that many measures were imposed
simply because he has Chinese associates and speaks Chinese.
AAAS believes very strongly that place of birth or ethnic
background should never be used to impugn the loyalty of
scientists.
The justification for continued incarceration is that Dr.
Lee, if released, is likely to pose a grave threat to our
national security. In judging the merits of such a serious
contention, we hope that you will consult with a few of the
many informed independent weapons specialists and national
security experts who no longer serve in government, and who
therefore may provide an objective assessment of the risk.
Should the Justice Department wish to seek such expert
counsel, an appropriate source would be the National Academy
of Sciences.
In sum, we believe it important that the scientific
community be given some assurances on these issues.
Otherwise, we worry that serious damage could be done to the
U.S. scientific enterprise and to this nation's future
prosperity and security if the government is perceived by
scientists as treating Dr. Lee unfairly and relying on
unfounded claims regarding threats to national security.
Sincerely,
Irving A. Lerch,
Chair, AAAS Committee on
Scientific Freedom and Responsibility.
On March 14, 2000 the New York Academy of Science wrote to the
Attorney General protesting the harsh treatment of Wen Ho Lee.
March 14, 2000.
Dear Attorney General Reno: I am writing on behalf of the
Committee on Human Rights of Scientists of the New York
Academy of Sciences. In this we are joining other prominent
scientific organizations such as the American Physical
Society, the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, and the Committee of Concerned Scientists regarding
the condition of detention and the denial of bail for Dr. Wen
Ho Lee accused of mishandling classified information at the
Los Alamos National Laboratories. At the outset we emphasize
that we do not take a position on Dr. Lee's guilt or
innocence which must be determined at trial.
For more than 20 years, this Committee has been deeply
concerned about governmental treatment and repression of
scientists throughout the world. Among the cases in which we
have intervened were those of Professors Andrel Sakharov,
Fang Li Zhe, Benjamin Levich, and recently Alexandr Nikitin,
to name just a few. Often the scientists named in these cases
were accused by their governments of violation of secrecy,
treason, and other high crimes. Our Committee has always paid
close attention to the conditions under which these and other
individuals were held during their detention, as well as
related matters such as denial of bail, access to counsel,
and openness and fairness of trial.
It has been reported to us that the conditions of Dr. Lee's
detention have been harsh. He has been shackled in prison,
restricted to his cell in isolation, had his meetings with
immediate family curtailed, and been restricted about outside
information such as TV and newspapers. These conditions
remind
[[Page H9887]]
us of the abuses that occurred under Communist rule in the
former Soviet Union and occur to this day in other
totalitarian states such as in China, Iran, and others.
The impression given to the world by the Government's
treatment of Dr. Lee is that he has already been found guilty
of charges against him. Witness, for example, the statement
repeated by CIA Director George Tenet that Lee's actions were
taken ``with intent to harm the United States.'' We earnestly
call to your attention that Dr. Lee's treatment during his
detention has had a seriously chilling effect on the
scientific community, especially because of the suspicion
that his ethnic background has played some role in this
treatment and in the unproven public allegations made about
his possible motives for the acts of which he is accused.
In addition, reliable reports reach us that the recruiting
and retention of top scientific staff at our major national
laboratories, including weapon laboratories, have been
damaged by this affair. We urge that you look into the
treatment of Dr. Lee and see to it that the physical and
psychological conditions of Dr. Lee's detention conform to
the highest international standards for the humane treatment
of people in detention awaiting trial. Continuation of the
harsh treatment of Dr. Lee will expose us to ridicule when we
criticize such treatment in other countries around the world.
The New York Academy of Sciences is an independent, non-
profit, global membership organization committed to advancing
science, technology, and society worldwide. Established in
1817, the Academy is the oldest scientific organization in
New York and the third oldest in the nation. It is an
international organization with nearly 40,000 members in more
than 150 countries.
We respectfully await your response in this matter of
importance to this Committee and to the international
scientific community.
Sincerely,
Joseph L. Birman,
Chairman of the Committee
on Human Rights of Scientists.
April 27, 2000 a Resolution passed by the Episcopal Church USA was
sent to the Attorney General protesting the harsh treatment of Wen Ho
Lee.
To: Executive Council, Episcopal Church, USA.
From: international and National Concerns Committee.
Date: April 27, 2000.
Subject: Incarceration of Dr. Wen Ho Lee (Resolution proposed
by Ms. Carole Jan Lee, Member of Executive Council from
San Francisco, California).
Resolved, That the Executive Council meeting in the Diocese
of Washington, DC, April 27-30, 2000, calls for the humane
treatment of Dr. Wen Ho Lee, a U.S. citizen, who has been
under arrest without bail in solitary confinement with
limited family visits, and that these conditions have created
grave concern, particularly among the Asian American
community, of being unduly harsh treatment along racial
lines, a perception for which the Council has concern given
the number of disturbing complex factors in this case, and be
it Further
Resolved, That this case moves forward in a manner that
assures that Dr. Lee receives due process, and be it Further
Resolved, That this resolution is not intended to speak of
the veracity of the very serious charges that have been filed
against Dr. Lee.
(Resolution passed, thirty-five members present; six
abstentions.)
Note: Copies of this resolution will be sent to Attorney
General Janet Reno, and to our Washington Office.
(Our Public Policy Network has a mailing list of over nine
thousand names.)
On June 26, 2000 the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy
of Engineering and Institute of Medicine wrote to the Attorney General
protesting the severity of Wen Ho Lee's confinement.
June 26, 2000.
Hon. Janet Reno,
Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Attorney General: We write with regard to our
original March 10 inquiry to you about the case of Dr. Wen Ho
Lee (#99-1417) and to express our appreciation for the May 24
response that we received from Mr. John J. Dion.
The information that Mr. Dion provided about Dr. Lee's case
was, of course, of interest to us. However, because Mr. Dion
did not address many of the questions that we posed in our
initial letter of inquiry, we are taking the liberty of
requesting, once again, information on the conditions and
circumstances under which Dr. Lee is being held. Surely, the
answers we seek cannot in any way impinge upon the just
prosecution of a pending case.
It is our understanding that Dr. Lee has been held in
solitary confinement since his arrest on December 10, 1999,
that he has been denied bail, and that he will not be brought
to trial until November 6. We would like your personal
assurances that his conditions of confinement have been in
full accordance with all U.S. and international standards. We
have inquired as to what and how much contact Dr. Lee is
permitted to have with his family, defense counsel, and
lawyers. Although Mr. Dion said in his letter that
arrangements have been made to allow Dr. Lee's family to meet
with him ``for more than one hour per week,'' he did not say
what the new arrangements for Dr. Lee allow nor did he report
with whom he is now allowed to meet.
We would also like to know whether, as has been alleged by
Dr. Lee's family, instruments of restraint are being applied
to him. If so, what instruments are used, when and for how
long are they applied, why, and under what circumstances?
With regard to the need for a fair and timely trial, we
seek your personal assurances that Dr. Lee's rights not to be
coerced into giving a confession and not to be held in a
coercive environment are being fully respected. We would also
like to know what access Dr. Lee's lawyers are being given to
information needed to adequately prepare his defense.
You should know that the above questions are identical to
those that our Academies regularly pose to foreign
governments when we desire assurances that the rights of our
imprisoned colleagues in other countries are being fully
respected. Surely, we cannot expect less from our own
government.
We are grateful for your attention and look forward to your
reply.
Very truly yours,
Bruce Alberts,
President, National Academy of Sciences.
William Wulf,
President, National Academy of Engineering.
Kenneth Shine,
President, Institute of Medicine.
Finally by mid-July 2000 his conditions of confinement were eased. By
the last week in July he finally was allowed to exercise without ankle
shackles. This, his friends conclude, came about because there was
another bill hearing scheduled on August 16, 2000. Remember Judge
Parker had asked that the confinement restrictions be eased. August 16,
2000 Amnesty International protested to the Justice Department that Wen
Ho Lee's confinement was in violation of international law.
Amnesty International Protests Solitary Confinement, Shackling of Dr.
Wen Ho Lee
Washington, DC, Aug. 16, 2000.--Amnesty International, the
world's largest human rights organization, has written to
Attorney General Janet Reno to protest the conditions under
which Dr. Wen Ho Lee has been held in pre-trial federal
detention since December 1999.
In the Aug. 4 letter, released as Judge James A. Parker
hears a renewed application for Dr. Lee's release on bail,
Amnesty International expressed concern at reports that Dr.
Lee has been held in particularly harsh conditions of
solitary confinement, and has been confined to his cell for
23 hours each day. According to reports, Dr. Lee has also
been shackled at the wrists, waist, and ankles while taking
exercise once or twice a week in a federal enclosure. Amnesty
International is insisting that the use of shackles be
immediately discontinued.
These conditions are unnecessarily punitive and contravene
international human rights standards, said Curt Goering,
Senior Deputy Executive Director of Amnesty International
USA. The use of shackles is extremely disturbing and is
grossly inappropriate in the circumstances.
Rule 33 of the United Nations (UN) Standard Minimum Rules
for the Treatment of Prisoners provides that restraints
should be used only when strictly as a precaution against
escape during transfer, on medical grounds on the direction
of the medical officer or to prevent damage or injury. The
rules also state that restraints should never be applied as
punishment and that chains or irons shall not be used as
restraints. The rules also provide that every prisoner
(including pre-trial detainees) should have at least one hour
of suitable exercise in the open air daily.
Amnesty International believes that the overall conditions
under which Dr. Lee is detained contravene international
standards, which require that all persons deprived of their
liberty be treated humanely and with respect for their
inherent dignity. Amnesty International is urging the Justice
Department to urgently review Dr. Lee's conditions of
confinement and ensure that he is being treated in accordance
with international standards. Such steps should include
provision for adequate exercise and out-of-cell time and
reasonable contact with the outside world.
August 31, 2000 the National Academies that had previously written (3
letters) to the Attorney General again regarding her failure to respond
to their earlier letters.
August 31, 2000.
An Open Letter to the U.S. Attorney General
Hon. Janet Reno, Attorney General,
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Attorney General: We, the presidents of the
National Academies, along with our Committee on Human Rights
and many of our members, are distressed by several matters
which have arisen regarding the case of Dr. Wen Ho Lee and
his incarceration during the past eight months. Although we
make no claim as to his innocence or guilt, he appears to be
a victim of unjust treatment.
We are writing to you, as the chief law officer and legal
counsel of our nation, to urge you to rectify any wrongs to
which Dr. Lee has been subjected, and to ensure that he
receives fair and just treatment from now on. We also urge
that those responsible for any injustice that he has suffered
be held accountable. Even more importantly, perhaps, we urge
that safeguards be put in place to ensure that, in future,
others do not suffer the same plight.
[[Page H9888]]
We write publicly because our private letters of March 10,
April 14, and June 26 of this year with regard to Dr. Lee's
plight have been responded to only by a form letter signed by
your Acting Chief of the Internal Security Section. (His
letter was not a satisfactory response to the questions that
we had posed, as we indicated in our follow-up letter of June
26.)
We should perhaps explain that, for more than a century,
the National Academy of Sciences has provided independent,
objective scientific advice to our nation. By extension of
its original congressional charter, it established the
National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine,
and the National Research Council. Some 4,800 of our nation's
most distinguished leaders in science, engineering, medicine,
and related fields have been selected by their peers to be
members of the Academies and the Institute.
We are concerned that inaccurate and detrimental testimony
by government officials resulted in Dr. Lee needlessly
spending eight months in prison under harsh and questionable
conditions of confinement. Our assessment appears to have
been confirmed by the recent ruling of Judge James Parker in
granting bail to Dr. Lee.
The three institutions of which we are presidents have an
active Committee on Human Rights. During the last 25 years
this committee has intervened in the name of our institutions
on behalf of hundreds of scientific colleagues, around the
world, who are unjustly detained or imprisoned for
nonviolently expressing their opinions. The committee writes
inquiries and appeals to offending governments and holds them
accountable for their actions. Although Dr. Lee has not been
detained for expressing his opinions, the handling of his
case reflects poorly on the U.S. justice system. The concerns
that we have expressed and the questions that we have posed
in our letters are identical to those that our Committee on
Human Rights regularly poses to foreign governments, some of
which have had the courtesy to respond. Surely, we cannot
expect less from our own government.
Very truly yours,
Bruce Alberts,
President, National Academy of Sciences.
Wm. A. Wulf,
President, National Academy of Engineering.
Kenneth I. Shine,
President, Institute of Medicine.
____
Text of the First Letter From the Presidents of the 3 National
Academies to Janet Reno
March 10, 2000.
Hon. Janet Reno,
Attorney General,
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Attorney General: We write to inquire about the
status of the case (#99-1417) of a physicist, former Los
Alamos National Laboratory employee Wen Ho Lee. It is our
understanding that Mr. Lee is charged with 59 felony counts
under statutes 42 USC 2275, 2276 and 18 USC 793 (c&e). He is
currently being held without bail in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
pending trial.
The purpose of this letter is to inquire about several
matters related to Mr. Lees case, as well as to request your
assurances that his rights are being full respected.
In view of recent allegations in the press with regard to
Mr. Lees treatment, we would appreciate being informed as to
the conditions and circumstances under which Mr. Lee is being
held. Are his conditions of confinement in accordance with
all U.S. and international standards? We would also like to
know whether, as has been alleged by Mr. Lee's family,
instruments of restraint have been applied to him. If so,
what instruments were used, when and for how long were they
applied, why, and under what circumstances?
With regard to the need for a fair trial, we would value
your assurances that Mr. Lee's rights not to be coerced into
giving a confession and not to be held in a coercive
environment are being fully respected. What and how much
contact is Mr. Lee permitted to have with his family, defense
counsel, and lawyers? We would also like to know what access
Mr. Lee's lawyers are being given to information needed to
adequately prepare his defense.
We very much appreciate your attention to our inquiry and
look forward to receiving information that will help to
assure us that all reasonable measures are being taken to
protect Mr. Lee's rights, in full accordance with U.S. and
international law.
Very truly yours,
Bruce Alberts,
President, National Academy of Sciences.
William Wulf,
President, National Academy of Engineering.
Kenneth Shine,
President, Institute of Medicine.
January 30, 2000, the National Asian Pacific American Legal
Consortium wrote to the Attorney General expressing concerns about
overzealous prosecution and detention.
On April 13, 2000, the Organization of Chinese Americans wrote to
Norman Bay, the U.S. Attorney based in Albuquerque, raising questions
about his detention.
On August 18, 1999, the National Asian Pacific American Bar
Association wrote to the Attorney General noting the fact that the FBI
had not investigated the other prime suspects. It noted the comments of
Robert S. Vrooman, former Chief of Counter-Intelligence at Los Alamos
who said Wen Ho Lee was targeted because he was Chinese.
January 30, 2000.
Re: Dr. Wen Ho Lee
Hon. Janet Reno,
Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Attorney General Reno: Per our meeting January
12, 2000, I am enclosing a memorandum discussing the Asian
Pacific American community's concerns that we raised with you
and Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder concerning the
prosecution of Dr. Wen Ho Lee. We don't seek to argue about
Dr. Lee's guilt or innocence, but instead to focus on his
treatment. It appears to the Asian American community, indeed
to many concerned about issues of civil liberties and due
process, that some of the prosecution's decisions have been
overzealous--perhaps out of embarrassment because of the many
media reports about how the investigation was handled.
We are concerned that the intense media scrutiny and high
political stakes involved in his case may be compromising Dr.
Lee's due process rights and civil liberties as an American
citizen and bringing the loyalties of the nation's Asian
Pacific Americans under a cloud of suspicion. Our analysis
takes into careful consideration of U.S. District Judge James
Parker's Memorandum Opinion and Order and the voluminous bail
hearing transcripts.
I thank you for taking the time to meet with us, and for
the sensitive manner in which you handled and continue to
give attention to our concerns. I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Karen K. Narasaki,
Executive Director.
The Honorable Eric Holder,
Deputy Attorney General.
Yvonne Lee,
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Daphne Kwok,
Organization of Chinese Americans.
Nancy Choy,
National Asian Pacific American Bar Association.
Dr. John Young,
Committee of 100.
____
MEMORANDUM
To: Attorney General Janet Reno.
From: Karen Narasaki, Executive Director, NAPALC; Aryani Ong,
Staff Attorney.
Date: January 30, 2000.
Re: Dr. Wen Ho Lee's Pretrial Detention.
Currently, Dr. Lee is being held in prison pending trial,
having been denied pretrial release. He has been charged with
59 separate counts involving 19 computer files--29 counts of
removing and tampering with restricted data, 10 counts of
receiving restricted data, 10 counts of gathering national
defense information and 10 counts of retaining national
defense information. We understand that he is being held in
custody under solitary confinement. He cannot see his family
except for four hours per month nor receive any mail. We've
also heard reports that he is not being allowed to speak
Chinese to his visitors.
i. dr. lee has faced harsh treatment that is disproportionate to the
evidence of wrongdoing
Many in the Asian American community believe that the
prosecution has been overzealous in their treatment of Dr.
Lee, given the evidence presented at the detention hearing
and what has been reported in the news. They are convinced
that federal investigators used racial profiling in the
initial targeting of Dr. Lee. They also believe that the
Department of Energy and others involved are acting so
harshly due to embarrassment from the congressional attacks,
the reported bungling of the initial investigation and the
failure to find evidence of espionage after the investigation
was leaked.
Many community leaders believe that prosecutors have been
overstating the security risk to create a hostile public
environment so that he will be tried based on the perception
of espionage, despite the fact that there is insufficient
evidence to even bring such a charge. He is being treated as
though there is overwhelming evidence of espionage even
though the detention hearing revealed no such evidence.
Without such evidence, the community believes that pretrial
detention in solitary confinement is not warranted. Solitary
confinement seems to have no basis except to impose
psychological stress on the defendant so that he will not be
able to pursue the vigorous defense to which he is entitled.
a. denial of pre-trial release
Where the statutory scheme 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3142 generally
favors the defendant, Dr. Lee nonetheless was denied bail.
While we respect the judge's decision, we are concerned that
he was provided with characterizations of Dr.
[[Page H9889]]
Lee as a Chinese spy that are not substantiated by the
evidence and that influenced his decision not to consider
alternative conditions for release. For many in the Asian
community, it bears a potential resemblance to the Supreme
Court's decision to uphold the internment of Japanese
Americans because the threat to national security was
overstated by government attorneys who destroyed evidence
that undercut the argument. While we are certainly not
charging the Department of Justice with such misconduct here,
we do believe that Korematsu v. U.S., 323 U.S. 214 (1944),
Hirabayashi v. U.S., 320 U.S. 81 (1943), and Yasui v. U.S.,
320 U.S. 115 (1943) are cases instructive of how much more
careful we must be when national security threats are being
claimed as a basis for unfair and harsh treatment.
Under Sec. 3142(b), the judge ``shall order the pretrial
release'' of a defendant to ``subject to the least
restrictive further condition.'' According to Judge Parker,
no alternative conditions would save against the ``danger''
posed by Dr. Lee's ``ability to communicate with unauthorized
persons while under house arrest.''
We are concerned with the suggestive nature of this
assertion because there is no evidence that shows that Dr.
Lee transferred any classified information to an unauthorized
third party nor ever attempted to commit such act. Moreover,
the Government has not provided any direct evidence of Dr.
Lee's intent to use classified information to injure the
United States nor procure unfair advantage to a foreign
nature. Yet, the charges brought against Dr. Lee make this
assertion, and while espionage is not expressly among them,
the specter of espionage is raised throughout the
detention hearing and prominently figures into the judge's
rationale for denying a pretrial release.
What the evidence does show is that Dr. Lee has been the
target of an investigation since 1995 for the possible theft
of W-88 data theft, which he has been cleared for over a
year. In March 1999, he was placed under 24-hour secret
surveillance for nine months, yet during that time, the FBI
acquired no evidence showing that Dr. Lee attempted to
transfer or transferred classified information to any
unauthorized third party. Instead, they found six tapes in
his office, and received an offer from Dr. Lee to take a
polygraph test to determine the truthfulness of his statement
to the FBI regarding the seven missing tapes. The Government
rejected the offer, but used his inability to produce the
missing tapes as the rationale for holding him without bail.
This places Dr. Lee in the untenable position of producing
tapes that he says has been destroyed or proving they no
longer exist. How can he be expected to prove they no longer
exist?
Furthermore, even though Dr. Lee is not charged with
espionage, the Govenrment strongly inferred the allegation
during the detention hearings. We are concerned that Dr.
Lee's contacts with Chinese scientists and government
officials are depicted as bad acts in and of themselves when
the evidence shows otherwise. Dr. Lee's trips to China were
authorized by the Los Alamos National Laboratories and his
scientific collaborations with the Chinese were encouraged by
the Secretary of the Department of Energy.
The Government successfully argued that Dr. Lee is a
national security risk based on the fact that the seven
portable tapes are missing and that Dr. Lee has the cognitive
ability to potentially assist a third party in using the
codes. Based on a single witness, they persuaded the Court to
view Dr. Lee's actions in the most damaging light possible,
using words such as ``devious,'' ``nefarious,'' and
``secretive and deceptive.''
Without doubt, we too find Dr. Lee's actions very grave. We
do not condone any employee who breaches security rules,
especially when sensitive defense information such as nuclear
weapons designs is involved. However, we also are guided by
the evidence presented and the presumption of innocence until
proven guilty in our justice system.
Dr. Lee faces very serious criminal charges, but he has not
had his day in court. Meanwhile, he is being held in custody
as if he posed a threat of heinous violence to the community.
We particularly are concerned that despite many alternatives
that have been in practice by other courts, i.e., house
arrest, electronic monitoring, supervision by a third-party
custodian, visitation by court-approved persons and consent
to unannounced searches, the Government chose the harshest
alternative for a nonviolent offense.
The Court uses a four-part test to determine whether there
are conditions of release that will reasonably assure a
defendant's appearance and the safety of the community. We
find that the evidence shows the following: (1) Dr. Lee was
not charged with committing a violent act or dealing with
drugs; (2) no direct evidence exists to prove that Dr. Lee
had the intent to injure the United States or procure an
unfair advantage to a foreign nation; (3) Dr. Lee has strong
community ties and no past criminal record; and, (4) he has
not acted in a manner to suggest that he poses a danger to
society; there is no evidence that he attempted to transfer
or transferred classified information to an unauthorized
third party nor that he assisted any person with the use of
the classified information. Yet, despite the evidence, Dr.
Lee been denied one of the most sacred guarantees by our
Constitution--his freedom.
Judge James Parker indicated that he would be willing to
revisit the issue of pretrial release if Dr. Lee could
satisfactorily account for the missing seven tapes. We
encourage the Government to work with Dr. Lee's attorneys on
Dr. Lee's offer to take a polygraph test as to the
disposition of the tapes so that they can move forward on
discussing alternative conditions of release.
B. Imposition of the Harshest Restrictions During Detainment
Dr. Lee has been placed under solitary confinement and
restricted from family visits except for four hours per
month. While the prison warden may have the discretionary
authority regarding at least visitation, we believe that the
Government can weigh on the conditions imposed on Dr. Lee's
confinement.
We are concerned about reports from the media and the
detention hearing transcripts that the FBI have been
employing psychological tactics to pressure Dr. Lee to
``confess'' to wrongdoings or to break down his will to go
through a trial. The Asian American community does not
understand the national interest in placing harsh
restrictions on a defendant who has been been proven guilty.
In fact, Dr. Lee's treatment in jail only has strengthened
the majority view of the Asian Pacific American community
that the Government has selectively and unfairly
investigated and prosecuted Dr. Lee.
Judge Parker urged the Government to consider loosening
what he himself described as severe restrictions imposed on
Dr. Lee. We also urge the Government to carefully consider
the offer by Dr. Lee's attorneys to have Dr. Lee undergo a
polygraph test so that Court may reevaluate any changed
circumstances that warrant his pretrial release.
ii. the department of justice should be particularly circumspect given
the political nature of the circumstances surrounding dr. lee's
prosecution
The Asian American community has been carefully monitoring
the developments of Dr. Lee's situation because they are
concerned that political forces may be playing an
inappropriately significant role in the investigation and
prosecution of Dr. Lee. The media, initially led by The New
York Times recklessly portrayed Dr. Lee as a Chinese spy. The
Cox House Committee Report, later criticized for serious
inaccuracies by the Rudman Report and esteemed Stanford
University researchers, took advantage of the opportunity to
embarrass the Administration by fanning fears about Communist
China.
Given Dr. Lee's ethnic background, the community was
concerned that he was investigated on the basis of his ethnic
background. Former FBI counterintelligence officers reporting
to the media that they believed racial profiling occurred in
Dr. Lee's case validated their concerns. Further reports that
in fact the Chinese government could have gained the
information from other sources and that Dr. Lee's laboratory
probably could not have been the source for the design
information have added to the community's alarm.
While the community does not condone Dr. Lee's egregious
mishandling of classified information, they fear that Dr. Lee
is vulnerable to being used as a scapegoat to take attention
from the embarrassing wealth of security lapses that the
Energy Department has allowed to occur. In its efforts to
overcome the series of embarrassing disclosures and to look
tough on security, the Department of Energy may not be acting
fairly or providing prosecutors with full disclosure.
The Asian American community is concerned that Dr. Lee's
due process rights may fall victim to political scapegoating
and that negative repercussions for other Asian Americans
working in science and technology may follow if a pattern of
disregard for civil liberties is established in this case.
____
National Asian Pacific
American Bar Association,
Washington, DC, August 18, 1999.
Hon. Janet Reno,
Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Reno: We are writing to express our deep concern
about recent accounts that race may have played a significant
factor in pursuing the investigation of Dr. Wen Ho Lee for
alleged espionage. While we do not condone acts of espionage
or any other illegal activity by any individual, we ask that
you ensure that race is not now a factor as you make
decisions regarding this and other investigations and
prosecutions involving security violations at Los Alamos and
other national laboratories.
According to Senators Fred Thompson and Joseph Lieberman in
a statement issued on August 5, 1999, the Department of
Energy and the Federal Bureau of Investigation had multiple
suspects for leaks of nuclear warhead information and yet
only two--Dr. Lee and his wife--were investigated. Because
the DOE and FBI investigators failed to look into the other
suspects ``--that is, to assess whether these others were not
for some reason equally suspicious--meant that it was
impossible to be sure that the Lees really did stand out as
the prime suspects.'' (Thompson/Lieberman Report p. 18.) This
account is further buttressed by recent statements made by
Robert S. Vrooman, former chief of Counter-Intelligence at
the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Mr. Vrooman stated that
Dr. Lee was targeted for investigation mainly because of his
ethnicity, and that there is no evidence that Dr. Lee leaked
secrets to China. Mr. Vrooman noted that at least 13
Caucasian scientists from Los Alamos ``who went to the same
[physics] institute and visited the same people'' as Dr. Lee
were left out of the investigation.
[[Page H9890]]
Furthermore, both the Thompson/Lieberman Statement and Mr.
Vrooman noted that key technical information concerning
certain weapons, whose acquisition by the Chinese government
initiated the investigation of Mr. Lee, was available to
numerous government and military entities that could have
been the source of the leaked information.
While we recognize that Mr. Vrooman's statements will be
subject to debate, we believe that it is important that you
verify that no ``racial profiling'' occurred in this
investigation. Additionally, we would like to request a
meeting with you to discuss these issues. In the meantime, we
ask that as you continue your investigation of security leaks
at our national laboratories, you do so with a heightened
consideration for fairness.
Sincerely,
Nancy Choy,
Executive Director, National Asian Pacific American Bar
Association.
Daphne Kwok,
Executive Director, Organization of Chinese Americans.
Jin Sook Lee,
Executive Director, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance,
AFL-CIO.
Jon Melegrito,
Executive Director, National Federation of Filipino
American Associations.
Debasish Mishra,
Executive Director, India Abroad Center for Political
Awareness.
Karen Narasaki,
Executive Director, National Asian Pacific American Legal
Consortium.
______
Organization of
Chinese Americans, Inc.,
Washington, DC, April 13, 2000.
Mr. Norman Bay,
U.S. Attorney, Albuquerque, NM.
Dear Mr. Bay: Thank you very much for meeting with us last
week. The Asian Pacific American community nationwide has
been monitoring the Wen Ho Lee case for over a year. The
community has been concerned with the public discourse and
media stereotypes arising from the case that insinuate all
Asian Pacific Americans as disloyal foreigners. With regard
to Dr. Lee, the community is wondering whether he has been
accorded his due process rights as an American citizen during
the investigation and decision making to prosecute him.
Since Dr. Lee's incarceration in December of 1999, the
community has been very concerned about the fact that he has
not been granted bail until his trial. One of the questions
we have is what are the conditions, if any, must Dr. Lee meet
in order for him to be released on bail?
As a follow up to our conversation, we wanted to ask
specific questions about Dr. Lee's incarceration.
We understand that Dr. Lee has been charged with
mishandling classified data. A concern of the community is
that since Dr. Lee has not been charged with espionage then
why is he being treated as if he has been charged with
espionage? As someone charged with a nonviolent act, the
community believes Dr. Lee should be treated like those
charged with other nonviolent ``white collar'' offenses.
We have heard the following:
Dr. Lee is in ``solitary confinement.''
Dr. Lee is ``shackled'' all day.
Dr. Lee's ankles and wrists are shackled when he is moved
within the jail facility, even during his one hour of
exercise, and unremoved during weekly meetings with his
family.
No collect calls to any outside party are allowed except to
his counsel.
Kept separate from other prisoners during one hour long
exercise.
Dr. Lee is only allowed one hour outside of his jail cell
for exercise per day, but not always outside under the
sunlight.
Dr. Lee is not allowed to read newspapers, magazines,
books.
Dr. Lee is not allowed to watch TV.
We would greatly appreciate your response to these points
as soon as possible so that we may accurately respond to the
inquiries from our community about Dr. Lee's confinement.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Daphne Kwok,
Executive Director, Organization of Chinese Americans.
Nancy Choy,
Executive Director, National Asian Pacific, American Bar
Association.
Aryani Ong,
Staff Attorney, National Asian Pacific American, Legal
Consortium.
Jin Sook Lee,
Executive Director, Asian Pacific American, Labor Alliance,
AFL-CIO.
Kristine Minami,
Washington, D.C. Representative, Japanese American Citizens
League.
____
Declaration of Robert Vrooman
I, Robert Vrooman, do hereby declare and state:
1. I have reviewed the government's response to Wen Ho
Lee's Motion for Discovery of Materials Related to Selective
Prosecution, including the attached Declaration of Special
Agent Robert Messemer. As set out below, Agent Messsemer's
declaration contains numerous false statements. Based on my
experiences with Agent Messemer and the information I have
received from other FBI agents, I believe that the regularly
distorts information.
2. I did not tell Agent Messemer that Lee probably assisted
the Chinese by helping fix Chinese hydrocodes during his
travel in 1986 and 1988. His allegation that I did so is
false. Our April 28, 1999 meeting focused on [approx, one
line deleted] and Agent Messemer's theory that there was
something inappropriate going on [words deleted]. I attended
that interview solely as a favor to John Browne, the director
of Los Alamos National Laboratory. When it was over, I told
Browne that I considered the interview strange, because it
had nothing to do with the Lee case. I later learned from
officials at the CIA that Agent Messemer was falsely
informing CIA officials that I had been critical [word(s)
deleted]. At the time, Agent Messemer was attempting to shift
blame to the CIA for possible fallout [words deleted]. I
sought to obtain a copy of Agency Messemer's memoranda of my
interview and to have it corrected. See Attachment one. The
FBI refused to provide me a copy of this memorandum, which I
expect contains false information.
3. Agent Messemer's statement that the individuals selected
for investigation was chosen because they fit ``matrix''
based on access to W-88 information and travel to the PRC is
false. Dozens of individuals who share those characteristics
were not chosen for investigation. As I explained in my prior
declaration, it is my firm belief that the actual reason Dr.
Lee was selected for investigation was because he made a call
to another person who was under investigation in spite of the
fact that he assisted the FBI in this case. It is my opinion
that the failure to look at the rest of the population is
because Lee is ethnic Chinese.
4. Mr. Moore's contention that the Chinese target
ethnically Chinese individuals to the exclusion of others,
therefore making it rational to focus investigations on such
individuals was not borne out by our experience at Los
Alamos, which was the critical context for this
investigation. It was our experience that Chinese
intelligence officials contacted everyone from the
laboratories with a nuclear weapons background who visited
China for information, regardless of their ethnicity. I am
unaware of any empirical data that would support any
inference that an American citizen born in Taiwan would be
more likely than any other American citizen [deletion].
5. Of the twelve people ultimately chosen for the short
list on which the investigation focused, some had no access
at all to W-88 information, and one did not have a security
clearance, but this individuals is ethnically Chinese. I do
not believe this was a coincidence. Further, this ethnically
Chinese individual did not fall within the ``matrix'' which
Agent Messemer claims was used by the DOE and FBI. In
addition, although there were other names on the HI list, Mr.
Trulock made clear that Dr. Lee was his primary suspect.
6. Agent Messemer deliberately mischaracterizes the nature
of my comments to him regarding my concerns about Dr. Lee's
travel to the PRC. I did consider it unusual that Dr. Lee had
not reported any contact by Chinese agents when I debriefed
him following his return from the PRC. I did not believe then
and I do not believe now that Dr. Lee engaged in espionage,
and I made no such intimation to Agent Messemer. Dr. Lee and
his wife Sylvia were both cooperating with FBI
investigations, and I considered them loyal Americans.
Nonetheless, I considered Dr. Lee naive, and therefore a
potential security risk. It was to keep Dr. Lee out of harm's
way, not because I had any fear that he might knowingly
engage in improper conduct, that I recommended against
further unescorted trips out of the country for Dr. Lee.
7. My concerns about the real motivation behind the
investigation were exacerbated when I received a classified
intelligence briefing from Dr. Thomas Cook, an intelligence
analysis at LANL, in September 1999. This briefing put to
rest any concerns that I may have had that Dr. Lee helped the
Chinese in any substantial manner.
8. In my capacity as a counterintelligence investigator at
LANL, I was brief on the existence of an investigation code-
named ``Buffalo Slaughter'' some time in the late 1980s
involving a non-Chinese individual working at DOE laboratory
who transferred classified information to a foreign country.
That individual was granted full immunity in return for
agreeing to a full debriefing on the information that he
passed. [Approx. six lines deleted].
9. The statements contained in my Declaration dated June
22, 2000 are true and correct and I so attest.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the
United States that the foregoing
[[Page H9891]]
is true and correct. Executed August 10, 2000, at Gallatin
Gateway, Montana.
[signed]
Robert Vrooman.
[Attachment one]
September 17, 1999.
Robert S. Vrooman,
P.O. Box 348, Gallatin Gateway, MT.
David V. Kitchen,
Special Agent in Charge, FBI 415 Silver SW,
Albuquerque, NM.
Dear Mr. Kitchen: I would like to have a copy of the 302
prepared by S.A. Robert Messemer as a result of his interview
with me on April 28, 1999. Several members of the CIA's IG
office have read me portions [of] Messemer's report, and it
is clear to me that SA Messemer attributed his opinions to
me. During the interview, I told SA Messemer that I did not
know [deletion] well enough to have an opinion [deletion]. He
then provided me with the details and asked me to speculate
on the implications. I find this interview technique
objectionable.
On the other hand, SA Messemer did provide me with a lot of
details regarding Dr. Lee that I did not know. This helped to
solidify my opinions on the case and to have the confidence
to go public. I learned during the meeting with SA Messemer
that Dr. Lee [Approx. one line deleted]. SA Messemer was
particularly helpful to us when he provided us a copy of Mr.
Bruno's April 15, 1997 memorandum to Notra Trulock thus
allowing us to defend our decision to keep Dr. Lee in his
job. For this I am grateful to SA Messemer, but I still
object to his using me to promote his opinions.
I am planning to write a book on my experiences and would
like to have the 302 as soon as possible.
Sincerely yours,
Robert S. Vrooman.
____
U.S. Department of Justice,
Criminal Division,
Washington, DC, March 29, 2000.
Mr. Phyllis Hedges,
P.O. Box 1288, Los Alamos, NM.
Dear Mr. Hedges: This is in response to your letter to the
Department of Justice concerning the prosecution of Wen Ho
Lee. Although I am not able to comment in detail about a
pending case, I hope you will find the following information
useful.
This prosecution is based solely on the facts and the law,
Dr. Lee's Chinese heritage and ancestry played no role
whatsoover in the decision to prosecute him. Like you, I am
very disturbed by news accounts suggesting that Dr. Lee has
been singled out for investigation and prosecution because of
his ethnicity. Let me assure you that this is not the way the
Department of Justice or the Criminal Division operates. To
render a decision on a potential prosecution on the basis of
race or ethnicity, even in part, would violate the
Department's ethical canons, as well as my own personal
beliefs.
As you may know, Dr. Lee was ordered to be detained pending
trial by United States Magistrate Judge Svet and, thereafter,
by United States District Judge Parker, who heard extensive
testimony and legal argument. On February 29, 2000, a three-
judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit unanimously affirmed Judge Parker's decision.
With regard to the conditions of Dr. Lee's incarceration, I
am advised that the limitations on visits by his family are
the same as those for other similarly-situated prisoners at
the facility where Dr. Lee is being held. We have, however,
been able to accommodate the Lee family recently by arranging
for a Mandarin language interpreter to be present for several
meetings so that Dr. Lee's family can speak with him in his
native language. We will continue to make the interpreter
available as often as possible. Furthermore, we have arranged
with the prison facility to allow Dr. Lee's family to meet
with Dr. Lee for more than one hour per week.
Thank you for taking the time to write to express your
views.
Sincerely,
John J. Dion,
Acting Chief, Internal Security Section.
____
U.S. Department of Justice,
Criminal Division,
Washington, DC, April 21, 2000.
Mr. Phyllis Hedges,
P.O. Box 1288, Los Alamos, NM.
Dear Mr. Hedges: This is in response to your letter to the
Department of Justice concerning the prosecution of Wen Ho
Lee. Although I am not able to comment in detail about a
pending case, I hope you will find the following information
useful.
This prosecution is based solely on the facts and the law.
Dr. Lee's Chinese heritage and ancestry played no role
whatsoever in the decision to prosecute him. Like you, I am
very disturbed by news accounts suggesting that Dr. Lee has
been singled out for investigation and prosecution because of
his ethnicity. Let me assure you that this is not the way the
Department of Justice or the Criminal Division operates. To
render a decision on a potential prosecution on the basis of
race or ethnicity, even in part, would violate the
Department's ethical canons, as well as my own personal
beliefs.
As you may know, Dr. Lee was ordered to be detained pending
trial by United States Magistrate Judge Svet and, thereafter,
by United States District Judge Parker, who heard extensive
testimony and legal argument. On February 29, 2000, a three-
judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit unanimously affirmed Judge Parker's decision.
With regard to the conditions of Dr. Lee's incarceration, I
am advised that the limitations on visits by his family are
the same as those for others similarly-situated prisoners at
the facility where Dr. Lee is being held. We have, however,
been able to accommodate the Lee family recently by arranging
for a Mandarin language interpreter to be present for several
meetings so that Dr. Lee's family can speak with him in his
native language. We will continue to make the interpreter
available as often as possible. Furthermore, we have arranged
with the prison facility to allow Dr. Lee's family to meet
with Dr. Lee for more than one hour per week.
Thank you for taking the time to write to express your
views.
Sincerely,
John J. Dion,
Acting Chief, Internal Security Section.
____
At the request of the members of its Social Concerns
Committee, the Congregation of the Unitarian Church of Los
Alamos met in a Congressional Meeting on Friday, August 4,
2000 and, after a more than two-hour debate, passed the
following resolution concerning the pretrial treatment of Dr.
Wen Ho Lee. The resolution was passed by an affirmative vote
of 97% of those voting.
Richard K. Cooper,
President, Unitarian Church of Los Alamos.
resolution in support of civil rights for dr. wen ho lee
August 4, 2000
WHEREAS, Dr. Wen Ho Lee, an American citizen, was arrested
in December 1999 and charged in a 59-count indictment with
transferring nuclear weapons data to an unsecured computer
and portable storage systems in violation of federal laws;
WHEREAS, Dr. Lee is not charged with espionage;
WHEREAS, as documented in the transcript of the FBI
interrogation, FBI agents lied to Dr. Lee about the results
of a polygraph test which he passed, and threatened his life
and his family in an effort to force Dr. Lee to confess to
espionage;
WHEREAS, while awaiting trial set for November, 2000, and
presumed innocent, Dr. Lee has been denied bail, jailed in
solitary confinement, and subjected to harsh and cruel
conditions which include the following:
Dr. Lee is in chains, shackled hands and feet whenever he
is taken from his solitary cell; he is chained during his one
hour per week visit with immediate family so that he must
shuffle and awkwardly lean to activate the intercom with
manacled hands in order to speak through glass (however,
during a mid-July visit his handcuffs were removed) while two
FBI agents monitor and censor each word; Dr. Lee remains in
ankle chains when working with his lawyers behind triple
locked doors in a windowless room in a secured facility;
Dr. Lee is not allowed any exercise, fresh air, or showers
on weekends; the one hour of exercise weekdays he spends
alone, and until recently in shackles, and he must forego any
exercise or fresh air on days he meets his attorneys to
prepare for trial; Dr. Lee's telephone calls are extremely
limited, censored and transcribed; he is allowed no
television and limited reading material; his mail is delayed
by months;
AND WHEREAS, in protest of the treatment of Dr. Wen Ho Lee,
is far more severe than needed to assure security, numerous
organizations and individuals have adopted resolutions or
written in protest to Attorney General Janet Reno and other
government officials;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is resolved that the Unitarian Church of
Los Alamos, New Mexico, while taking no position on the guilt
or innocence of Dr. Lee with respect to the charges against
him, concurs in the protest of the conditions of detention of
Dr. Wen Ho Lee as cruel and overly harsh and is alarmed by
the denial of Dr. Lee's civil libraries and rights to due
process;
FURTHER, the Unitarian Church of Los Alamos, New Mexico,
calls upon the government of the United States of America
immediately to institute humane treatment of Dr. Lee and to
seek from the Court pre-trial release of Dr. Lee under
conditions that respect his human dignity;
And it is FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall be
printed in publications of the Unitarian Church of Los
Alamos, distributed to other appropriate Unitarian
Universalist Association offices and congregations, and shall
be delivered to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno and to the
congressional delegation from the State of New Mexico.
By September 7, 1999, the New York Times wrote a long article on
Chinese espionage and noted that secret information regarding nuclear
design was available not only at Los Alamos but ``to hundreds and
perhaps thousands of individuals scattered throughout the nation.''
Citing a CIA official, the New York Times stated that this Wen Ho Lee
case was going to be as ``bad as the Rosenbergs.''
All of this hysteria, I believe was deliberately programmed as a
cover-up of the lack of security at the labs.
Wen Ho Lee being Taiwanese was an easy target.
Creating a climate of suspicion upon all Chinese is the terrible
wreckage heaped by the storm on these loyal Americans.
If all that the New York Times alleged were true, why wasn't Wen Ho
Lee charged with espionage?
[[Page H9892]]
The answer is obvious. There was never any evidence of espionage.
This case began in 1995 when a U.S. agent in Asia was approached by a
Chinese defector with a 74-page document which purported to be a
blueprint for a nuclear weapons program. It was 7 years old.
U.S. experts concluded it came from Los Alamos. Energy Department
intelligence chief Notra Turlock took over the investigation. By May
1996 he had identified 12 suspects. Newsweek, September 25, 2000.
By late 1998 the FBI became convinced Lee was probably not their
target. Newsweek.--By 1999 the political climate however changed and
people were hot after finding a spy.
Newsweek states in its article of September 25, 2000, that Energy
Secretary Bill Richardson called FBI Director Freeh and urged they
accelerate Wen Ho Lee's investigation.
Wen Ho Lee had engaged in a pattern of deceit.
Dr. Robert A. Messemer, an FBI agent, admitted on August 17, 2000, at
a December 1999 bail hearing for Wen Ho Lee, that he had misstated the
testimony of a co-worker, Kuok-Mee Ling, suggesting that Wen Ho Lee had
misled him in getting permission to use his computer. In fact, there
was no deception.
Dr. Messemer also testified in August 2000 that he failed to tell the
Judge in December 1999, that Dr. Lee had disclosed contracts with
Chinese scientists in his 1986 trip to China.
Dr. Messemer had failed to tell the court in December 1999, that Wen
Ho Lee had told the FBI in March 5, 1999, that he received various
correspondence from Chinese scientists.
Nor did Dr. Messemer tell the court that the letters the FBI found in
Dr. Lee's home did not prove he had sent them seeking a job. The
letters were written to Australia, France, Singapore, and Switzerland.
Initially the felony charge against Wen Ho Lee was based on intent to
harm the U.S. and to aid a foreign power.
Later, the prosecutor's case was based on showing Lee's motive was to
impress prospective employers rather than to help China's nuclear
program. Washington Post, September 24, 2000.
Mr. Richard Krajcik, Deputy Director of the Los Alamos top-secret X
Division, testified on August 17, 2000, and conceded the information
that Wen Ho Lee downloaded was not classified secret at the time he
took it. AP New Mexico, August 18, 2000. He said it had not been
reviewed for classification.
Judge James A. Parker in the final court hearing in which Wen Ho Lee
was released of all 59 charges except one, said the government action
against Wen Ho Lee had embarrassed the entire nation. Judge Parker said
that the government had led him astray. Judge Parker apologized to Dr.
Lee for the unfair manner in which he was held.
The question that lies unanswered with Wen Ho Lee's release is
whether he in fact downloaded the ``crown jewels'' of our nation's
nuclear weapons program so sensitive that it could change the global
strategic balance if obtained by a foreign adversary.
Into the Sunshine
(By Michael Isikoff)
Every Saturday morning Sylvia Lee and her children would
pass through the metal detector and take their seats by the
glass partition in the bleak room where maximum-security
prisoners meet visitors. A door would open and Wen Ho Lee,
diminutive and soft-spoken at 60, would shuffle in flanked by
two FBI agents. Lee's legs were shackled, his hands manacled
and the handcuffs chained to his waist. ``It was just so
horrible,'' his daughter, Alberta, says now. ``They were
treating him like an animal.'' The Lee family time began--an
hour of stilted togetherness with the FBI taking notes on
every word. Seeing her father in chains, and knowing he was
being held in complete isolation, frequently reduced Alberta
to tears. Reading was one of his only escapes, and every week
she brought him something new. His favorite was the novel by
Gabriel Garcia Marquez: ``One Hundred Years of Solitude.''
Wen Ho Lee's term of solitude ended last week in the
collapse of the most highly publicized espionage case since
the arrest of Aldrich Ames--a negotiated guilty plea on one
count of mishandling classified information. The plea bargain
stripped any remaining credibility from the hopelessly
botched federal investigation of alleged Chinese spying at
the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and it humiliated the
FBI. It also infuriated U.S. district Judge James A. Parker,
who said he had been ``misled'' into treating Wen Ho Lee as a
dangerous spy. Calling Lee's imprisonment ``draconian'' and
``unfair'' Parker excoriated ``top decision makers'' at the
Department of Justice and the Energy Department who,
according to Parker, had ``embarrassed our nation.'' Lee and
his lawyers claimed he had been targeted for investigation
because he is Chinese, and critics charged that the FBI and
the Energy Department had engaged in a new form of racial
profiling. The Clinton administration, it seemed, had a bad
case of cold-war paranoia.
The recriminations have only just begun. Stung by the
judge's criticism and by a rebuke from Bill Clinton, Attorney
General Janet Reno is likely to order an internal inquiry
into what went wrong--a probe that could prove distinctly
uncomfortable to Reno herself, FBI Director Louis Freeh and
other senior officials. But even as they acknowledged a badly
flawed case, senior law-enforcement officials insisted they
were right to go after Lee in the first place. They say his
actions raise troubling questions that are still unanswered.
As late as last Monday, Newsweek has learned, Reno and
other top Justice officials nearly torpedoed the deal after
Lee admitted for the first time that he made copies of the
computer tapes containing nuclear secrets he downloaded from
Los Alamos's classified computers. Lee insisted he had
destroyed all the copies along with seven original tapes the
FBI never recovered and that he never compromised U.S.
security. But his new admission triggered a series of tense
discussions among top national-security officials. ``People
were really angry and upset,'' said one source. For a time
Reno and other top officials were strongly leaning toward
taking the troubled case to trial anyway.
In the end, Justice officials modified the deal with Lee.
They gave themselves greater latitude to bring new charges
against the scientist if they catch him lying during the
intense debriefings he must now undergo. ``When the full
story comes out,'' said one unrepentant law-enforcement
official, ``people are going to see that he's not the poor
little innocent he's being made out to be.''
Maybe so, but suspicions are not what federal prosecutions
are supposed to be about. What drove the Lee case was
legitimate national-security concerns--warped by politics.
The case began in 1995 when a U.S. agent in Asia was
approached by a Chinese ``walk-in'' defector with a
sensational intelligence coup--a 74-page document that
purported to be the blueprint for modernizing China's
nuclear-weapons program. Although it was seven years old, the
document included numerous pieces of information, and some
key phrases, that suggested a massive security leak at Los
Alamos. It also included a design virtually identical to the
W88, a state-of-the-art thermonuclear warhead built for U.S.
missile subs. While skeptics suggested the document may have
been a plant by Chinese intelligence, some U.S. experts were
convinced that much of the information had indeed been stolen
from Los Alamos. One of them was Energy Department counter-
intelligence chief Notra Trulock, who took over the W88
probe, code-named Kindred Spirit. By May 1996 his team of
spy-hunters, working with the FBI, had identified 12
suspects--with Wen Ho Lee at the top of the list.
Born in Taiwan and educated at Texas A&M, where he got his
doctorate in mechanical engineering, Lee joined the staff at
Los Alamos in 1978. He worked in the X Division, which
designs U.S. bombs and warheads, as a midlevel scientist
specializing in the computer simulation of shock waves
generated by nuclear blasts. Crucially, he was on the team
that designed the trigger for the W88 warhead. Still, there
was no hard evidence that Lee had engaged in any form of
espionage. By late 1998 the FBI's Albuquerque, N.M., field
office became convinced that Lee was probably not their
target and noted that hundreds of other people, including
outside contractors, needed to be examined.
By then the political climate had changed. Trulock had
testified in secret before a congressional committee
investigating technology transfers to China headed by GOP
Rep. Chris Cox. Republicans had already pummeled the Clinton
White House over Asian campaign contributions, and top
administration officials feared a new China scandal. In
December 1998, Newsweek has learned, Energy Secretary Bill
Richardson called FBI Director Freeh and urged him to
accelerate the Lee investigation.
In March 1999 The New York Times ran a front-page story
pointing to an unnamed ``computer scientist'' at Los Alamos
as a key figure in a probe of Chinese espionage. The next day
the FBI interrogated Lee and tried to extract a confession.
Waving the newspaper story, agents warned Lee he faced the
loss of his job and pension and that he was ``failing'' lie-
detector tests--a statement that was at least somewhat
misleading. ``I tell the truth,'' Lee insisted. ``Do you know
who the Rosenbergs are?'' an agent asked. ``You know what
happened to them? They electrocuted them, Wen Ho.'' No lawyer
was present.
Ironically, neither the FBI nor the Energy Department was
aware at that point that Wen Ho Lee had been secretly
downloading massive amounts of X Division weapons data for
years. To do it, Lee asked to use the computer of a colleague
outside the X Division. Then he typed cl=u (classified equals
unclassified) on the restricted files, allowing access from
the other computer. Starting in 1993 Lee downloaded 806
megabytes of classified information--about 400,000 pages.
But damning as the evidence looked to national-security
officials in Washington, the case against Lee turned out to
be filled with holes, and prosecutors began to take hits left
and right. At a bail hearing in August, FBI agent Robert
Messemer admitted that he had earlier given false testimony,
portraying Lee as more devious than the scientist actually
was when he asked to use his colleague's computer. Messemer
called his testimony
[[Page H9893]]
``an honest mistake.'' Other government scientists stated
that many of the nuclear secrets Lee downloaded were publicly
available--and many had a relatively low classification:
``protect as restricted data,'' or PARD.
In late August a meeting was convened at the Justice
Department command center to review where matters stood.
``The case was falling apart,'' said one official. Chief
prosecutor George Stamboulidis was convinced he could still
win at trial. But national-security officials feared that
Judge Parker would allow defense lawyers to introduce some of
the secret documents that Lee had downloaded. ``We would have
had to parade these documents in front of the jury and the
world,'' said Stamboulidis. Even FBI Director Freeh--who had
aggressively pushed the case to begin with--was now arguing
that the government should take a plea.
Senior law-enforcement officials say the biggest mistake
may have been the harsh conditions under which Lee was held--
the solitary cell, the leg irons, the 24-hour watch. Top
Justice officials now say they had some concerns about this
from the beginning but didn't convey them strongly enough to
the original prosecution team. ``If there was a failure, the
higher-ups at Justice weren't really forceful enough in
speaking up,'' said one official. ``That's a legitimate
criticism.'' When Stamboulidis came in to take over the case
in June, he eased the treatment of Lee and ordered the leg
irons taken off. But by then it was too late. The image of
Lee, a gentle scientist being mistreated by the government,
had made its way into the public mind. As a symbol of
overzealous prosecution, it could well stay there for some
time to come.
____
FBI Agent Recants Testimony Against Los Alamos Scientist Lee
(August 18, 2000; Albuquerque, New Mexico)
An FBI agent has recanted testimony that was key to a
judge's decision to deny bail last December to a fired
nuclear weapons scientist accused of downloading restricted
files.
The testimony last year from Agent Robert Messemer had
portrayed Wen Ho Lee as guileful when the jailed Los Alamos
lab physicist supposedly told a colleague he wanted to use
that scientist's computer to print a resume.
At a bail review hearing Thursday, Messemer acknowledge
that Lee had told the other scientist he wished to download
files.
``My testimony was incorrect,'' Messemer told U.S. District
Judge James Parker.
The judge had cited Lee's ``deeply troubling'' deceptions
in denying him bail in December.
The FBI agent said Thursday he did not intentionally
attempt to mislead the judge and said he did not believe it
was a serious error.
The hearing, the defense's third effort to get Lee released
on bail, was scheduled to continue Friday with more
questioning of Messemer.
Lee, 60, is charged with 59 counts involving downloading
files from Los Alamos National Laboratory to unsecured
computers and tape. The Taiwan-born American citizen could
face life in prison if convicted at trial, scheduled to begin
Nov. 6.
During Messemer's testimony Thursday, the FBI agent also
acknowledged Lee disclosed contacts with scientists from the
People's Republic of China in a report to the lab about a
1986 conference he attended.
Messemer insisted, however, that under questioning by
authorities Lee did not disclose the full scope of those
contacts.
Messemer testified last year Lee initially told authorities
only about a Christmas card he had gotten from one Chinese
scientist. He acknowledged that Parker could have inferred
from that testimony Lee was lying.
He also said he wanted to correct a ``minor point'' in
which he said Lee sent letters seeking an overseas job.
Messemer said Thursday the FBI had no evidence one way or the
other whether the letters were sent.
Los Alamos scientist Richard Krajcik, deputy director of a
top-secret nuclear weapons division at the lab, testified
that he stood by earlier statements about the seriousness of
the downloaded documents.
``It represents the crown jewels of nuclear design
assessment capability of the United States,'' Krajcik said.
Krajcik conceded the information was not classified as
secret when Lee allegedly took it, but said only scientists
with security clearances could access it.
At the time, the information had not been reviewed for
classification. The information has since been classified as
confidential restricted data and secret restricted data, but
not top secret.
Defense attorney John Cline read descriptions of
classification levels, which define top-secret information as
vital to national security and whose dissemination would
cause ``exceptionally great damage.'' Secret information does
not reveal critical features.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman Mink for
organizing this important Special Order and commend Congressman
Underwood, Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus,
and the other Members of the Caucus for their leadership and hard work
to focus attention on these important civil rights issues.
The treatment of Dr. Wen Ho Lee remains a cause for concern. Asian-
Americans, members of racial and ethnic minority groups, civil
libertarians, and other Americans have correctly questioned his
treatment and continue to question the underlying racial stereotyping
and racial profiling that plagued this case. Why did this happen? What
were the objective and neutral criteria used to bring these charges?
Why was he held in solitary confinement, unable to exercise, prohibited
from speaking Chinese to his family, and subjected to extraordinary
conditions of confinement?
The implications of this case go well beyond the Chinese and Asian-
American community. It concerns other minority communities, racial
profiling in law enforcement, and stereotyping all across the country.
America's law enforcement agencies and the FBI should not be targeting
individuals based solely on their race or ethnicity. Several years ago,
after the bombing at the Oklahoma City Federal Building, too many
people were quick to blame foreigners and Arab terrorists. That tragedy
reminded us of the important lesson of not jumping to conclusions.
Evidently, that lesson has been forgotten.
Rep. Robert Underwood, Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific
American Caucus, has written to President Clinton to urge the
establishment of an independent, bi-partisan commission to investigate
the handling of the case of Dr. Wen Ho Lee. This important step would
help reveal the truth and help depoliticize the issue. A formal
Commission of national stature to review these issues would be an
important step forward. This independent Commission should have
subpoena power. I would like to see the release of documents that the
defense would have used during discovery in order to determine whether
there were appropriate criteria used to target Dr. Wen Ho Lee. The
Organization of Chinese Americans [OCA] has also called for an
independent inquiry into how this case was investigated and prosecuted
by Federal agencies.
It is important to remind government officials, law enforcement
agencies, and the media that our nation's underlying guarantee of equal
and fair treatment before the law applies to all Americans, including
Chinese and Asian Pacific Americans. Many think Dr. Lee's case was
influenced by biased media coverage, political partisanship, attempts
to scapegoat someone for the Department of Energy's lax security
procedures. Bail hearing testimony by government investigators
admitting erroneous statements about Dr. Lee's actions are particularly
troubling. As a nation, we can and must do better.
I look forward to the establishment of an independent Commission and
the results of the Commission's fact finding mission. Regardless of
these findings, we must keep in mind the lessons of the Oklahoma
bombing and recognize that racial profiling and stereotyping are unfair
and may violate our civil rights. We must work to ensure that the
principles of innocent until proven guilty and due process are more
than mere rhetoric. We must ensure they remain core American values
protecting all Americans.
In closing, I want to thank Congresswoman Mink for organizing this
Special Order and highlighting these important issues.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns about
the unjust treatment and confinement of Dr. Wen Ho Lee, a former Los
Alamos scientist.
Dr. Wen Ho Lee was arrested by the FBI on December 10, 1999, when a
grand jury issued a 59-count indictment charging him with stealing
nuclear secrets from a classified Los Alamos computer. U.S. District
Judge James Parker denied bail for Dr. Lee, citing seven missing
computer tapes of nuclear secrets and the possibility that his release
could harm U.S. national security. Dr. Lee was held in solitary
confinement for the following nine months and shackled whenever he was
outside of his cell.
Dr. Lee's confinement was clearly unnecessary. He had not been
convicted of any crime and was considered innocent under the law
throughout his confinement. On August 17, 2000, FBI agent Robert
Messemer admitted that he gave false testimony against Dr. Lee at his
bail hearing the previous December. Furthermore, on September 10, 2000,
the Department of Justice announced that Dr. Lee would go free after
pleading guilty to just one of the original 59 felony counts against
him. All other counts against him were dropped. When the Executive
Branch agreed to release him without any conditions, it became apparent
that it had never been necessary to confine him.
We will never know the reasons why the Federal Government confined
Dr. Lee and treated him so harshly. The plea agreement reached by Dr.
Lee and the Department of Justice shields the Executive Branch from
disclosing information that might have provided an explanation.
Dr. Lee's unjust confinement and the cruelty of the conditions under
which he was confined are a disgrace to the FBI, the Department of
Justice and the entire nation. No American citizen should ever be
unnecessarily confined by the U.S. Government. I am deeply sorry about
the unjust treatment Dr. Lee received, and I
[[Page H9894]]
urge my colleagues to work diligently to ensure that no other citizen
will ever be forced to endure this type of treatment.
General Leave
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on my special order tonight.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mica). Is there objection to the request
of the gentlewoman from Hawaii?
There was no objection.
____________________