 |
 |
|||||
 |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
||||||
| Meltdown at Los Alamos
by John M. Curtis Copyright September 14, 2000
Apologizing profusely to Wen Ho Lee, who was denied bail and kept in virtual solitary confinement in a Santa Fe jail for nearly 9 months, Parker said, "Dr. Lee, I feel great sadness that I was led astray" denying Lee’s release in a December 1999 bail hearing. In what amounts to a bizarre confession, Parker told Lee that Former U.S. attorney John J. Kelly "personally argued vehemently against your release and persuaded me not to release you," and added, "in hindsight you should not have been held in custody." With the whereabouts of the missing tapes still in question, Kelly simply argued that Lee posed a security risk. Implicated in shadowy Chinese espionage, Lee seemed like a real threat to national security. With Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) holding congressional hearings on a possible Beijing connection, turning Lee loose would have created seismographic political fallout for the White House, already considered soft on national security. With all the recent security breaches, missing hard drives, disappearing laptops, and now Lee’s unfound tapes, posting bail would have sent a dangerous message. Accepting Kelly’s recommendation wasn’t the government’s fault, it was the Judge’s who had the sole discretion over Lee’s bail. While hindsight’s 20/20, denying bail back in December seemed like the right thing to do. Just knowing that Lee downloaded several hundred pages of sensitive nuclear secrets was sufficient to keep him in the slammer. Blaming the Justice Department or U.S. attorney is like faulting a vacuum cleaner salesman for getting his foot in the door. Why Judge Parker felt compelled to confess his personal views is anyone’s guess. Sure, the FBI’s chief investigator Robert Messemer cracked under intense scrutiny and the government’s case went down the tubes, but what’s that got to do with Parker exercising caution at a bail hearing? After all, Lee never offered credible excuses for why he downloaded nuclear secrets or what happened to the missing tapes. Accepting Lee’s explanation that he was just taking his work home stretches the truth past breaking point. When the burly FBI investigator got his wires crossed and recanted his prior testimony, the government’s case against Wen Ho Lee headed south. After lambasting the prosecution, Judge Parker heaped praise on the defense, referring to Lee’s lawyers as "outstanding," and suggesting that they would have presented a "formidable" defense had the case gone to trial. Like many criminal trials, highly credible witnesses—and even touted experts—are routinely impeached. Recall how one of the key detectives in the OJ criminal trial, Mark Furman, was dismantled by F. Lee Bailey. When Bailey exposed Furman’s use of the "N"-word, his credibility—and Marsha Clark’s case—melted down. Why should it be any different when the Justice Department puts on a case? Sure Messemer didn’t perform up to snuff, but that doesn’t mean that the government’s case was entirely cotton candy. Lee’s feeble explanations fly in the face of common sense. Lee still maintains that he "destroyed" the tapes, but where’s the evidence? While it’s tempting to blame the government for botching Lee’s case, it’s also easy to dismiss Lee’s behavior as inconsequential or another example of racial profiling. Under Lee’s plea agreement, he’s required to give a "truthful written declaration, under penalty of perjury, stating the manner in which he disposed of the seven tapes." Why wasn’t his declaration given before the plea agreement? Justifying the plea bargain, FBI director Louis J. Freeh said the agreement "provides the opportunity to determine what in fact happened to the nuclear design and source codes that Dr. Lee unlawfully downloaded, copied and removed from Los Alamos." Asked why the government made an abrupt about-face in Lee’s case, Freeh added, "The safety of the nation demands that we take this important step." When the FBI special investigator Robert Messemer tanked, the government could no longer prove the Beijing connection. Though Lee’s lawyer Mark Holscher called the outcome "a sweet day indeed," the fact is that Dr. Lee pled guilty to a serious felony. With Waco and Ruby Ridge still fresh on peoples’ minds, it’s easy to blame Uncle Sam for embellishing its stories. In today’s spin cycle, no one—including the government—passes the credibility test with flying colors. Citizens have a right to question the truthfulness of reports from government agencies to publicly traded corporations, to local police departments and even to the media. Rushing to judgment, the Justice Department put together its best case despite falling short of expectations. Dismissing 58 of 59 counts seems abysmal, but when your star witness comes unglued, an otherwise credible case unravels very quickly. Judge Parker went over the top with his personal indictment of the government’s case. Because of the gravity of Lee’s charges, releasing him on bail would have turned the criminal justice system on its head. Spinning under oath about sex in one thing, but compromising the nation’s nuclear secrets is yet another. Whatever happened at Los Alamos, betraying national security must always carry a heavy price. About the Author John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com and columnist for The Los Angeles Daily Journal. He’s director of a Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care, political research and media consultation. He’s the author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma. |
||||||
aking a dramatic U-turn and avoiding trial, the U.S. government abruptly dropped its 59-point indictment against suspected spy Wen Ho Lee, agreeing instead to an unexpected plea bargain winning him freedom from federal prison. Copping to only one felony count of illegally retaining national defense information, U.S. District Judge James A. Parker didn’t pull any punches with Atty. Gen. Janet Reno, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson and the FBI, for bringing suit against the unassuming, 60-year-old, Taiwan-born nuclear scientist. "They have embarrassed this entire nation and each of us who is a citizen of it," said Parker barely containing his outrage over the collapse of the government’s case. Making more of a political statement, Parker parroted the defense’s main argument that the decision to prosecute Lee "was made at the highest levels of the executive branch in Washington, D.C." Referring to a December 4, 1999 meeting of top officials in the Justice and Energy Departments only six days before Lee was indicted, Parker editorialized, "[the executive branch] has enormous power, the abuse of which can be devastating to our citizens."|
Home || Articles || Books || The Teflon Report || Reactions || About Discobolos This site designed, developed and hosted by the experts at ©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc. |
