Thursday, January 4, 2001 1 p.m. EST

Washington Post reporter Vernon Loeb covers national security issues and writes a biweekly column exclusively for the Web. His newspaper column, Back Channels is also carried by this Web site.

In his latest articles and columns, Loeb writes about six Iraqi men who were held on secret evidence; John Pike, director of space policy for the Federation of American Scientists; terrorist attacks allegedly masterminded by Osama bin Laden that were averted last January and Sen Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.)'s urging that President Clinton not commute convicted spy Jonathan Pollard's life sentence before he leaves office.

A transcript appears below.

washingtonpost.com: Welcome to Vernon Loeb's first monthly discussion of national security issues for the new year. Before we begin with questions, we wanted to pass along one of several comments on Vernon's recent story about the Iraqi dissidents who were detained in Lincoln, Nebraska on secret evidence.

Vernon Loeb: Greetings everyone. Happy new year. The election count may be over, but we still have no new Director of Central Intelligence. I've also just come from federal court in Manhattan, where the government is starting jury selection in its prosecution of Osama bin Laden and 20 other al Qaeda defendants, so if anyone is interested, we can talk about that, as well.

Seattle, WA: This is a quick note to praise your story on the six Iraqi men held on secret evidence. As painful as it was to read of the men's ordeals, I commend you for bringing their cases to light.

Vernon Loeb: Thanks very much. It would be nice to see the outgoing Clinton administration do the right thing and grant the six asylum, after all they have been through.

Lincoln, NE: Any hope that the Iraqi six will be pardoned by Attorney General Reno before Clinton leaves office? What kind of response might they receive from the new Bush administration?

Vernon Loeb: I am told that Reno may be taking action on the case this week, or at least before she leaves office. Any reading of this case leads one to the conclusion that there is no evidence that any of the Lincoln six are foreign intelligence agents, terrorists, murderers or otherwise threats to the national security.

Herndon, VA: In your opinion, how much did the current anti-Saddam, anti-Iraqi, or even anti-Arab sentiment influence the INS decision concerning the Lincoln Six?

Vernon Loeb: Anti-Arab bias certainly seems to have played a part in at last the FBI agents' thinking about the six opposition members. One of the agents said in court that he believed that all Arabs lie as a matter of course and that there is no Western notion of truth or falsity in the Middle East. The FBI agents, it seems to me, were far too willing to accept as gospel rumors about the six that were passed on to them by CIA officers. And then the INS seems to have accepted and embraced the FBI reports without any scrutiny. I mean, no one from the government claims that any type of investigation was ever done to determine the veracity of the rumors that surfaced about the six. The bottom line is: they spent over two years in prison_and may still be deported_on the basis of rumor. No wonder Saddam Hussein has had a propaganda field day with this case.

New York, NY: Will you be covering the embassy bombing trial? Can you tell us why the judge in the case has closed jury selection to the public?

Vernon Loeb: I think the judge has closed jury selection because he wants prospective jurors to be honest about their biases_biases against Arabs, biases against people accused of terrorism, or associated in any way with Osama bin Laden. Since it's hard to image a more demonized individual than bin Laden, the bias level has to be pretty high, particularly in the New York area, where four high-profile terrorism cases have already been tried in lower Manhattan.

Danville, VA: Hey Vernon, What do you think of that 2015 Report that was done recently by the CIA?
Thanks.

Vernon Loeb: I'll answer this question in a minute. But let me also put out another question on the same topic with a couple of comments attached before I answer.

Reston,VA: Vernon, Just read the CIA Report on global trends in 2015. Two interesting things to note (among many interesting things in it):
North Korea has a nuclear weapon already, possibly two. And the U.S. is at a greater threat from ICBM than during the Cold War. I've seen some commentary on the report in the Post, but no stories that actually summarize it. Also, why no loud concern over many of the issues raised in the report?

Vernon Loeb: You may have missed a piece I did about the report, summarizing its major findings. It appeared on the morning the report as released. I can help you find it, if you're having trouble. I found the report interesting in the extent to which the CIA involved outside academics, economists and experts in prognosticating about the world 15 years from now. Possibly due to this outside involvement, the report talked about the underside of the global economy as one of the central unknowns about the world in 2015, which I found most interesting. The report was also quite gloomy about the future of Russia, and Japan for that matter, and said China and the Middle East loom as major uncertainties. It also noted that, no matter what happens in any of these regions, the world will have another billion people by 2015, which will certainly make it a more crowded_and complex_planet.

Camp Springs, MD: What message is being sent to the folks at CIA that a DCI has not been named? Since the president-elect has said he has completed his cabinet selections, is the DCI being dropped from the Cabinet?

Vernon Loeb: I find it hard to believe that the CIA will be dropped from cabinet rank in the Bush administration_a rank that it enjoyed, of course, during the Clinton administration. Clinton as never seen as much of a friend to the intel community. The Bush family, by contrast, is said to have an abiding affection for the CIA, thanks to George H.W. Bush's days as DCI_and is revered, in turn, by the intel crowd. I would bet that, as soon as President-elect Bush names a DCI, he will be in the cabinet. If he or she is not, certainly that would be a slap at the agency. The CIA lives to counsel the president, and if the president doesn't think it's important to have the CIA at the cabinet table_well, that would be upsetting, indeed, to agency seniors. I doubt, quite frankly, that any first-rate candidate would want the job without cabinet rank, especially with such heavyweights as Donald Rumsfeld at Defense and Colin Powell at State.

Arlington, VA: What do you make of Bush's choice to head DOE? Considering that, like Richardson, Abraham doesn't have a background in security issues at the labs there doesn't seem to be much hope that the mismanagement there will be resolved anytime soon.

Vernon Loeb: Excellent question. It's almost like the Bush crowd hasn't been paying attention to DOE for the last couple of years. Unless they believe that former Air Force Gen. John Gordon can take care of the national security/nuclear weapons side of energy as head of the newly created NNSA, which stands for the National Nuclear Security Agency (I think). DOE is such a hodge-podge of responsibilities that it's almost hard to image coherent management of the place, and certainly the oil and gas side of the department is becoming ever more important. But the new secretary has got to be able to master the nuclear weapons/national security side of the department_or face the consequences. Just ask Bill Richardson. While the security/counterintelligence hysteria is over, and probably won't flare up again with a Republican in the White House, there's still a pressing array of nuclear weapons and non-proliferation issues that Energy must deal with.

Washington, D.C.: Hello, Mr. Loeb. Of all the presidents, why is Clinton the least interested in intelligence matters? And why are those around Clinton against security clearances?

Vernon Loeb: I can't answer your first question, never having spoken to Clinton about anything, let alone intelligence. The lore is that he was disappointed, early on, in what he was getting every morning in the President's Daily Brief. As for question number two, I've never seen any evidence that people around Clinton are in any way against security clearances. I guess I just remain unconvinced that the Clinton administration was the security nightmare that its critics on Capitol Hill describe.

Silver Spring, MD: There was a story in yesterday's Post about the military being unprepared for the kind of terrorist attack that was made against the USS Cole. Things have clearly gotten worse between the Bush I and Bush II administrations. Any idea who might be tapped as the next Joint Chiefs and how that person might address these issues?

Vernon Loeb: If my colleague Tom Ricks were at his desk, I'd ask him about the next JCS chairman, but alas, he's out to lunch, and I have no idea who the next chairman will be. I might quarrel with your assertion that counterterrorist preparedness has gotten a lot worse between Bush I and Bush II. I think the U.S. government has learned lessons and responded to Khobar Towers, the embassy bombings and other attacks. And the intelligence and law enforcement communities, working together, are certainly more focused now on terrorism than they were during Bush I. A lot more focused. Now, Ricks has returned, and as for JSC chairman, he tells me the rumors are Adm. Blair, currently chief of the Pacific Command, or Jim Jones, current Marine commandant, and a couple of Air Force generals_Meyers, current JCS vice chairman, chief among them. In any event, the new chairman will be picked by Rumsfeld and President Bush, and they haven't indicated what kind of officer they're looking for. Instant wisdom! It helps having smart colleagues.

Old Town, VA: What, precisely, did Rumsfeld do as Sec Def from Nov 75 to Jan 77? That seems an awfully short time to effect any change in DoD. (and pre-GoldwaterNichols). It would be interesting to reconstruct what he actually did, particularly now as he is being touted, 25 years hence, as such an able administrator. He was all of 43 when he took the job - much younger than the Flag officers he reputedly oversaw. Thanks.

Vernon Loeb: His first tour was long before my time, so I don't can't say. Ricks says not much happened, but people came away saying he was very good and open to new ideas. He apparently really values candor in subordinates. Your comment is probably worth more than my answer. Thanks for sending it along. If anybody out there has more to say about Rumsfeld's Pentagon legacy, send it along.

washingtonpost.com: In response to earlier questions about the CIA report on global terrorism trends, Vernon's story on the report can be found here

Owings Mills, MD: Clinton recently vetoed the FY01 Intelligence Authorization Act when it included "anti-leak" wording as one of its provisions. Do you think that this intelligence community's-endorsed legislation will be enacted in the FY02 bill under a Bush Administration?

Vernon Loeb: Hard to say. I know Sen. Shelby certainly intends to try again. But if hearings are held by Rep. Henry Hyde in the House, it's hard to know what the final product might be. Whatever gets passed will probably be watered down from last year's version. I guess if I had to bet, I'd say a watered down version of the leak bill is likely.

Greenbelt, MD: Do you believe that President-elect Bush will re-establish full diplomatic relations with Iran during his term?

Vernon Loeb: It strikes me as hard to believe, but I really have no idea. Anybody out there have a better answer?

Reston, VA: Who are the some of the behind-the-scenes people from the CIA who will be regular personalities in the Bush Administration? It just seems that the next DCI will have to be a person of exceptional bearing since he or she will be leading an agency where the White House feels completely free to interact deep into the management structure.

Vernon Loeb: The only CIA senior who I know has deep ties to the Bush crowd is James Pavitt, the current deputy director for operations. He worked at the NSC during Bush I and is close to Brent Scowcroft, a major behind-the-scenes player. You make an interesting point about the Bush II White House feeling free to interact deep into the management structure. I doubt any such interactions would take place behind the DCI's back, since the agency strikes me as a pretty chain-of-command kind of place. As I said earlier, the new DCI will have to know how to interact well with Rumsfeld and Powell, if he or she is to be effective. And ideally have a strong relationship with Bush. That's really the key. If the DCI is seen as having the president's ear, his stature immediately rises.

Washington, DC: I served in the Navy, and I don't think it's fair to say that better security would have prevented the Cole bombing. Ships are overseas for six months at a time, and they need to replenish fuel and food while overseas. It would be impossible to screen every single person in every single port a ship pulls into. We're talking about a rubber boat that came out of nowhere--how was the Cole supposed to prevent that? And it certainly isn't Clinton's fault, either.

Vernon Loeb: I think you make a good observation. In hindsight, it is easy to second guess the Navy's decision to refuel at Yemen in the first place, or the Cole's lack of a better perimeter security plan that might have stopped the bomb-laden boat before it got right next to the ship. But as you say, ships have to refuel someplace. And soldiers have to sleep someplace. Terrorism is a big problem precisely because is nearly impossible to defend against. The Pentagon, remember, has to defend thousands of targets every day_and the terrorists have to hit just one. Imagine the absolute perfect counterterrorism plan_and then accept the fact that it couldn't prevent all terrorist attacks.

Re secret evidence: I would like to preface my question by stating that I do not think the Lincoln Six are terrorists. The question below is hypothetical.

Let's say the U.S. arrests a known terrorist and tries him/her. Presenting the evidence against him/her in court would place lives in danger because it discloses the U.S.'s knowledge about terrorist activities still going on by the accused's peers. Should the U.S. keep this evidence secret and prosecute? Or should the U.S. let the terrorist go because the evidence cannot be discussed, enabling him/her to continue practicing terrorist acts?

Vernon Loeb: You pose THE key question at the heart of virtually all terrorism and espionage cases. I think it's something that has to be decided on a case by case basis. If prosecuting a terrorist required blowing an intelligence source who could help prevent future attacks, it might be better to drop the prosecution. I'm sure the prosecutors in New York have repeatedly confronted this quandary in the Osama bin Laden case_and I'm quite certain that they're holding a lot of intel sources and methods out of the indictment. On the other hand, communications intercepts clearly are the glue of the indictment, tying bin Laden's sat phone in Afghanistan to cells in various countries, so they've clearly decided to reveal some of the intercepts_and some of the NSA-CIA's SIGINT capabilities. By now, Osama has got to know that they're intercepting his calls.

Washington, DC: How likely do you think it is that President Clinton might pardon Jonathan Pollard or Leonard Peltier before he leaves office?

Vernon Loeb: I don't know anything about the Peltier case, but I don't think a pardon for Pollard is in the works. I would be shocked if that happened. As far as I can tell, Clinton has no intention of pardoning Pollard.

NY: Regarding Pollard, is there a correlation between the rise of Jewish-Russian émigrés and Israel's giving of Pollard-handed secrets to the Russian during the time Pollard worked for NCIS? He did not work for ONI.

Vernon Loeb: I don't know, but it's a very interesting linkage that you make. The only interesting new point I can add about the Pollard case is that his new attorneys, in trying to vacate his sentence, are taking exception to remarks by Sen. Shelby and former prosecutor Joseph DiGenova saying that Pollard's leaks to Israel endangered the lives of U.S. intelligence officers. The lawyers say there is no evidence of that having happened.

Farragut Spring: I apologize for the late submission and slightly off-topic question, but I was wondering if you remembered anything about the book "The Sword and the Shield" about the KGB, based on the Mitrokhin archive. I'm somewhat interested in intelligence matters and wondered if this was an interesting read. Many thanks.

Vernon Loeb: I think it's a really interesting book for all those interested in the old KGB.

Falls Church, VA: Vernon,
I read with interest your piece on John Pike, formerly of the FAS. The guy seems to pop up everywhere as an "expert" on every aspect of the intelligence business but your article provided little background information on Pike's expertise. Is he just another talking head on intelligence or does he really have the background to make accurate, factual comments?

Vernon Loeb: Well, he's a smart guy and a prodigious reader and researcher. That's his only expertise. He's certainly not a former intel person, and has no government background. In fact, he doesn't even have a college degree. He's just a guy who digs around and comes up with interesting stuff. He's absolutely fascinated by satellite imagery, and by intelligence capabilities in general. But he's certainly not an "official" source, by any means. I find him refreshing because he tells you what he knows, and what he thinks he knows, and what he has no clue about.

Lanham, MD: Hi Vernon, I noticed in your column last week that Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Shelby is planning to spend the next two weeks in Latin/South America. Other than Colombia, what could be causing him to spend so much time (and tax payers dollars) in that region?

Vernon Loeb: I don't know what Shelby's interest is in the region. He has an ambitious agenda. I'm of a mixed mind about Congressional travel. Certainly, we want the people making decisions about foreign affairs and national security and intelligence having an understanding of the world_and that only comes, in my experience, from "ground truth"_going to places and experiencing them first hand. On the other hand, I'm not sure how much ground truth can be gained from a whirlwind tour of 12 countries in 14 days. Never having been on a trip with Shelby, I can't say whether he's gaining ground truth, or enjoying the sights. If he's doing to former, good for him. If he's doing to latter, taxpayers should be concerned.

Harlingen, Texas:
Secretary of Defense-designate Rumsfeld has recently had considerable involvement in intelligence-related issues in his commissions on ballistic missiles and satellite dependence. In addition, as he sets out to restructure the military, he will need input from the intelligence community on the threats that the DoD of the future will need to deal with.

All of this seems to portend a close and perhaps tense relationship between the SecDef and the next DCI. Do you have any thoughts on how this is likely to develop, or what the first issues are likely to be?

Vernon Loeb: It's hard to say how Rumsfeld will interact with the new DCI, since we don't know who that will be yet. It's looking more and more like CIA Director George J. Tenet will remain for at least some interim period. Tenet is known for having excellent political skills, and I can't imagine him clashing with Bush-Rumsfeld-Powell during any interim period. And having run the place for more than two years, it's also quite possible that Tenet could bring some assets to the table_like his Middle East relationships.

Vernon Loeb: Well, that ought to just about do it. My time is up. By next month, we'll have a new DCI, I suppose. My hunch: it will be Tenet, and he will prove far more valuable in the interim than the Bush crowd may now realize.

Automatically Update Page    |    Get New Responses    |    Submit Question