[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19066-19071]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following 
nominations on today's Executive Calendar: Calendar Nos. 737, 831, 905, 
906, 909, 910, 911, 912, 913, 914, 915, 916, and all nominations on the 
Secretary's desk. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations 
be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, 
the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the 
Senate then return to legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:


                         department of justice

       Kenneth L. Wainstein, of Virginia, to be an Assistant 
     Attorney General. (New Position)
       Frank R. Jimenez, of Florida, to be General Counsel of the 
     Department of the Navy.


                              coast guard

       The following named officers for appointment in the United 
     States Coast Guard to the grade indicated under title 14, 
     U.S.C., section 271:

                    To be rear admiral (lower half)

     Capt. Thomas F. Atkin, 0000
     Capt. Christopher C. Colvin, 0000
     Capt. Cynthia A. Coogan, 0000
     Capt. David T. Glenn, 0000
     Capt. Mary E. Landry, 0000
     Capt. Ronald J. Rabago, 0000
     Capt. Paul F. Zukunft, 0000


             corporation for national and community service

       Stephen Goldsmith, of Indiana, to be a Member of the Board 
     of Directors of the Corporation for National and Community 
     Service for a term expiring October 6, 2010. (Reappointment)


                institute of museum and library services

       Sandra Pickett, of Texas to be a Member of the National 
     Museum and Library Services Board for a term expiring 
     December 6, 2010. (Reappointment)


                 harry s truman scholarship foundation

       Roger L. Hunt, of Nevada, to be a Member of the Board of 
     Trustees of the Harry S Truman Scholarship Foundation for a 
     term expiring December 9, 2009.
       John E. Kidde, of California, to be a Member of the Board 
     of Trustees of the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation for 
     a term expiring December 10, 2011.


                    national institute for literacy

       Eliza McFadden, of Florida, to be a Member of the National 
     Institute for Literacy Advisory Board for a term expiring 
     January 30, 2009, vice Douglas Carnine, term expired.


           national foundation on the arts and the humanities

       Jane M. Doggett, of Montana, to be a Member of the National 
     Council on the Humanities for a term expiring January 26, 
     2012.


                          department of labor

       Randolph James Clerihue, of Virginia, to be an Assistant 
     Secretary of Labor.


                      national science foundation

       Arthur K. Reilly, of New Jersey, to be a Member of the 
     National Science Board, National Science Foundation, for a 
     term expiring May 10, 2012.


                        department of education

       Lauran M. Maddox, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary 
     for Communications and Outreach, Department of Education.

               Nominations Placed on the Secretary's Desk


                              coast guard

       PN1965 COAST GUARD nomination of Tina J. Urban, which was 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of September 7, 2006.


                         public health service

       PN1851 PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE nominations (256) beginning 
     Judith Louise Bader, and ending Raquel Antonia Peat, which 
     nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the 
     Congressional Record of July 27, 2006.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we consider a nominee for the new 
position of Assistant Attorney General for the National Security 
Division. All too often, in the Bush-Cheney administration, national 
security has been cited as a justification for overriding the rule of 
law and for imposing unprecedented secrecy. With the acquiescence of 
the Republican-controlled Congress, this administration may be the most 
unresponsive in history and the most unaccountable.
  Ken Wainstein is President Bush's selection to be the first Assistant 
Attorney General for National Security, a new position created by 
Congress. I will not oppose this nomination in the hope that Mr. 
Wainstein will work with us and be responsive to the Senate.
  I have concerns about this administration's unilateral approach to 
national security issues. Four years ago, the Office of Legal Counsel 
at the Justice Department issued a secret legal opinion concluding that 
the President of the United States had the power to override domestic 
and international laws outlawing torture. The memo sought to redefine 
torture and asserted that the President enjoys ``complete authority 
over the conduct of war'' and asserted that application of the criminal 
law passed by Congress prohibiting torture ``in a manner that 
interferes with the president's direction of such core war matters as 
the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants would be 
unconstitutional.'' It seemed to assert that the President could 
immunize people from prosecution for violations of U.S. criminal laws 
that prohibit torture. This memo was withdrawn only after it became 
public because it could not withstand public scrutiny.
  We have learned through the media of warrantless wiretapping and 
data-mining conducted by this administration. This, despite the Foreign 
Surveillance Intelligence Act and its express provisions, as well as 
the actions of the Senate in voting to curtail the data-mining programs 
by Admiral Poindexter at the Defense Department. We have yet to be 
provided with a convincing legal justification for these programs. We 
have yet to be able to investigate or hold the administration 
accountable. Instead, every effort at oversight and accountability has 
been obstructed or curtailed by the administration. The administration 
refuses to follow the law and submit matters to the FISA Court and 
claims state secrets to force court challenges to be dismissed. The 
administration tells the Senate when, what and how it may investigate. 
The Department of Justice's own internal Office of Professional 
Responsibility's probe of whether lawyers at the Department violated 
ethical rules in justifying these activities was shut down by the 
Attorney General and the White House.
  I was disappointed 2 weeks ago when the Judiciary Committee reported 
out a bill on party lines that would rubberstamp the administration's 
warrantless wiretapping. We were told that the administration would 
only follow the law if we passed the legislation endorsed by Vice 
President Cheney. This is a bill that would expand governmental power 
and reduce governmental accountability in an area in which we have been 
unable to engage in effective oversight. As I have said many times and 
as I continue to believe, we should not legislate in this area until we 
know more about the NSA's domestic spying activities and more about why 
the administration chose to flout the law and bypass both the FISA 
Court and the Congress.
  I support Senator Feinstein's bipartisan bill, which we also reported 
out of committee, and I commend her for her hard work to get it done. 
We should follow Senator Feinstein's thoughtful, cautious, and narrowly 
tailored approach. Her bill addresses the one concrete problem with 
FISA that the Attorney General identified, by making it easier for the 
Government to initiate electronic surveillance in emergency situations. 
It also clarifies that FISA does not require the Government to obtain a 
warrant in order to intercept foreign-to-foreign communications, 
regardless of where the interception occurs.
  At the same time, we should continue to press the administration for 
information. We should not take ``no'' for an answer. As this 
administration continues to expand its power, the Department of Justice 
should be advising the President to obey the law and respect the 
Congress and the courts, not just helping to rationalize actions and 
forestall oversight.
  In theory, the new position to which Mr. Wainstein has been nominated 
might help Department of Justice attorneys to act responsibly on 
national security issues, rather than just to do the White House's 
bidding. It should

[[Page 19067]]

put national security issues into the hands of experts, not political 
cronies. In fact, the WMD Commission recommended in March of last year 
that the different components of the Department's dealings with 
national security, terrorism, counterintelligence, and foreign 
intelligence surveillance be combined to eliminate deficiencies and 
inefficiencies in the Department's national security efforts. Congress 
acted to create the post. This new Assistant Attorney General position 
can only serve a useful role if the person who occupies it is willing 
to think independently. This administration has consistently prized 
loyalty over independence and expertise.
  Mr. Wainstein has some experience as a prosecutor, but he has also 
been a loyal official of this administration for some time now. I hope 
that he will be able to look at the crucial national security issues to 
be handled by this new office with a critical eye and a view toward 
respecting law and the Congress. If he does, he will be a breath of 
fresh air in the Bush-Cheney administration.
  Recently, Judiciary Committee Chairman Specter and I received a 
letter from the Fraternal Order of Police. The FOP ``endorsed'' Mr. 
Wainstein ``in order to facilitate his departure from the U.S. 
Attorney's Office.'' They criticized him for being ``unwilling to 
perform'' the function of investigating and prosecuting an alleged 
attack on a police officer. That is not what I would term high praise 
for his judgment. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    Fraternal Order of Police,

                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 2006.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman Specter and Senator Leahy: I am writing 
     on behalf of the members of the Fraternal Order of Police to 
     advise you of our position on the nomination of Kenneth L. 
     Wainstein, currently the U.S. Attorney for the District of 
     Columbia, to be the Assistant Attorney General for the 
     National Security Division at the U.S. Department of Justice.
       The F.O.P. is very frustrated by the manner in which Mr. 
     Wainstein is handling the investigation into the attack on a 
     Federal law enforcement officer by U.S. Representative 
     Cynthia L. McKinney. The grand jury has held this case for 
     more than two months when the usual practice of a Federal 
     prosecutor is to immediately arrest and swiftly indict people 
     that attack police officers. It is clear to us that the 
     accused in this case is receiving special treatment from Mr. 
     Wainstein. This is unacceptable--had the officer's attacker 
     in this case been a visitor to the Capitol instead of a U.S. 
     Representative, it is likely that he or she would have 
     already stood trial. Instead, under the stewardship of Mr. 
     Wainstein, we have a seemingly endless grand jury proceeding 
     and rumored talks of a plea deal, despite the fact that there 
     has not even been an indictment.
       Given that the basic function of a prosecutor is to 
     investigate and prosecute cases, and given that Mr. Wainstein 
     seems unwilling to perform this function in a simple assault 
     case, the F.O.P. was initially reluctant to support his 
     nomination to Assistant Attorney General. However, upon 
     further reflection, we have reconsidered. There is a genuine 
     need to have an effective and appropriately aggressive 
     Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia and, because 
     the responsibilities of the position for which he has been 
     nominated are largely advisory in nature, we have decided to 
     advocate his swift and immediate confirmation in order to 
     facilitate his departure from the U.S. Attorney's office. In 
     so doing, we hope that his replacement will prove to be 
     better able to handle pending cases--particularly those 
     involving assaults on law enforcement officers.
       Justice is something that must be vigorously pursued and 
     Mr. Wainstein is waffling. We feel that someone of his 
     temperament is better suited to a less operational position 
     and, for this reason, on behalf of the more than 324,000 
     members of the Fraternal Order of Police, we urge his 
     expeditious confirmation. I thank you both in advance for 
     your consideration of our views on this matter. If I can be 
     of any further help, please feel free to contact me or 
     Executive Director Jim Pasco at my Washington office.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Chuck Canterbury,
                                               National President.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Kenneth Wainstein is President Bush's 
nominee to be Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the 
Department of Justice. From July 2002 to March 2003, Mr. Wainstein was 
the general counsel at the FBI and from March 2003 until May 2004 Mr. 
Wainstein was the FBI Director's chief of staff.
  FBI documents, released in response to a Freedom of Information Act 
request, show that during Mr. Wainstein's tenure at the Bureau, FBI 
agents at Guantanamo sent e-mails to FBI headquarters objecting to DOD 
interrogation techniques being used on detainees there. FBI agents 
described DOD's methods as ``torture'' techniques and expressed alarm 
over military interrogation plans.
  Over the past several months I have posed a number of questions to 
Mr. Wainstein and Mr. Marion Bowman, who was his former deputy at the 
FBI General Counsel's office, regarding their knowledge of those 
concerns and their actions in response to hearing about them. I also 
requested from the Department of Justice a number of documents relevant 
to Mr. Wainstein's nomination.
  Mr. Wainstein's June 19, 2006, answers confirm that he was aware and 
``there was wide awareness within the FBI--that FBI personnel stationed 
at Guantanamo disagreed with the aggressive techniques that were 
authorized to be used there. . . .'' His July 14, 2006, letter to me 
indicated that the FBI's Office of General Counsel conveyed those 
concerns to the Department of Defense's General Counsel and said that 
his office expected that DOD would address the FBI concerns. Mr. 
Wainstein also told me in his July 14 letter that he discussed detainee 
interrogations with FBI Director Mueller and that the Director 
``maintained a bright line rule barring FBI personnel from involvement 
in interviews that employed techniques inconsistent with FBI 
guidelines.'' I will ask that copies of my letters to Mr. Wainstein and 
his replies to me be printed in the Record.
  In connection with Mr. Wainstein's nomination, I also posed a number 
of questions to Mr. Bowman, Mr. Wainstein's deputy in the FBI General 
Counsel's office. Over the August recess, I received a reply to my most 
recent letter to Mr. Bowman. I will ask that copies of my letters to 
Mr. Bowman and his responses to me be printed in the Record.
  Mr. Bowman's answers to my earlier questions and his more recent 
response shed additional light on the concerns about detainee treatment 
at Guantanamo. Mr. Bowman wrote on June 27, 2006, that after he heard 
from FBI personnel in Guantanamo in late 2002, he believes that he 
``recommended--to Wainstein--that we notify DOD's general counsel that 
there were concerns about the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo.'' 
Mr Bowman also said in that reply that he learned of ``legal concerns 
among some DOD personnel about the DOD tactics.''
  With regards to the directive issued by FBI Director Mueller that FBI 
personnel ``stand clear'' of any interrogations that used techniques 
other than those approved by the FBI, Mr. Bowman wrote me on August 7, 
2006, that he does not recall when Director Mueller issued the policy. 
However, Mr. Bowman recalled a discussion that reflected the concerns 
that FBI leaders had about what they were hearing from Guantanamo. Mr. 
Bowman told me:

       As soon as I heard [about concerns about interrogation 
     tactics] from BAU [the Behavioral Analysis Unit] [in late 
     2002] I talked with (now retired Executive Assistant Director 
     Pat D'Amuro who immediately said we (the FBI) would not be a 
     party to actions of any kind that were contrary to FBI policy 
     and that individuals should distance themselves from any such 
     actions. . . . He made it abundantly clear that FBI would 
     adhere to its standards and, to the extent possible, would 
     not put itself in a position that would create even the 
     appearance that those standards had been compromised by 
     physical association with activities inconsistent with the 
     tenets of the Bureau.

  The responses of Mr. Wainstein and Mr. Bowman contrast with those of 
Alice Fisher, who the Senate confirmed earlier this week to be head of 
the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice. Throughout her 
nomination process, Ms. Fisher maintained that she heard nothing about 
FBI concerns regarding DOD interrogation techniques other than vague 
concerns about effectiveness. Mr. Wainstein has

[[Page 19068]]

said that ``there was wide awareness within the FBI--that FBI personnel 
stationed at Guantanamo disagreed with the aggressive techniques that 
were authorized to be used there. . . .'' While Ms. Fisher was in the 
Criminal Division at DOJ and not the FBI, her claim of no awareness 
strikes me as somewhat incredible given the raging dispute going on 
between the FBI and DOD. As I urged in the debate on Ms. Fisher's 
confirmation, I felt it essential that documents which might shed light 
on whether she was aware of that dispute be made available to the 
Senate.
  In Mr. Wainstein's case, I have been able to question officials who 
worked with Mr. Wainstein. Mr. Bowman answered my letters. In the case 
of Ms. Fisher, the Justice Department continues to block people who 
worked for her, namely David Nahmias and Bruce Swartz, from answering 
my questions.
  I continue to be troubled by the Department of Justice's stonewalling 
of my requests for documents relevant to events at Guantanamo. The 
Department's stonewalling is simply the latest example of the 
Department's pattern of secrecy and obstruction.
  For years, this administration has run roughshod over a compliant 
Republican-controlled Congress. Congressional oversight is desperately 
lacking. The Department's continuing denial to the Senate access to 
information we need to carry out our responsibilities violates 
fundamental constitutional principles. Every Senator should stand up 
for the right of any individual Senator to review relevant documents.
  That said, Mr. Wainstein and his deputy Mr. Bowman have been 
forthcoming. They do not control the documents I seek. The Department 
of Justice does. Either or both of those men might be willing to 
provide them. Unfortunately, neither is in a position to do so. Mr. 
Wainstein has answered to the best of his ability and I will support 
his nomination.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I 
referred be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,
                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 2006.
     Mr. Kenneth Wainstein,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Wainstein: I have reviewed your answers to my 
     Questions for the Record and would appreciate you clarifying 
     a number of your responses and providing some additional 
     information which is relevant to them and the consideration 
     of your nomination.
       1. Please provide an unredacted version of each of the 
     documents contained in the packet I provided.
       2. Question 1D (ii) in my questions asked whether you or 
     anyone in your office raised concerns about Department of 
     Defense (DoD) interrogation techniques with the DoD, 
     including the DoD General Counsel. Your answer stated ``I 
     also understand that the FBI's Office of the General Counsel 
     conveyed those concerns to the DoD office of the General 
     Counsel.''
       (A) When did the FBI Office of General Counsel convey those 
     concerns?
       (B) Were those concerns conveyed orally or in writing? If 
     orally, please summarize the substance of the concerns that 
     were communicated. If in writing, please provide copies. In 
     addition, please provide the name(s) of the person(s) in the 
     FBI's Office of the General Counsel who communicated those 
     concerns, if they were conveyed orally, or who drafted the 
     communication, if they were conveyed in writing.
       3. Question 2B asked about Document #2 in the packet I 
     provided. Your response stated, ``I am not aware that any 
     attorney from the FBI office of the General Counsel examined 
     the legal analysis in the document . . .'' I am attempting to 
     reconcile that response with several other documents in the 
     packet I provided:
       Document #2A, an email dated December 2, 2002, requests 
     that the ``Legal Issues Doc'' be forwarded to ``Spike 
     Bowman,'' presumably referring to Marion Bowman, a senior 
     attorney in the FBI Office of General Counsel.
       Document #2B, an email sent by Marion Bowman and dated 
     December 3, 2002, is entitled ``Fwd Re Legal Issues Re 
     GTMO.''
       Document #2C, an email dated December 9, 2002, refers to a 
     legal review being undertaken by Mr. Bowman and states that 
     documents attached may be of interest to that review, 
     including ``a review of interrogation methods by a DoD 
     lawyer'' who ``worked hard to write a legal justification for 
     the type of interviews they (the Army) want to conduct 
     here.''
       Document #2E, an email dated December 17, 2002, is a 
     response from Marion Bowman and is entitled ``Fwd Legal 
     Issues re Guantanamo Bay.''
       Those emails clearly demonstrate that a senior attorney in 
     your office was aware of legal issues being raised by FBI 
     employees with regard to DoD interrogation techniques at 
     Guantanamo. Indeed, they indicate that a review of those 
     techniques was undertaken by that same senior attorney.
       (A) Were you aware of FBI personnel at Guantanamo, or their 
     supervisors, contacting Mr. Marion Bowman or other attorneys 
     in the FBI Office of the General Counsel regarding legal 
     issues relating to Defense Department interrogation 
     techniques at Guantanamo in 2002 or 2003? If so, did you 
     discuss this with anyone in the FBI or take any other action?
       (B) Were you aware of Mr. Bowman or other attorneys in the 
     FBI Office of General Counsel ``reviewing legal aspects of 
     interviews'' conducted at Guantanamo in 2002 or 2003? If so, 
     did you discuss this with them or take any other action?
       (C) Were you aware of Mr. Bowman or other attorneys in the 
     FBI Office of General Counsel being provided documents ``of 
     interest'' to a review of legal aspects of interviews at 
     Guantanamo in 2002 or 2003, including a review of 
     interrogation methods by a DoD lawyer? If so, did you review 
     any of these documents, discuss this issue with anyone in the 
     FBI, or take any other action?
       (D) Were you aware of any comment that Mr. Bowman or other 
     attorneys in your office may have made to FBI personnel in 
     Guantanamo in 2002 or 2003 regarding DoD interrogation 
     techniques? If so, what was the substance of such comment?
       (E) If you were not aware of email exchanges or other 
     communications between FBI personnel and Mr. Marion Bowman or 
     other attorneys in the office of the FBI General Counsel 
     regarding legal aspects relating to interrogation techniques 
     at Guantanamo during the period you were FBI General Counsel, 
     to what do you ascribe your lack of awareness?
       (F) Please provide the name of the person who drafted the 
     legal analysis in Document #2.
       4. Your answer to Question 3 states that ``Subsequent to 
     the May 20 hearing, the FBI surveyed its personnel who had 
     been in Guantanamo to determine whether any witnessed 
     mistreatment of detainees.'' Please provide the results of 
     that survey.
       5. Your answer to Question 4 states that ``in the months 
     following 9/11, the FBI received numerous NSA tips . . .'' 
     Are you aware any instance following 9/11, where the FBI 
     raised a concern with the National Security Agency (NSA) 
     about the workload created by the number of leads being 
     provided to the FBI by the NSA?
       6. Question 5 asked about concerns that Director Mueller 
     reportedly had regarding the legal rationale for warrantless 
     wiretaps. Your answer states that it would be ``inappropriate 
     for me to describe any discussions I may have witnessed or 
     had with Director Mueller on this topic.'' Please provide the 
     legal basis for your decision not to describe those 
     discussions.
       I look forward to your prompt responses to my questions. 
     Thank you.
           Sincerely,
     Carl Levin.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 2006.
     Mr. Marion Bowman,
     Senior Counsel, Office of General Counsel,
     FBI Headquarters,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Bowman: I am writing in connection with the 
     nomination of Kenneth Wainstein for the position of Assistant 
     Attorney General for the National Security Division of the 
     Department of Justice. Mr. Wainstein has indicated that you 
     worked for and reported to him during his tenure as FBI 
     General Counsel.
       I asked Mr. Wainstein a series of questions concerning a 
     packet of FBI documents (attached) which refer to concerns of 
     FBI personnel at Guantanamo about aggressive interrogation 
     techniques used by the Department of Defense (DoD). In his 
     answers to my questions, Mr. Wainstein repeatedly stated that 
     he could not recall specific information or documents 
     contained in the packet. He also said that it was 
     ``possible'' that you were ``the source'' from which he 
     learned of FBI concerns with DoD interrogation techniques.
       To assist me in filling in the gaps in Mr. Wainstein's 
     answers, please answer the following questions:
       1. In the packet provided, Document #1C, dated May 30, 2003 
     and addressed to your attention, summarizes FBI agents' 
     objections in 2002 and 2003 to DoD's use of aggressive 
     interrogation techniques which were ``of questionable 
     effectiveness and subject to uncertain interpretation based 
     on law and regulation.''
       A. Do you remember Document #1C?
       B. Were you aware, from Document #1C or otherwise, of FBI 
     agents' concerns regarding military interrogators' use of 
     aggressive interrogation tactics at Guantanamo? If so, when 
     were you first aware of these concerns? Did you bring these 
     concerns to the attention of Mr. Wainstein? If not, why not? 
     If so, what was Mr. Wainstein's response to those concerns?

[[Page 19069]]

       C. Were you aware of FBI agents' concerns that these 
     techniques were not only ``of questionable effectiveness'' 
     but also ``subject to uncertain interpretation based on law 
     and regulation''? Did you raise these concerns with Mr. 
     Wainstein? If not, why not? If so, are you aware of whether 
     he took any actions or directed you to take any actions as a 
     result?
       2. In his answers to my questions, Mr. Wainstein stated 
     that the FBI's Office of General Counsel (FBI OGC) conveyed 
     FBI agents' concerns regarding DoD interrogation techniques 
     to the DoD Office of General Counsel (DoD OGC). Did you 
     participate in discussions with DoD officials, including from 
     the DoD OGC, about FBI agents' concerns regarding DoD 
     interrogation techniques? If so, did you inform Mr. Wainstein 
     about the outcome of these discussions? If not, why not?
       3. Document #1C also states that on December 2, 2002, an 
     FBI employee sent several documents to the head of the 
     Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU) in Quantico, who stated he 
     would forward these documents to you. According to Document 
     #1C, the forwarded documents included: (1) a letter to 
     Guantanamo Commanding General Major General Geoffrey Miller; 
     (2) an Army Legal Brief on Proposed Counter-Resistance 
     Strategies; and (3) a Legal Analysis of Interrogation 
     Techniques by an FBI agent whose name is redacted. In his 
     answers to my questions, Mr. Wainstein could not recall 
     seeing any of the documents specified in Document #1C, though 
     he said ``it is certainly possible'' that you raised the 
     documents with him.
       A. Did you receive and examine documents related to 
     interrogation techniques at Guantanamo in late 2002, 
     including any of the three documents specified in Document 
     #1C? If so, when? Did you bring these documents to the 
     attention of Mr. Wainstein? If not, why not? If so, are you 
     aware of whether he took any actions or directed you to take 
     any actions as a result?
       B. If you examined the document described in Document #1C 
     as an Army Legal Brief on Proposed Counter-Resistance 
     Strategies, did you discuss the legal analysis contained in 
     that document with Mr. Wainstein? If not, why not? If so, did 
     either Mr. Wainstein or you have any concerns about that 
     legal analysis?
       4. Also contained in the packet I provided Mr. Wainstein 
     were a number of other documents in which you were also 
     named:
       Document #2, entitled ``Legal Analysis of Interrogation 
     Techniques,'' indicates that it was forwarded to you on 
     November 27, 2002.
       Document #2A, dated December 2,2002, entitled ``Legal 
     Issues,'' requests that a ``Legal Issues Doc'' be forwarded 
     to you or an appropriate person. Document #2B, dated December 
     3, 2002, is an email from you and is entitled ``Fwd Re Legal 
     Issues Re GTMO.''
       Document #2C, dated December 9, 2002, states that it 
     includes a number of documents which may be ``of interest'' 
     to you and states that you are ``reviewing legal aspects of 
     interviews'' at Guantanamo. That same email describes one of 
     the attachments as a ``review of interrogation methods by a 
     DoD lawyer.''
       Document #2E, another email from you, dated December 17, 
     2002, is entitled ``Fwd Legal Issues re Guantanamo Bay.''
       A. Do you know the name of the author of the ``Legal 
     Analysis'' document (Document #2)? If so, please provide the 
     name.
       B. Did you at any time discuss the analysis contained in 
     the ``Legal Analysis'' document (Document #2) with Mr. 
     Wainstein? If not, why not? If so, are you aware of whether 
     he took any actions or directed you to take any actions as a 
     result?
       C. The ``Legal Analysis'' document (Document #2) describes 
     one ``Category IV'' interrogation technique as ``Detainee 
     will be sent off [Guantanamo], either temporarily or 
     permanently, to Jordan, Egypt, or another third country to 
     allow those countries to employ interrogation techniques that 
     will enable them to obtain the requisite information.'' This 
     would appear to suggest the use of rendition as an 
     interrogation technique. Did you at any time discuss the 
     issue of rendition with Mr. Wainstein? If not, why not? If 
     so, are you aware of whether he took any actions or directed 
     you to take any actions as a result?
       Did you or any attorney in the FBI OGC conduct a review the 
     legal aspects of interrogation techniques at Guantanamo? If 
     not, why not? Did you or any other person in your presence 
     discuss this review with Mr. Wainstein? If so, are you aware 
     of whether he took any actions or directed you to take any 
     actions as a result?
       In addition, please provide unredacted copies of the 
     documents in the attached packet for which you were the 
     sender, a recipient, or in which you were specifically named.
       Thank you for your prompt responses to these questions.
           Sincerely,
     Carl Levin.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 2006.
     Mr. Marion Bowman,
     Senior Counsel, Office of General Counsel, FBI Headquarters, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Bowman: Thank you for your response to my letter 
     of June 9, 2006. On June 29, 2006, I provided your response 
     to Mr. Kenneth Wainstein and asked him some additional 
     questions regarding FBI personnel's concerns over DoD 
     interrogation techniques at Guantanamo. Mr. Wainstein 
     responded to me on July 14, 2006. A number of issues, 
     however, require further clarification.
       Please provide answers to the following:
       1. In Mr. Wainstein's responses of July 14, 2006, he states 
     that he discussed concerns about detainee interrogations with 
     Director Mueller ``at some point in 2002 or 2003.'' Further 
     he states that ``The Director had made a policy decision to 
     prohibit FBI personnel from participating in interrogation 
     sessions in which non-FBI personnel were employing techniques 
     that did not comport with FBI guidelines.''
       A. In your response to my questions, you describe a 
     telephone call you received from Behavioral Analysis Unit 
     (BAU) personnel in late 2002 regarding their concerns about 
     interrogation practices at Guantanamo. Did you discuss these 
     concerns with Director Mueller in late 2002? If so, what was 
     the nature of those discussions? Was Mr. Wainstein aware of 
     those discussions?
       B. When did Director Mueller issue the policy prohibiting 
     the participation of FBI personnel from interrogations 
     involving techniques that did not comport with FBI 
     guidelines? Please provide any documents relating to the 
     issuance of that policy.
       2. In your response to Question #1B, you state that you 
     recommended to Mr. Wainstein that your office notify the 
     Department of Defense Office of General Counsel (DoD/OGC) 
     that ``there were concerns about the treatment of detainees 
     in Guantanamo.'' You add that Mr. Wainstein concurred in this 
     suggestion. When did you first contact the DoD/OGC regarding 
     FBI personnel's concerns about the treatment of detainees in 
     Guantanamo? Was it in late 2002? To whom did you communicate 
     these concerns?
       3. In your response to Question #3A, you state that you 
     received the ``Legal Issues Doc'' in late 2002 and that, 
     ``Because at that time I was working under the assumption 
     that DoD General Counsel was taking appropriate action with 
     respect to this issue, I did not believe that any particular 
     action was necessary on the part of the FBI.''
       A. Did you provide the ``Legal Issues Doc'' to the DoD/OGC? 
     If so, when?
       B. Why did you assume at the time you received this 
     document that the DoD/OGC was taking appropriate action? Was 
     this based on your discussions with individuals in the DoD/
     OGC? If so, what was the nature of those discussions?
       4. In your response to Question #3B, you state that you 
     provided the attachments to Document #1C, including the Army 
     Legal Brief on Proposed Counter-Resistance Strategies, to the 
     Defense Humint Services Deputy General Counsel. Please 
     provide the name of the individual in that office to whom you 
     provided these documents. When did you do so?
       5. In your response to Question #4A, you state that you 
     don't know who authored the document entitled ``Legal 
     Analysis of Interrogation Techniques,'' but that ``my 
     understanding is that the document was not drafted by an FBI 
     agent. Rather, an FBI agent copied it and forwarded it [to] 
     FBI Headquarters.''
       A. What is the basis for your understanding that this 
     document was not authored by an FBI agent?
       B. What is your understanding of the source from which the 
     agent copied the contents of the document?
       In addition, I remind you that my June 9, 2006, letter 
     included a request for ``unredacted copies of the documents 
     in the attached packet for which you were the sender, 
     recipient, or in which you were specifically named.'' This 
     request is still outstanding.
       Thank you for your prompt response.
           Sincerely,
     Carl Levin.
                                  ____

                                                    June 19, 2006.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: This is in response to your letter 
     dated June 9, 2006, requesting additional information 
     regarding my nomination to be the first Assistant Attorney 
     General for National Security. Below are the answers to your 
     specific questions.
       Answer to Question 1: I do not have unredacted copies of 
     any of the documents you provided me at our meeting on May 
     15, 2006. I am aware that you have made similar inquiry to 
     Director Mueller, and I have alerted the Department of 
     Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, of your request.
       Answer to Question 2: I understand that Marion ``Spike'' 
     Bowman conveyed concerns to the DoD General Counsel's Office 
     about DoD interrogation techniques at some point. I do not 
     know to whom Mr. Bowman spoke, how often, or the date of any 
     communications.
       Answer to Questions 3 A), B), C), D) and E): As I have 
     previously indicated, I do not recall having seen the 
     document marked as #2, or the various emails marked #2A, #2B, 
     #2C, #2D or #2E; nor do I recall having specific 
     conversations about them with Mr. Bowman

[[Page 19070]]

     or any other FBI Office of General Counsel (OGC) lawyer. I do 
     not recall ever hearing that Mr. Bowman or any other OGC 
     lawyer was undertaking any formal legal review or legal 
     analysis of interrogation techniques employed by another 
     agency. I did not produce any formal legal opinion or OGC 
     legal memorandum on this topic while I was General Counsel.
       As I previously explained, I was aware--and there was wide 
     awareness within the FBI--that FBI personnel stationed at 
     Guantanamo disagreed with the aggressive techniques that were 
     authorized to be used there and believed they were not 
     effective at soliciting useful information that could be used 
     in subsequent prosecutions. As I saw In response to the first 
     set of questions (Question 1, subpart Fiii), it is certainly 
     possible that Mr. Bowman or other OGC attorneys were among 
     those from whom I heard about those concerns.
       Answer to Question 3F): I do not know who authored the 
     document labeled #2.
       Answer to Question 4: I do not have the results of the 
     survey conducted after the Director's May 20, 2004 hearing. I 
     left the FBI on May 29, 2004, to become the interim United 
     States Attorney for the District of Columbia. As I indicated 
     in my previous responses to your first set of post-hearing 
     questions, I do not know anything about the results of the 
     survey beyond the information publicly disclosed by Director 
     Mueller that I cited in my previous responses.
       Answer to Question 5: I do not know whether the FBI raised 
     any such concern with the NSA.
       Answer to Question 6: My view that it would be 
     inappropriate for me to comment about discussions with 
     Director Mueller is based upon the confidentiality interests 
     that are implicated by my role as his chief of staff and FBI 
     General Counsel. I have been advised that this is consistent 
     with long-standing executive branch concerns that disclosure 
     of such communications would chill the provision of candid, 
     frank advice to senior officials, such as Director Mueller, 
     which is important to their effective, fully-informed 
     decision-making.
       I have made every effort, however, to respond to committee 
     requests for information relating to my fitness for the 
     position of Assistant Attorney General. I have met with 
     individual Senators and remain available for further meetings 
     with any Senator who would like to speak with me. I also have 
     responded to multiple rounds of pre- and post-hearing 
     questions, in addition to my appearances before the two 
     separate committees of the Senate relating to my nomination. 
     I have been happy to provide this information, and I remain 
     ready and willing to provide information relevant to the 
     Senate's consideration of my fitness and ability to fulfill 
     the responsibilities of the Assistant Attorney General for 
     National Security.
       Thank you for the opportunity to provide this additional 
     information regarding my previous responses, and I look 
     forward to the Committee's consideration of my nomination.
           Sincerely,
     Kenneth L. Wainstein.
                                  ____

                                                    July 14, 2006.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: Thank you for the questions in your 
     June 29, 2006, letter, and for your questioning throughout 
     this confirmation process. I have carefully reviewed your 
     questions, and I have drafted my responses based on my review 
     of the written responses from Mr. Bowman and the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation (FBI) e-mails and memos that you 
     provided me.


           I. Concerns Regarding Interrogations at Guantanamo

       The first of your two questions relates to concerns about 
     the interrogation techniques that Department of Defense (DOD) 
     personnel were using with detainees in Guantanamo. I 
     appreciate your concern about the treatment of detainees. As 
     a criminal prosecutor for most of the past seventeen years, I 
     have frequently been questioned about the treatment and 
     interrogation of suspects, defendants and prisoners in my 
     prosecutions. I have litigated suppression motions in 
     numerous homicide and other criminal cases where I had the 
     burden of demonstrating that a confession was procured under 
     conditions and circumstances that passed constitutional 
     muster. I have always considered this scrutiny to be a part 
     of my job, and I recognize the government's fundamental 
     obligations toward those it holds in custody.
       As I explained in previous responses, it was fairly well 
     known during my tenure at the FBI that some FBI personnel 
     were concerned about the DOD's use of aggressive 
     interrogation techniques in Guantanamo. There was a sentiment 
     that DOD's techniques were not effective in eliciting useful 
     information and that DOD should instead use the rapport-
     building approach that is routinely practiced by the FBI and 
     law enforcement in general. There also was a concern that 
     DOD's techniques could complicate the introduction of 
     subsequent admissions by detainees in any potential future 
     criminal prosecutions.
       Your letter inquires about the concerns regarding DOD 
     interrogations that were communicated to former Deputy 
     General Counsel Marion Bowman in late 2002 an early 2003. 
     During this time period, I recall hearing about the concerns 
     described in the previous paragraph. However, as I have 
     previously explained, I do not recall hearing any reports of 
     torture or illegal conduct, and it was my understanding at 
     that time--and remains my understanding today--that the 
     techniques of concern to FBI personnel had been authorized by 
     the Department of Defense.
       Although I heard concerns about the DOD interrogation 
     techniques during that time period, I do not recall hearing 
     them specifically from Mr. Bowman. As I indicated in previous 
     responses, it is entirely possible that he and I discussed 
     the issue, but there is nothing about any such 
     conversation(s) that sets it apart in my memory. Similarly, 
     while Mr. Bowman believes he would have spoken to me about 
     some of the concerns he was hearing, his written responses 
     indicate that he also cannot recall any specific 
     conversations. Moreover, he makes clear that any 
     conversations we might have had on this topic would have been 
     simply advisory in nature in that he believed the concerns 
     were being addressed by DOD and that they required no FBI 
     action beyond his contacting the DOD General Counsel's 
     Office.
       Your letter asks whether I informed Department of Justice 
     officials or Director Mueller regarding any concerns I heard 
     about Guantanamo interrogations or directed others to so 
     inform them. While I do not recall discussing concerns about 
     detainee interrogations with an one in Main Justice--or 
     directing anyone else to do so--I do recall orally discussing 
     detainee interrogations with Director Mueller at some point 
     in 2002 or 2003. The Director had made a policy decision to 
     prohibit FBI personnel from participating in interrogation 
     sessions in which non-FBI personnel were employing techniques 
     that did not comport with FBI guidelines. The Director--
     described his reasons for this policy in his response to 
     Questions for the Record after his April 5, 2005, testimony 
     before the Judiciary Committee (which are summarized in my 
     June 5, 2006, responses to your questions for the record on 
     pages 2-3). When this issue came up from time to time during 
     my service at the FBI, the Director and I discussed FBI 
     concerns about aggressive interrogation techniques and he 
     maintained a bright-line rule barring FBI personnel from 
     involvement in interviews that employed techniques 
     inconsistent with FBI guidelines.


      II. Conversations about the Terrorist Surveillance Program I

       Your second question asks whether I am asserting any 
     privilege in declining to describe any conversations I had 
     with Director Mueller regarding the legal rationale for the 
     Terrorist Surveillance Program. The short answer is that I am 
     not invoking a privilege; rather, my response comports with 
     the long-standing Executive Branch practice of protections 
     the dentiality of internal advice and other deliberatlons. It 
     is my understanding that this practice is based largely on 
     the importance of ensuring that policy makers receive the 
     complete, sometimes differing, views of subordinates as they 
     consider significant issues. If employees have to worry that 
     their deliberations will be disclosed outside of the agency; 
     then they will become reluctant to provide their candid input 
     and the decision making process will suffer.


                            III. Conclusion

       I trust that this letter responds to your questions. It has 
     been my objective throughout this process to be as candid and 
     forthcoming as possible, and to assure you that I am worthy 
     of your confidence to handle the important national security 
     responsibilities of the position for which I have been 
     nominated. With the establishment of the National Security 
     Division awaiting my confirmation, I am anxious for you to 
     allow my nomination to proceed to a vote before the United 
     States Senate. There is much work to be done to stand up the 
     new Division.
       Please let me know if you have any further questions, as I 
     would be happy to meet with you at your convenience to 
     respond to them. Thank you once again for your consideration 
     throughout this process.
           Sincerely,
     Kenneth L. Wainstein.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, June 29, 2006.
     Mr. Kenneth Wainstein,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Wainstein: I have reviewed your June 19th reply 
     and Mr. Marion Bowman's June 27th reply to my June 9th 
     letters and would appreciate your responses to he following 
     questions.
       Mr. Bowman's response, a copy of which is enclosed, states 
     that he is confident that he spoke with you about a call he 
     received from FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU) personnel in 
     fall 2002 expressing concern with certain Department of 
     Defense (DoD) interrogation tactics in use at Guantanamo. In 
     addition, Mr. Bowman's response states that, approximately 
     one month after BAU personnel contacted him with their 
     concerns, he was informed about ``legal concerns'' that DoD 
     personnel had with the tactics. Mr. Bowman states that he 
     believes that he would have discussed these legal concerns

[[Page 19071]]

     with you. Mr. Bowman also states that he believes that he 
     showed you or discussced with you the ``Legal Analysis of 
     Interrogation Techniques'' document referenced in document 
     #1C. That document refers to examples of coercive 
     interrogation tchniques which may violate 18 U.S.C. s. 2340 
     (Torture Statute).''
       Please advise whether, at any time, you informed or 
     directed others to inform Director Mueller and/or any 
     Department of Justice (DOJ) official, including but not 
     limietd to officials in the Attorney General's office, DOJ's 
     Office of Legal Counsel, or DOJ Criminal Division of concerns 
     about DoD interrogation tactics that had been brought to your 
     office, regardless of the source of those concerns. If so, 
     please provide the name of the official(s) you contacted or 
     who were contacted at your direction. If concerns were 
     communicated in writing, please provide a copy; if orally, 
     please describe the substance of the conversation. If you did 
     not contact any such official(s) or direct others to do so, 
     please advise me as to why you did not.
       You also state in your letter that ``the confidentiality 
     interests that are implicated by my role as his chief of 
     staff and FBI General Counsel'' preclude you from answering 
     my questions regarding your conversations with Director 
     Mueller on the legal rationale for warrantless wiretaps.
       Please advise as to whether you are asserting any privilege 
     in declining to describe those discussions and provide the 
     legal basis for that privilege and your assertion of it.
       Finally, following my staffs discussion with the Department 
     of Justice, I will provide the Department with a list of 
     documents from the previously provided packet that I request 
     be provided in unredacted form.
       I look forward to your reply.
           Sincerely,
     Carl Levin.
                                  ____

                                                   August 7, 2006.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC.
       Senator Levin: You sent me a second set of questions with 
     respect to Mr. Kenneth Wainstein, which I received on Friday, 
     August 4, 2006. Your focus, once again, is ``detainee'' 
     issues. Let me preface my reply by informing you that I no 
     longer work for the Department of Justice. In consequence, I 
     have no access to any of the documents that you reference 
     and, because of a computer change in recent years, did not 
     have personal access to them when I last replied. 
     Additionally, because I no longer work for the Department of 
     Justice, my answers to your questions should not imply 
     concurrence by the Department of Justice or the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation in any of my responses.
       You asked:
       1. In Mr. Wainstein's responses of July 14, 2006, he states 
     that he discussed concerns about detainee interrogations with 
     Director Mueller ``at some point in 2002 or 2003.'' Further 
     he states that ``The Director had made a policy decision to 
     prohibit FBI personnel from participating in interrogation 
     sessions in which non-FBI personnel were employing techniques 
     that did not comport with FBI guidelines.''
       A. In your response to my questions, you describe a 
     telephone call you received from Behavioral Analysis Unit 
     (BAU) personnel in late 2002 regarding their concerns about 
     interrogation practices at Guantanamo. Did you discuss these 
     concerns with Director Mueller in late 2002? If so, what was 
     the nature of those discussions? Was Mr. Wainstein aware of 
     those discussions?
       Answer: To the best of my recollection, I never discussed 
     detainee issues with Director Mueller.
       B. When did Director Mueller issue the policy prohibiting 
     the participation of FBI personnel from interrogations 
     involving techniques that did not comport with FBI 
     guidelines? Please provide any documents relating to the 
     issuance of that policy.
       Answer: I do not recall when Director Mueller issued that 
     policy. However, I can tell you that the operational 
     prohibition came earlier. As soon as I heard from BAU I 
     talked with (now retired) Executive Assistant Director Pat 
     D'Amuro who immediately said we (the FBI) would not be a 
     party to actions of any kind that were contrary to FBI policy 
     and that individuals should distance themselves from any such 
     actions. That conversation was longer than indicated so I 
     want to be sure the ``sound bite'' is not misinterpreted. EAD 
     D'Amuro was not saying that FBI would ignore anything 
     unlawful. He made it abundantly clear that FBI would adhere 
     to its standards and, to the extent possible, would not put 
     itself in a position that would create even the appearance 
     that those standards had been compromised by physical 
     association with activities inconsistent with the tenets of 
     the Bureau.
       Answer: You will have to seek any documents from the 
     Department of Justice as I no longer have access to any of 
     them.
       2. In your response to Question #1B, you state that you 
     recommended to Mr. Wainstein that your office notify the 
     Department of Defense Office of General Counsel (DoD/OGC) 
     that ``there were concerns about the treatment of detainees 
     in Guantanamo.'' You add that Mr. Wainstein concurred in this 
     suggestion. When did you first contact the DoD/OGC regarding 
     FBI personnel's concerns about the treatment of detainees in 
     Guantanamo? Was it in late 2002? To whom did you communicate 
     these concerns?
       Answer: I cannot be precise. My best guess, which is 
     probably pretty accurate, is that it was mid- to late 
     November of 2002. I first called the acting Deputy General 
     Counsel for Intelligence. Subsequently I talked with the 
     Principal Deputy General Counsel and the General Counsel. My 
     best recollection is that I talked briefly with the Principal 
     Deputy shortly thereafter and with both Principal Deputy 
     General Counsel and the General Counsel several months later. 
     I'm sorry; I can't be more precise than that.
       3. In your response to question #3A, you state that you 
     received the ``Legal Issues Doc'' in late 2002 and that, 
     ``Because at that time I was working under the assumption 
     that DoD General Counsel was taking appropriate action with 
     respect to this issue, I did not believe that any particular 
     action was necessary on the part of the FBI.''
       A. Did you provide the ``Legal Issues Doc'' to the DoD/OGC? 
     If so when?
       Answer: I offered the documents to the General Counsel's 
     office and described generally the contents of the documents 
     included in the bundle that was forwarded to me by BAU, but 
     was told that they believed they already had all the 
     documents I possessed.
       C. Why did you assume at the time you received this 
     document that the DoD/OGC was taking appropriate action? Was 
     this based on your discussions with individuals in the DoD/
     OGC? If so, what was the nature of those discussions?
       Answer: This could be a very lengthy response, but the 
     short version is that, based on my experiences as a 27-year 
     veteran of military service, a substantial portion of which 
     dealt both with issues of the Law of Armed Conflict and, for 
     a variety of reasons, directly with the DoD General Counsel's 
     office (through multiple General Counsels), I believed 
     bringing the issue to the attention of appropriate authority 
     would result in any remedial action deemed necessary or 
     appropriate. When I talked with the acting Deputy General 
     Counsel for Intelligence, a person whom I knew well, I was 
     told that the matter was not in his purview, but that it was 
     being handled by the Principal Deputy. That made perfect 
     sense to me, as the acting Deputy General Counsel for 
     Intelligence had no military experience, while the Principal 
     Deputy was retired military.
       4. In your response to Question #3B, you state that you 
     provided the attachments to Document #1C, including the Army 
     Legal Brief on Proposed Counter-Resistance Strategies, to the 
     Defense Humint Service's Deputy General Counsel. Please 
     provide the name of the individual in that office to whom you 
     provided these documents. When did you do so?
       Answer: The Deputy General Counsel for Defense Humint 
     Services is retired Colonel James Schmidli. My best guess on 
     timing was in the mid-December 2002 to mid-January 2003 time 
     frame. I did not give copies to Mr. Schmidli, but he did read 
     them in my office.
       5. In your response to Question #4A, you state that you 
     don't know who authored the document entitled ``Legal 
     Analysis of Interrogation Techniques'' but that ``my 
     understanding is that the document was not drafted by an FBI 
     agent. Rather, an FBI agent copied it and forwarded it [to] 
     FBI Headquarters.
       A. What is the basis for your understanding that this 
     document was not authored by an FBI agent?
       Answer: To the best of my recollection, this is what I was 
     told when the documents were forwarded to me.
       B. What is your understanding of the source from which the 
     agent copied the contents of the document?
       Answer: I have no present recollection of that.
       In closing, I will remind you that any documents you desire 
     will have to be requested from the Department of Justice. I 
     hope this is helpful to your understanding that this period 
     was one in which facts were still uncertain but reasonably 
     believed to be in the hands of the Department of Defense for 
     any actions necessary. In that respect, it is my firm belief 
     that Mr. Wainstein acted with complete propriety throughout.
           Respectfully,
                                                      M.E. Bowman,
     CAPT, JAGC, USN (ret.).

                          ____________________