One Voice Policy, Not FBI Cover-Up, Holds Smoking Gun in Reuters Story

Media outlets eager for more alleged examples of impropriety by members of the Bush administration are breathlessly reporting that an FBI agent was silenced by senior FBI leaders for commenting about the Congressional “investigation” into the Justice Department firings of 8 U.S. Attorneys in December. According to a Reuters report yesterday, Dan Dzwilewski, FBI Special Agent in Charge of the San Diego office, told a San Diego newspaper in January that the firing of U.S. Attorney Carol Lam would negatively impact ongoing investigations and that it was Dzwilewski’s opinion that the firing was done for political reasons. Lam had successfully prosecuted Republican Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham in a corruption case in 2005.

When Senator Diane Feinstein’s (D-CA) staff contacted the FBI San Diego office regarding Dzwilewki’s comments, her staff was advised by that office that Dzwilewski had indeed made such comments to the San Diego Union-Tribune, but according to Senator Feinstein, as quoted by Reuters, “they also said they'd been warned to say no more." The media, believing this to be a smoking gun likely to further damage Bush administration credibility, presented this story under the gripping headline, “FBI agent told to keep quiet over attorney firings.” What should be the response of wise news observers? A shrug of the shoulders and a dismissive “so what?”

A more accurate headline would have been, “All FBI Agents, and for That Matter All Agents or Officers of All Agencies in Government, Including the Military, are Told to Keep Quiet About, well, Everything.”

Before I explain why this Reuters “silencing” hype should be downplayed, it will be helpful to provide the context by including Dzwilewski’s comments about Lam’s firing as they appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune on January 13, 2007:

I don't think it's the right way to treat anybody. What's the decision based on?” Dzwilewski said. “I don't share the view of whoever's making the decision back there in Washington that they'd like her to resign. I feel Carol has an excellent reputation and has done an excellent job given her limited resources”. . . .

Lam's continued employment as U.S. attorney is crucial to the success of multiple ongoing investigations, the FBI chief said.

As for the reason for any pressure to resign, Dzwilewski said: “I can't speak for what's behind all that, what's the driving force behind this or the rationale. I guarantee politics is involved.”

Every government agency I have dealt with in my career, at all levels local, state, and federal, have a “one voice policy” that employees agree to abide by during their term of employment, and for many agencies that policy extends even into retirement or separation. Government and military departments and agencies have Public Affairs or Media Relations sections through which the “one voice policy” is expressed. I have never attended a briefing or participated in an operation or assignment where all participants were not reminded that they are not authorized to talk to the press, or represent the department or agency to the media. The reasons for a “one voice policy” are numerous, but all boil down to a single theme: the agency’s or department’s public image is critical to success; we all have our own opinions, but we do not all have access to “need to know” information, thus our personal opinions should not be published in the media, where they can taint the agency’s or department’s public image.

No one familiar with government or military protocols should be surprised that the FBI and presumably its parent Department of Justice warned the FBI San Diego office not to talk to the media about the firings or Dzwilewski’s comments. The warning, however, does not provide any smoking gun evidence of a cover-up or conspiracy. Instead, the warning was likely nothing more than a stern reminder, given the current anti-Bush witch hunt culture rampant in Washington these days, to utilize the “one voice” policy of the FBI as agreed by all employees, even special agents in charge.

The example of Special Agent Dzwilewski is a perfect example of why “one voice” policies exist. Dzwilewski, despite his senior position as an FBI Special Agent in Charge in San Diego, did not attend the Justice Department meetings and briefings at which the decisions to fire the 8 Attorney Generals were made. He also was not privy to the thought process that went into the decisions. His published comments quoted above clearly confirm that he disagreed with the reasoning behind Lam’s firing but did not know what that reasoning was. That did not stop him from “guaranteeing” that the firing was motivated by politics. Thus his opinion regarding Lam’s firing, even if proven later to be accurate, is missing the key ingredient of firsthand knowledge because he had only heard Lam’s (or the media’s) side of the story. The legal term for that is “conjecture based on hearsay”. The media term most applicable to that is “a ratings boost”.

Dzwilewski should have referred the San Diego Union-Tribune immediately to the FBI’s or Justice Department’s public affairs or equivalent sections rather than entangling himself in a political spider web designed to cocoon and paralyze the Bush administration. With no firsthand knowledge of the deliberations prior to the decision to fire these 8 attorneys, he was uniquely unqualified to speak, even unintentionally, as an FBI spokesman. Biting the hand that feeds you is unwise, and Dzwilewski bit his current employer and its parent department simply by opening his mouth and sharing his opinion.

I once worked an assignment with a Roswell, New Mexico Police detective who, despite appearing to be a normal, intellectually sound individual, insisted that aliens did in fact crash a spaceship in a Roswell field in 1947, and that our government arrived on scene, seized the alien craft, and continues to this day to conceal this fact from the American people. For the first hour or so, I believed he was joking, playing a corny but quaint prank on his government guest. After more than 8 hours of observing his behavior and studying his body language and voice inflexions, it was obvious to me that he truly believed the alien story (he was old enough that he could claim to have witnessed the government’s arrival and seizure of the spacecraft) and he openly shared it not just with me but with anyone who would listen.

This detective had an opinion about something, but that did not make it fact. Most people have a crackpot opinion about something, and many people have wild opinions of government conspiracies. Likewise, Dzwilewski had an opinion about Lam’s firing, but unlike the Roswell detective, Dzwilewski was not authorized to openly share that opinion with anyone who would listen, especially the news media, as explicitly explained in the “one voice” policy.

FBI Director Robert Mueller apparently felt similarly. During his grilling by Senator Feinstein over this alleged “silencing” of Dzwilewski, the FBI Director explained:

I do not believe it's appropriate for our special agents in charge to comment to the media on personnel decisions that are made by the Department of Justice.

Mueller captured the essence of the “one voice” policy in this sentence. First, he rebuked his Special Agent in Charge in San Diego for violating the “one voice” policy with the media, and consequently reminded all special agents in charge that they are not authorized to comment to the media. Mueller’s statement extends the reminder of the “one voice” policy to the entire FBI, including himself, by implying to Senator Feinstein that personnel decisions made by the Department of Justice are not an FBI matter and thus only the Justice Department, not the FBI, should comment on the motives, political or otherwise, for the firings.

The media spin on this aspect of the U.S. Attorney firings is nearly as hyperbolic as the media’s overall portrayal of the firings as a scandal. The Wall Street Journal editors recently published an insightful brief comparison of the Bush administration’s and Clinton administration’s firings of U.S. Attorneys. In that summary, the editors reminded readers that Bill Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorney’s upon taking office in 1993 and claimed that he was following precedent set by White House predecessors. This was, of course, historically inaccurate. More sinister though was the fact that among those fired was a U.S. Attorney investigating the White Water investment scandal in which Bill and Hillary Clinton were intimately involved. Another fired U.S. Attorney in that group was preparing to indict House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, who later was convicted for mail fraud and pardoned by Clinton. No scandal in that, according to the media at the time.

Attorney General Gonzalez fired 8 out of 93, and the Democrats in Congress are now conducting hearings and investigations into the reasons for the firings. Never mind that all U.S. Attorney positions are political appointments and those who accept them serve at the pleasure of the President, please don’t cloud the issue with facts, as that would take away this “scandal” from the Democrats and the collusive media.

This Congressional “gotcha” investigation will likely continue until the media finds a better story. There remains the possibility that some kind of smoking gun evidence will arise and implicate highly placed administration officials. If there was any impropriety in the firings, punishment should be swift and appropriate. The fact that Bill Clinton fired 93 U.S. Attorneys, including two investigating Democrat scandals, without the media raising an eyebrow should not serve as an excuse if evidence is ever presented that this administration acted similarly. Moral equivalency is always wrong, and both parties should be striving to outdo each other in integrity and ethical behavior rather than living down to the low bar of expectations set by a previous administration.

Despite Reuters’ action thriller headlines about agents being “told to keep quiet,” the only smoking guns found in the San Diego FBI office appear to be at the firearms range.

Miniter's Anonymous Sources Place British Crew, Negotiations with Iran in Jeopardy

In an exclusive report by Pajamas Media’s (PJM) Washington Editor Richard Miniter, 2 “anonymous sources” have claimed that the U.S. is holding 300 Iranians with ties to Iranian intelligence agencies, all of whom were captured in Iraq while conducting operations against U.S. troops. All previous official U.S. government reports had acknowledged the military was holding only 5 Iranian intelligence operatives in Iraq. The sources further advised Miniter that these Iranians have been and continue to be interrogated, and the U.S. military has refused to release these prisoners despite pressure from the CIA and State Department to do so.

Ordinarily, a report that the U.S was holding Iranian intelligence operatives captured in Iraq would hardly raise an eyebrow, as it is common knowledge that Iranians have been funneling weapons, personnel, and other means of support to terrorist “insurgents” fighting U.S. troops in Iraq. However, Miniter’s exclusive report comes when tensions between the U.S., Britain, and Iran are anything but ordinary.

Last Friday’s seizure by the Iranian Navy of a British vessel and 15 British sailors and marines, which according to the official British statement occurred in Iraqi, not Iranian, waters, raised the already high probability of conflict to a dangerous level. The British are outraged by the incident and Ahmadinejad’s decision to move the British personnel to Tehran, threatening to put them on trial based on “confessions” obtained through interrogation of the 14 men and 1 woman in custody. The EU, feckless as it is at times, has united in its condemnation of Iran’s actions and issued a joint statement urging Iran to release the prisoners.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has warned Iran that he expects the British crew to be released within days and no longer. Adding to today’s tension, the presidents of Russia and China urged Iran to comply with U.N. Security Council demands for inspections and regulation of Iran’s nuclear program. The Security Council, to demonstrate its resolve, voted Saturday to impose new sanctions on Iran. Iran responded today by ignoring the Security Council warning, resuming payments to Russia for nuclear fuel, and took the additional step of suspending cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the entity charged with monitoring nuclear non-proliferation.

In this climate, with Iran simultaneously and blatantly ignoring the Security Council, the IAEA, and the EU, and anxious ongoing negotiations over the British crew and nuclear arms, Miniter’s anonymous “diplomatic and military sources” chose a remarkably poor moment to loosen their lips to report information that was sensitive if not overtly classified. The motivation for such a disclosure appears to have been related to State Department and CIA desires to sidestep General David Petraeus, commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq. Petraeus is leading the “surge” strategy to secure Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, and one key feature of the Petraeus plan was obtaining authorization to capture and hold foreign (non-Iraqi) operatives suspected of participating in terrorist attacks in Iraq. As Miniter points out, Iraqi law authorizes this counterterrorism tactic, thus Petraeus is actively enforcing the will of the Iraqi people.

According to Miniter’s report, the State Department and the CIA do not want this strategy enforced quite so strongly, and have argued that releasing the captured Iranian intelligence operatives will give the U.S. leverage in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Thankfully, General Petraeus has held firm. Miniter reported:

The Pentagon received “considerable pressure” from officials in the State department and CIA to release some or all of the Iran-linked prisoners to facilitate discussions between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iranian officials. Apparently, Gen. Petraeus sharply disagreed, saying that he intends to hold the prisoners “until they run out of information or we run out of food,” according to our sources who heard these remarks through channels.

The two sources requested anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the intelligence and developing events with Iran.

This brief excerpt from Miniter’s report contains a modern day Patrick Henry “give me liberty or give me death” style statement of determination by general Petraeus, but it also contains a modern day Benedict Arnold style statement of treason by Miniter’s anonymous sources.

State Department employees or military personnel requesting anonymity from a reporter because the intelligence they are revealing is sensitive is no different than a previously undiscovered rapist requesting anonymity from a reporter because rape is a crime and the rapist wants to avoid arrest and prosecution. In both cases, felonies have occurred. The number of Iranian intelligence operatives being held, the fact that they are being interrogated, and General Petraeus’ gritty promise to continue holding and interrogating them, are all pieces of information that were never intended to be distributed outside of officially classified channels.

Miniter’s sources knew that divulging this information to Miniter was a criminal act, as anyone with a government access clearance receives explicit training as to the permitted uses of the material they will see or hear. Even if one were to argue that he/she merely heard a supervisor talking and thus was not aware of the official classification level of the information when he/she provided it to the media, the anonymous source would still be in violation for not verifying that the information was NOT classified. Under ordinary peacetime conditions, such divulgence of sensitive information may have repercussions over time. During a war, in this case 2 wars in Iraq and the War on Terror, such loose lips are truly despicable and can immediately harm the war effort.

What of the motive for leaking this Iranian prisoner information now? The most likely motive appears to be a strategy by the State Department to publicly expose the imprisonment and interrogation of Iranians by the U.S. and thus gain their release through public outcry. General Petraeus, rightly, will not order their release unless ordered to do so by the civilian command structure of the military. That civilian command all too often is swayed by public opinion rather than what is working and what is right. The leaked information about the 300 Iranians will sway public opinion in some countries, and was thus sensitive situational intelligence unlawful to share outside of official channels.

The most disgusting aspect of this leak is its timing, while negotiations are underway regarding the potentially lengthy imprisonment and show trials of the British crew held in Tehran. Leaking information about the Iranian intelligence operatives held by the U.S. appears to be an effort by State to deflate world anger against Iran, particularly within the EU, which had finally united on an issue other than anti-American bitterness. With this treasonous divulgence, Iran can point to 300+ Iranians held by the U.S. in Iraq and use that fact to justify its seizure of the British vessel and crew. It will be much more difficult for the U.S. and Britain to secure solidarity on the prisoner issue from potential and existing allies now that the moral relativism card will be played.

I fully expect to hear Ahmadinejad’s next typical speech in which he vows to wipe Israel off the map, turn America into a nuclear fireball, and then slips in “and by the way, you captured 300 of my innocent Iranian faithful brothers engaged in nothing but prayer in Iraq, and we seized only 15 of your violent infidel marines so clearly in our territorial waters. I ask the world, who is worse?”

Having written a post last week titled “Government Droning too much to Media About Drones,” in which I urged government agencies to return to adherence to the phrase “loose lips sink ships”, it is a sad irony that only a few days later diplomatic and military sources leaked sensitive information during a moment of intense confrontation with Iran over hostages and nuclear weapons programs. The stakes could not be higher, and the need for integrity in keeping sensitive information within official channels has likewise never been greater. Loose lips really can sink ships, but in the case of the HMS Cornwall, loose lips may sink negotiations for release of a ship and her crew.

Spy The News! Poll Results: Media Coverage of U.S. Military

The results are in from last week's Spy the News! poll, which asked readers "What American Media Outlet is Most Negative in its Coverage of the U.S. Military?"

Here are the results of our poll:

CNN 31%

CBS 23%

MSNBC 15%

NBC 15%

Wash. Post 8%

L.A. Times 8%

Receiving no votes:

ABC, Time, Newsweek, Fox News

CNN's "victory" in this poll, undoubtedly the result of aired footage of sniper attacks on U.S. troops that outraged the military and military families, was particularly convincing because CNN's 31% exceeded #3 MSNBC and #4 NBC combined. Perhaps CBS's second place finish ahead of NBC can be attributed to Katie Couric's much publicized move from NBC to CBS. After all, Couric's statement that America brought 9/11 upon itself, made while Americans were still dying in the Twin Towers on 9/11, showed her true stripes. NBC may have helped itself enormously by dumping Couric on CBS.

There will be no Spy the News! poll this week. In the meantime, readers are encouraged to submit their poll question requests via email to bewisenews@yahoo.com. The topic requested most by readers will be the focus of the next poll.