[02/08/1996 - 03/18/1996] — Page 2023

FOIA RELEASE

AI Summary

3UA443F.FIN Page 1 of 2 MSMail DATE-TIME FROM CLASSIFICATION UNCLASSIFIED SUBJECT TO CARBON COPY TEXT BODY Heads Up Please call if you need further background. I also have press briefing sheets (a few weeks old) from the USAF. The article is grossly inaccurate and appears to have been planted in response to recent rulings adverse to plaintiffs, including the dismissal of one of the two companion lawsuits. It will, however, be difficult for you to respond without knowing a great deal about the ca

Key Findings

NARA NAID 297910674

OCR Text

3UA443F.FIN Page 1 of 2 MSMail DATE-TIME FROM CLASSIFICATION UNCLASSIFIED SUBJECT TO CARBON COPY TEXT BODY Heads Up Please call if you need further background. I also have press briefing sheets (a few weeks old) from the USAF. The article is grossly inaccurate and appears to have been planted in response to recent rulings adverse to plaintiffs, including the dismissal of one of the two companion lawsuits. It will, however, be difficult for you to respond without knowing a great deal about the case, the Government's position, and the signficant state secrets at stake. I recommend that you refer all press inquiries to DOJ press person Jim Sweeney, 514-2008. He is familiar with the case. The WSJ on page one has a lengthy article about ongoing litigation against the Government at a classified Air Force facility in Nevada known as "the operating location near Groom Lake." The article incorrectly refers to "Area 51." We may get some inquiries, because as the article notes in the very last paragraph, consistent with the applicable statutes, President Clinton exempted the "operating location near Groom Lake" from any federal or state laws governing solid and hazardous waste that would require the disclosure of classified information. BUT NOTE: The President expressly stated in his exemption that it was not intended to "limit the applicability or enforcement of any requirement of law applicable to the Air Force's operating Icoation near Groom Lake, Nevada, except thouse provisions, if any, that would require the disclosure of classified information." Bass, Peter E. Bell, Robert G. Kreczko, Alan J. Sestak, Joseph A. 08 February 96 10:41 Baker, James E. WSG Article on Groom Lake [UNCLASSIFIED] Cullin, Brian P. Fetig, James L. Johnson, David T. Naplan, Steven J. Schuker, Jill A. Wozniak, Natalie S. 311A443F.FINPage 2 of 2 BACKGROUND FYI ONLY: The article presents the plaintiffs perspective of the case and is likely the result of the district court's rulings against the plaintiffs. Among other things the district court has ruled that the EPA has (subsequent to the litigation) completed an inspection of the location in question and the Air Force had conducted an inventory rendering at least one of the cases moot, i.e., the Government has done what plaintiffs asked. The court has also upheld the Air Force's assertion of the state secrets privilege over information plaintiffs sought to discover and disclose - the third aspect of the suits. Plaintiffs, have more recently sought to argue that the Government was hiding criminal conduct behind the state secrets privilege. The court on January 31 denied plaintiffs motion to conduct discovery on this allegation, without comment. While the applicable environmental law has criminal sanctions, I am at a loss as to the theory by which plaintiffs (driven by a local law school professor) can seek to undertake the Government's role as enforcement authority in the area of criminal sanctions. Moreover, as noted above, the court has ruled that the inventory and inspection requirements, (to the extent they are applicable), have been completed. The two civil suits in question are "citizens suits" against the EPA and against Secretary Perry, the Secretary of the Air Force and Tony Lake. In essence, the suits challenge the Government's compliance with environmental laws involving the storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous waste. / v 314D9FFA.FIN Page 1 of 3 MSMail DATE-TIME 18 March 96 09:41 FROM Baker, James E. CLASSIFICATION UNCLASSIFIED SUBJECT TO CARBON COPY TEXT BODY Heads Up We may receive calls because (1) Tony Lake's name was highlighted during a camera zoom on the Plaintiffs complaint to the court, and (2) the Presidential exemption described in an earlier e-mail, was discussed. You should also be aware that GAO is doing an inquiry on environmental BACKGROUND: 60 Minutes ran a story last night on the "operating location near Groom Lake," erroneously referred to as Area 51. While the story was nominally about the facility, the focus was plaintiffs' attorney's version of a suit filed against Sec. Perry, the National Security Adviser and Sec. of the Air Force (previously described below). This suit, however, was dismissed by the district court of Nevada on March 6. Plaintiffs will appeal. As they say, this is an effort to try the case in the media. The most troublesome aspect of the story (from my perspective) was the discussion with Lee Hamilton, the only person interviewed for the story not associated with Jonathan Turley and plaintiffs. Hamilton criticized the Government's efforts, upheld by the court, to classify the results of the EPA inventory and inspection at the operating location. I believe he referred to the classification of "paint" as nonsense or silly. (Note: I asked Air Force/GC to consider whether it was appropriate to brief Hamilton on the operating location.) Bass, Peter E. Bell, Robert G. Bendick, Gordon L. Burrell, Christina L. Danvers, William C. Davis, Willia…

Metadata

Agency
National Archives and Records Administration
Classification
UNCLASSIFIED
Department
National Archives and Records Administration
Confidence60
Credibility70

NARA Source

NAID
297910674
File
24194021-20060527F-001-004-2023.pdf
Type
application/pdf
Retrieval
DOWNLOADED
OCR status
SUCCEEDED

Upload File