Jonathan TurleyBy Facsimile Transmission and Overnight Mail
George Washington University Law School
2000 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20052
March 6, 2001
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
SH-211 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-6475
Re: United States v. CTR1 Daniel M. King. USN
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am writing to you again regarding the on-going and serious national security violations in the above referenced case. I previously sought congressional intervention when all efforts to abate and correct these violations had failed. After writing to members of Congress with oversight authority in the intelligence area, I was assured that the Navy had promised Congress an inquiry and appropriate action. Since that time, witnesses have testified that no inquiry was ever made and the national security violations have continued. I have attached our most recent communication to the Director of Central Intelligence on this subject.
In the last twenty-four hours, another major security violation was discovered in which extremely sensitive program information was disclosed on repeated occasions to unauthorized persons. This latest violation involved a videc tape containing program information that was played at a local hotel to an audience of unauthorized parties. Over the course of several weeks, the defense repeatedly objected that the tape contained program information but those objections were repeatedly dismissed on the record. This resulted in the failure to properly secure the tape and to take immediate steps to contain damage caused by the on-going violation. Had an inquiry been made, such on-going violations could have been addressed and corrected.
I have become convinced that national security interests are being compromised due to the professional and career concerns of program security officials and Navy officers. It is particularly alarming that no one even inquired with the defense as to the scope and gravity of these violations. This complete failure to investigate and correct these violations has placed myself and my colleagues in an extremely difficult position as security clearance holders. We believe that we have an obligation to use every possible means and avenue to address the violations and seek corrective action.
I ask for your immediate intervention into this matter and an inquiry into the failure to investigate these serious allegations. I would be happy to speak in detail as to these violations with the participation of our security officer, Mr. Billy Cochran, and my two co-counsel, LT Robert Bailey and LT Matthew Freedus.
Defense Counsel for Petty Officer Daniel King