[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 5, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3717-S3720]
Security Leaks
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, over the past few months there has been
a disturbing stream of articles in the media and common among them, they
cite elite, classified, or highly sensitive information in what appears
to be a broader effort by the administration to paint a portrait of the
President of the United States as a strong leader on national security
issues--information for which there is no legitimate reason whatsoever
to believe should be in the public domain. Indeed, the release of this
information in these articles harms our national security and puts in
danger the lives of the men and women who are sworn to protect it.
What price did the administration apparently pay to proliferate such
a Presidential persona--highly valued in an election year? Access.
Access to senior administration officials who appear to have served as
anonymous sources divulging extremely sensitive military and
intelligence information and operations.
With the leaks that these articles were based on, our enemies now
know much more than they did the day before they came out about
important aspects of our Nation's unconventional offensive capabilities
and how we use them. Such disclosures can only undermine similar
ongoing or future operations and, in this sense, compromise our
national security. For this reason, regardless of how politically
useful these leaks may have been to the President, they have to stop.
These leaks have to stop.
The fact that this administration would aggressively pursue leaks
perpetrated by a 22-year-old Army private in the Wikileaks matter and
former CIA employees in other leaks cases but apparently sanction leaks
made by senior administration officials for political purposes is
simply unacceptable. It also calls for the need for a special counsel
to investigate what happened.
I am also pleased to report that Chairman Carl Levin has agreed, at
my request, to hold a hearing on these leaks in the Senate Armed
Services Committee. The Senate Armed Services Committee has a
responsibility here, and I am grateful that Chairman Levin has agreed
to hold a hearing.
In the latest of the recently published articles--published on June
1, 2012, just a few days ago--the New York Times documented in rich
detail the President's secret decision to accelerate cyber attacks on
Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities with a computer virus that came to
be known as Stuxnet. The author of the article, Mr. David Sanger,
clearly states that former and current American officials spoke to him
but refused to do so on the record because the program is both highly
classified and parts of it are ongoing. I repeat, the administration
officials discussed a most highly classified operation that is both
highly classified and still ongoing, an operation that was clearly one
of the most tightly held national security secrets in our country until
now. And I might point out to my colleagues that this is all about the
Iranian effort to acquire nuclear weapons, which is one of the most
difficult national security challenges this Nation faces.
Other recent articles divulged critical and classified information
regarding U.S. plans to expand the secret drone campaign against
terrorists in Yemen and the Horn of Africa. One of these pieces was a
sorry excuse for journalism that the New York Times published on May
29, 2012, which Charles Krauthammer rightly observed should have been
entitled ``Barack Obama--Drone Warrior.''
Finally, there was a recent so-called article about the so-called
``kill list''--the highly classified list of counterterrorism targets
against whom the President has authorized lethal action--in other
words, to kill. It was reported in that article on May 29, 2012, in the
New York Times that David Axelrod, the President's chief political
adviser--who is running the reelection campaign as we speak--began
attending the meetings in which this list was discussed. I repeat, the
President's campaign manager was present and attending the meetings
where lists of possible people to be eliminated through drone strikes
was discussed and decisions were made. The only conceivable motive for
such damaging and compromising leaks of classified information is that
it makes the President look good.
These are not the only times I have been frustrated about national
security-related leaks coming from this administration. The
administration similarly helped journalists publish some of the highly
sensitive tactics, techniques, and procedures that enabled our special
operations forces--including the classified name of the unit involved--
to carry out the operation to kill Osama bin Laden last year. It is
entirely possible that this flurry of anonymous boasting was
responsible for divulging the identity of Dr. Shakil Afridi, the
Pakistani doctor who assisted us in our search for Osama bin Laden and
whose public exposure led to his detention and a 33-year prison
sentence in Pakistan. His name was divulged by members of the
administration, and he has been basically given a death sentence, a 33-
year sentence in prison in Pakistan. Our friends are not the only ones
who read the New York Times; our enemies do, too.
Let me be clear. I am fully in favor of transparency in government. I
have spent my entire career in Congress furthering that principle. But
what separates these sorts of leaks from, say, the whistleblowing that
fosters open government or a free press is that these leaks expose no
violations of law, abuses of authority, or threats to public health or
safety. They are gratuitous and utterly self-serving.
These leaks may inhibit the Nation's ability to employ the same or
similar measures in its own defense in the future. How effectively the
United States can conduct unmanned drone strikes against belligerents,
cyber attacks against Iran's nuclear program, or military operations
against terrorists in the future depends on the secrecy with which
these programs are conducted. Such activities are classified or
enormously sensitive for good reason--in many cases, for reasons
related to operational security or diplomacy. Their public disclosure
should have no place in how this or any other administration conducts
itself. These are the kinds of operations and intelligence matters no
one should discuss publicly, not even the President.
With this in mind, I call on the President to take immediate and
decisive action, including the appointment of a special counsel, to
aggressively investigate the leak of any classified information on
which the recent stories were based and, where appropriate, to
prosecute those responsible. A special counsel will be needed because
the articles on the U.S. cyber attacks on Iran and expanded plans by
the United States to use drones in Yemen were sourced to--and I quote
from the articles--``participants in the [cyber-attack] program'' and
``members of the [P]resident's national security team.'' In the cyber
attacks article, in particular, the author stated that ``current and
former American officials'' spoke to him anonymously about the program
because ``the effort remains highly classified and parts of it continue
to this day.''
What could be worse?
The suggestion that misconduct occurred within the executive branch
is right there in black and white and is why a special counsel is
needed.
As part of this investigation, this special counsel should also
scrutinize the book from which the New York Times cyber attacks article
was adapted, which was just released yesterday, for other improper or
illegal disclosures.
Where classified information regarding cyber operations was leaked,
the President should assess any damage that those leaks may have caused
to national security and how that damage can be mitigated.
In my view, the administration should be taking these leaks,
apparently perpetrated by senior administration officials, as seriously
as it pursued those made by relatively low government personnel such as
the Army private in the WikiLeaks matter or the former CIA employee who
provided the New York Times with classified information about U.S.
attempts to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program. The failure of the
administration to do so would confirm what today is only an inference--
that these leaks were, in fact, sanctioned by the administration to
serve a pure political purpose.
As I continue to closely monitor developments in this matter, I hope
to be proved wrong.
There is a Wall Street Journal article, ``FBI Probes Leaks about
Cyberattacks by U.S.'' I am glad the FBI is going to probe that. It
says Mr. Sanger, in an appearance on CBS News ``Face the Nation,''
suggested that deliberate White House leaking ``wasn't my experience.''
[[Page S3719]]
He added:
I spent a year working on the story from the bottom up and
then went to the administration and told them what I had.
Then they had to make some decisions about how much they
wanted to talk about . . . I'm sure the political side of the
White House probably likes reading about the President acting
with drones and cyber and so forth. National security side
has got very mixed emotions about it because these are
classified programs.
Mr. Sanger again is authenticating that senior members of the White
House and our intelligence community decided to talk to him about
classified programs. Their motivation for doing so--perhaps we don't
know particularly at this time, but I don't think one could argue that
these articles have all conveyed the impression that the President is a
very strong warrior in carrying out his responsibilities as Commander
in Chief, something I have disputed as far as Iraq, Afghanistan, and
other national security issues, which I will discuss on another day.
I don't know how one could draw any conclusion but that senior
members of this administration in the national security arena have
either leaked or confirmed information of the most highly classified
and sensitive nature. Some of these leaks have concerned ongoing
operations. Since they were highly classified and sensitive
information, that classification was there for a reason--the reason
being that if that information was classified, it could harm our
national security.
These are very serious actions on their part. They are very serious
actions when ongoing operations in the war against terror and the issue
of Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons could trigger attacks either
by Israel or the United States to prevent such an eventuality. We now
find leaks which have exposed, not only to the American people but to
the Iranians as well, exactly what American activity is of the most
sensitive nature. This is not a proud day for the United States of
America.
I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of Senator
Chambliss, he and I be permitted to engage in a colloquy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend from Arizona
for his very direct comments on this very sensitive issue. As vice
chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I can say
without a doubt that these ongoing leaks of classified information are
extraordinarily harmful to our intelligence operations.
Every day we ask our intelligence officers and agents to be out there
on the frontlines, putting their life in harm's way, gathering
information, meeting sources, and using a variety of highly sensitive
collection techniques. Depending on where these officers are around the
world, the operating environment can be both dangerous and downright
hostile. This means they have to be as much or more on guard to ensure
that operations don't get blown and their own lives and the lives of
our sources are not jeopardized.
But each time classified information shows up in the media, the
intelligence community's ability to do these dangerous assignments
becomes that much more difficult. Not only do these leaks tell our
enemies how we do our jobs and therefore how they can block or impede
our efforts, but with each leak our friends and allies are left to
wonder how much they can trust us with their own secrets.
These are not hypothetical concerns. Senator McCain alluded to a
couple of anecdotes. Also, a few weeks ago, in the middle of an ongoing
operation, we all--friends and enemies alike--learned the details of
efforts to disrupt an al-Qaida plot to bomb a civilian aircraft. Up to
that point, most Members of Congress knew nothing about this operation.
That is how sensitive we were told it was. Unfortunately, rather than
quietly recognize our--and, frankly, our partners'--successes and move
on with the business of protecting the American people, some in the
administration apparently decided that scoring political points in an
election year outweighed protecting our intelligence operations as well
as our liaison relationship with our intelligence partners around the
world.
Whether we could have learned more from an operation that was cut
short by this leak will now never be known, but we have been warned by
some of our allies they will think twice before they share highly
classified information with us.
Unfortunately, the leak of the airline plot was no isolated incident.
From kill lists and bin Laden movies to cyber warfare, it appears
nothing is off-limits, nothing is too secret, no operation is too
sensitive, and no source is too valuable to be used as a prop in this
election year posturing. The doctor associated with the bin Laden
operation appears to be paying the price for this posturing. Following
public disclosures of his involvement, he has been sentenced to 33
years in prison--a true life sentence of 33 years in prison in
Pakistan. This hardly provides incentive for anyone else to help us.
These disclosures--whether quietly sanctioned or not--are simply
unacceptable, and they are against the law. This administration reminds
us repeatedly that they are prosecuting more people for leaking
classified information than ever before, and I support that effort. But
just as we hold ordinary government employees accountable for violating
their oaths to protect our Nation's secrets, we must also hold the most
senior administration officials accountable. Recently, the FBI began an
investigation into the scenario surrounding this latest bomb plot, and
I applaud the FBI's efforts. Following the public disclosure in the
press reports on comments made by senior administration officials, I
sent a letter to Director Mueller and asked him to please include this
aspect of these leaks in his investigation. I received a letter back
today that he is indeed going to do that, and I applaud that. I don't
know whether the reports are true. I have no idea. But if they are,
they are serious violations of the law having been conducted by senior
administration officials.
Beyond that, we still have to do more. So today I join with my good
friend Senator McCain from Arizona in calling for the appointment of a
special counsel to investigate this pattern of recent leaks. Leaks
should never be tolerated, but leaking for political advantage is
especially troubling. There must be swift and clear accountability for
those responsible for playing this dangerous game with our national
security.
The Senator from Arizona has been around here a lot longer than me.
He has been involved in the world of national security for many years,
both on the frontline himself as well as a Member of this body.
Has the Senator from Arizona ever seen anything as egregious as the
purported leaks that are coming from this administration on these
highly classified and sensitive number of programs that we have seen in
the last few days and weeks?
Mr. McCAIN. As my colleague well knows, the leaks are part of the way
the environment exists in our Nation's capital, and leaks will always
be part of the relationship between media and both elected and
appointed officials. I understand that. I think my colleague would
agree there have been times where abuses have been uncovered and
exposed because of leaks so this information was made public, and we
have always applauded that.
There has also continuously been a problem of overclassification of
information so government officials don't have to--be it Republican or
Democratic administrations--discuss what is going on publicly.
But I have to tell my friend, I do not know a greater challenge that
the United States faces in the short term than this entire issue of
Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. The President of the United States said
it would be ``unacceptable.'' We all know the Israelis are going
through an agonizing decisionmaking process as to whether they need to
attack Iran before they reach ``breakout,'' which means they have
enough parts and equipment to assemble a nuclear weapon in a short
period of time.
Here we are exposing something that, frankly, I was never told about.
I was never informed of Stuxnet, and it is ongoing, at least according
to the media reports. So aren't the Iranians going to
[[Page S3720]]
learn from this? I would ask my colleague, aren't the Iranians going to
become more and more aware?
Drone strikes are now one of the leading methods of going after al-
Qaida and those radical terrorists who are intent on destroying
America. So now al-Qaida and our enemies, both real and others who plan
to be, are very aware of the entire decisionmaking process in the White
House.
I guess the most disturbing part--and I would ask my friend--it is
one thing to have a private, in the WikiLeaks matter, who had access to
it, low-level members of certain agencies, one in the CIA who I know
was prosecuted, but this is, according to the articles that are
written, the highest levels in the White House are confirming this
classified information and maybe even volunteering it, for all we know.
But there, obviously, has been a very serious breach of perhaps the
two most important challenges we face: the Iranian nuclear process and,
of course, the continued presence and efforts of al-Qaida to attack
America.
I wonder if my friend from Georgia would agree that these are two of
the most challenging national security issues America faces.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I think my friend from Arizona is
exactly right. There have been rumors of the drone program for actually
a couple years now, maybe back almost into some period back into the
Bush administration. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, we were
always told--and rightfully so--this is a covert program and we simply
cannot discuss it. So we never have. Now we pick up the newspaper, and
over the last several weeks we have seen the President of the United
States discussing the drone program. We have seen the Attorney General
of the United States discussing the drone program. We have seen the
National Security Adviser discussing the drone program. Yet,
technically, we as Members of Congress--particularly members of the
Intelligence Committee--cannot talk about this because they are covert
programs.
So there is simply no question but that our enemy is better prepared
today because of these various leaks and public disclosures.
Let me move to the other issue the Senator has talked about, though,
the issue of the nuclear weaponization of Iran. There is no more
important national security issue in the world today. It is a daily
discussion at the United Nations, it is a daily discussion at the
Pentagon, it is a daily discussion in Israel and in virtually every
part of the Middle East that we cannot allow for the country of Iran to
become nuclear weaponized. Here, all of a sudden, we see public
disclosure, whether all of it is true or not, in a newspaper article on
the front page of an American newspaper, detailing a purported program
of attack against that Iranian program.
What are our friends in the intelligence community to think? What are
our friends in Israel to think? How much cooperation are they going to
now give us from the standpoint of disclosing information to the U.S.
Intelligence community on any program if they can expect that--if this
is, in fact, true--what they tell us is going to be on the front page
of the New York Times? Not only that, but it is not coming from some
private who went on the Internet and found a bunch of classified
documents. It is coming from statements made, supposedly, by high-level
administration officials.
It puts us in a real--not a quandary. This is not a quandary. It puts
us in a position of having to defend ourselves with our allies over
certain statements that purportedly are made by high senior
administration officials. I simply can never remember a scenario of
information being leaked where we have the level of administration
officials that now supposedly have made these comments, and they are
quoted by name in some instances.
Mr. McCAIN. Could I finally add, the disturbing aspect of this is
that one could draw the conclusion, from reading these articles, that
it is an attempt to further the President's political ambitions for the
sake of his election at the expense of our national security. That is
what is disturbing about this entire situation.
I see our friend from Oregon is waiting to illuminate us, so I yield
the floor. I thank my friend from Oregon for his patience.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[...]
