Online NewsHour: Wen Ho Lee -- September 13, 2000



	WEN HO LEE
September 13, 2000

After a background report and a discussion with U.S. prosecutor Norman Bay, a panel looks at the Wen Ho Lee case and the plea agreement that freed Lee from nine months in solitary confinement.

Full coverage of the investigation into Chinese espionage

Aug. 25, 2000:
Wen Ho Lee is set to be released on bail.

Dec. 29, 1999:
A hearing on Lee's release.

Dec. 14, 1999:
Is Wen Ho Lee a victim of racial profiling?

May 25, 1999:
Chairman Cox and Rep. Dicks on their findings

May 25, 1999:
Washington responds to the Cox Committee findings

April 30, 1999:
Energy Secretary Bill Richardson on possible espionage

April 9, 1999:
Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji denies China involvement

April 8, 1999:
Security procedures at Los Alamos

March 9, 1999:
Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) blames lax security

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Chinese Embassy in the United States

Cox Committee Chairman Christopher Cox (R-CA)

Cox Committee Ranking Democrat Norm Dicks (WA)

The US Department of Energy

Gwen Ifill GWEN IFILL: For more on what happened to the government's case against Wen Ho Lee, we turn to Robert Vrooman, who was chief of counterintelligence at Los Alamos from 1987 to 1998; Robert Clark, who worked as a mechanical engineer at Los Alamos with Wen Ho Lee from 1974 to 1995; and Bob Drogin, national security correspondent for the Los Angeles Times. He has covered this case from the beginning.

But first we turn to US Attorney Norman Bay, one of the prosecutors on the Lee case. Mr. Bay, what happened to the case against Wen Ho Lee? Did it collapse?

NORMAN BAY, Chief US Prosecutor, New Mexico: No, it did not. The whole point to this case, the government's overriding interest in this case, was protecting national security. This plea arrangement gave us the best opportunity to answer any number of critical questions.

GWEN IFILL: Do you think this plea agreement today was good news?

Norman Bay NORMAN BAY: I think it was good news. I think it was -- it resulted in a fair result. I think it resulted in the right result. And most important, Gwen, I think it helped protect national security. You know, we're gaining access to Lee. That's something that we've always wanted. It is something that he wasn't willing to give us, that is complete cooperation, complete access. It is something that we wanted for the past 18 months, even in the pre-indictment period. There were extensive negotiations, pre-indictment, with Mr. Lee. But he would not come forward to talk to us. But now he's going to do that. He's going to be put under oath. And we finally have the opportunity to answer the critical questions, why did he make the tapes, what did he do with them, does anybody else have them?

GWEN IFILL: But what you're saying today, Mr. Bay, is a far cry from what the government implicated at least at the beginning of this whole saga, which is that Mr. Lee was somehow involved in trading American secrets and violating national security with foreign governments.

Never charged with espionage

Ifill and Bay NORMAN BAY: Actually, Gwen, that's not correct. If you'll notice, the indictment never charged Mr. Lee with any substantive act of espionage. Even when the indictment was first announced, the former US Attorney John Kelly held a press conference in which he emphasized that Mr. Lee was not being charged with espionage; that instead, he was being charged with other violations of the Atomic Energy Act and some other violations in Title 18. But the government has made it clear that it does not have evidence that Mr. Lee actually handed nuclear secrets to anyone. We've never charged him with espionage. We never alleged that he committed espionage.

GWEN IFILL: And in reaching this plea agreement today, did the government also concede that it didn't have evidence to prove the 58 other charges?

NORMAN BAY: The government does not concede that at all. In fact, it was interesting because at the sentencing hearing today, Judge Parker emphasized that Mr. Lee had committed crimes and that Mr. Lee deserved to do some time in jail. The government's evidence after an extensive computer forensics investigation at Los Alamos was able to retrace forensically the steps that Mr. Lee took in taking classified information from the secure side, the secure partition of the Los Alamos computer system, moving it to the unsecure side, and then downloading it on to portable magnetic tapes, which is what he ultimately pled guilty to. That evidence was compelling. Subsequently, the FBI executed search warrants at his home and found a notebook referencing these files and a notebook was found in his office as well that referenced the files that he collected in making his own little personal library of nuclear secrets. You know, Gwen, the amount of material was huge. It was more than 800 megabytes, which would be more than 400,000 pages of paper.

GWEN IFILL: You mentioned Judge Parker's statement in court today. Among other things, he also said that the federal prosecutors embarrassed our entire nation. That's pretty tough language.

Norman Bay NORMAN BAY: You know, Gwen, that certainly is tough language. And I respect Judge Parker very much, I have appeared in front of him for five years now. But I very respectfully disagree with that assessment. This case from its inception has been about national security, it hasn't been about putting Mr. Lee in jail for the longest period of time. We wanted to corporate with him, and now we have gained that. We're hoping to be able to answer the questions we've always wanted to try to answer.

GWEN IFILL: In your opinion, the government -- did the government at any point in your opinion overreach in this case?

NORMAN BAY: You know, Gwen, I don't think the government did. When you are talking about nuclear secrets, when you are talking about nuclear weapons, you have to - you know, that really makes anybody pause. And sometimes, you know, these are tough calls that prosecutors have to make. Here we made the tough call. And maybe now, we will get the answers we have been looking for.

Gwen Ifill GWEN IFILL: Do you anticipate -- I know part of the plea agreement included future cooperation from Mr. Lee with the government. Do you anticipate any future legal action arising from this case?

NORMAN BAY: Gwen, I can't imagine how there could be any. The plea has been entered; it was accepted by the court. He waived his right to appeal. The only way there could be any future legal action is if he somehow lies during the course of his debriefing sessions with the government, because if he lies, as you know, he could be subjected to a perjury prosecution, and if the government makes the appropriate motion with the court, and if the court grants the motion, then all of the counts in the indictment are reinstated against him. So it is a very powerful incentive to get the truth from Mr. Lee.

GWEN IFILL: You mentioned Mr. Lee's truthfulness. Can you clear up a point for us whether Mr. Lee at some point or his lawyers offered pre-indictment to submit to a polygraph test and answer some of the questions you still don't have answers to?

No polygraph exam

Norman Bay NORMAN BAY: On the day the indictment was returned, Mark Holscher, Mr. Lee's attorney, said that his client was willing to take a polygraph exam. But what you have to understand is that when defense counsel did that, he tried to limit the questions to one or two questions, and to not allow either a pre-polygraph examination interview, or a post-polygraph examination interview. And those are essential parts of any adequate polygraph examination. Now, the government responded to Mr. Holscher's letter listing a bunch of other questions that we thought should be part of any examination, as well as the fact that we felt there had to be a pre-polygraph exam or a post-polygraph exam. As far as I know, defense counsel never responded to the government's offer.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Bay, thank you very much for joining us. We know you've had a busy day.

NORMAN BAY: Thank you, Gwen.