Fresno Bee

Spymasters debate Condit security risk Some fear intelligence committee member is prone to blackmail.

By Michael Doyle Bee Washington Bureau (Published Sunday, August, 19, 2001)

email this article

print this article

subscribe to the daily bulletin

subscribe to the print edition

WASHINGTON -- America's spymasters, past and present, are intrigued by the controversy surrounding Rep. Gary Condit.

Some, including former intelligence officers who rose to the highest ranks, admit they're unhappy with what they have learned about the lawmaker who serves on the House intelligence committee.

"This guy was made to order for blackmail," former CIA officer Duane "Dewey" Clarridge said Friday. "This guy is a perfect setup."

Clarridge retired from the CIA in 1988 after serving as chief of the agency's divisions in Europe and Latin America and as head of the Counter-Terrorist Center. He never knew Condit, who was elected to Congress in 1989 and who joined the intelligence panel in 1999, but Clarridge has heard a lot about Condit in the past three months.

As a member of what's formally called the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Condit helps control the secret budget -- estimated at $30 billion a year -- covering the nation's 13 different intelligence agencies. He has access to sensitive information that goes well beyond Top Secret.

The flood of allegations about Condit's private life, following the disappearance of intern Chandra Levy, has thus captured the attention of those Condit oversees. There isn't unanimity -- former CIA Director James Woolsey, for one, said he has seen no sign that Condit's private actions are relevant to his intelligence committee service -- but there is plenty of chatter in intelligence circles.

"They're talking about it a lot," said former Defense Intelligence Agency chief Patrick Hughes.

Hughes served as head of the DIA between 1996 and 1999 and testified before Condit in the intelligence committee's tightly secured, windowless room in the Capitol. After noting the kind of strict background scrutiny most people face before getting access to national secrets, Hughes said he would "cut off [Condit's] access" until more questions were resolved.

"To me, it's one of fairness in applying standards," said Hughes, a retired Army lieutenant general. "If you held Congressman Condit to the standard that intelligence professionals are held to, he wouldn't be employed there any more."

Roy Krieger, a former Justice Department attorney who now represents current and former CIA employees in a lawsuit against the CIA, added that his clients in conversations likewise "wonder why [Condit] gets away with it." Some of Krieger's past clients, their names still secret, lost their sensitive jobs because of their sexual behavior.

"We've had several people who were involved in multiple sexual liaisons that were deemed to be sufficiently serious that they were separated from the service," Krieger said.

Levy's parents say Condit lied to them when he denied having an affair with their 24-year-old daughter; Condit has neither confirmed nor denied subsequent news reports that he admitted to an affair in his third interview with police. He has similarly treated published reports that he had affairs with former employee Joleen Argentini McKay and with flight attendant Anne Marie Smith, although he has denied he tried to persuade Smith to mislead authorities.

Condit plans to speak publicly about the Chandra Levy matter by Labor Day, after maintaining a public silence for 31/2 months. His staff refers questions about his intelligence committee service to the committee itself, which does not return calls seeking comment.

"If [people] have concerns, they ought to bring it up with the committee," said Condit chief of staff Mike Lynch.

Members of Congress chosen by party leaders for the intelligence committees are exempt from the usual polygraphs and intrusive questions wielded by executive branch investigators. That's as it should be, according to lawmakers and others who cite the constitutional separation of powers between executive and legislative branches.

"That issue got decided by James Madison and his colleagues more than 200 years ago," Woolsey said.

Woolsey served as CIA director from 1993 to 1995, before House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt tapped Condit for the intelligence panel. Now an attorney in Washington, D.C., Woolsey said that -- as a security issue -- he was not particularly troubled by Condit's actions.

"Whatever one might say about Condit's judgment in other areas, I've heard no complaints about his handling of intelligence matters," Woolsey said.

Sam Halpern, who first started spying with the Office of Strategic Services in World War II and later retired from the CIA in 1974, likewise voiced little concern about Condit as a potential security risk.

"Sexual problems are so commonplace up and down the line," said Halpern, who is active in the Association of Former Intelligence Officers. "What you do in the bedroom is different from what you do in the committee."

Such variation in views is consistent with the history of up-and-down relations between Congress and the CIA. The House and Senate intelligence committees themselves were started only about 25 years ago. Woolsey, like current CIA Director George Tenet, was a former congressional staffer who enjoyed good relations with most lawmakers.

"I was on [Capitol] Hill more than once a day, and that's a lot," Woolsey recalled.

But Clarridge, who served overseas as well as in CIA headquarters, added that among CIA career officers there lingered the thought that "just because someone is elected, does that mean they're not a security risk?" Clarridge himself faced legal problems in the 1980s, due in part to his dealings with Congress over the Iran-Contra affair. Charged with making false statements, he was pardoned by President George Bush in 1992.

For almost everyone but members of Congress, security risk is controlled in part through an extensive background investigation. A document called the Director of Central Intelligence Directive 1/14, issued the year before Condit joined the intelligence committee, spells out the tough standards non-politicians face before they receive access to Sensitive Compartmented Information.

"The individual must be stable, trustworthy, reliable [and] of excellent character, judgment and discretion," the directive states.

Individuals granted such high clearances are supposed to report their own activity when it potentially conflicts with security guidelines. One of them, Guideline D, states that "sexual behavior is a security concern if it involves a criminal offense ... may subject the individual to undue influence or coercion, exploitation or duress, or reflects lack of judgment or discretion."

Background checks, according to the directive, include interviews with four references who "have social knowledge of the subject." Two neighbors also are supposed to be interviewed, the security directive states, and "cohabitants, relatives ... and law enforcement officials" are also likely interview subjects if the case warrants.

For lawmakers, though, the view is that voters rule on someone's fitness for office, and party leaders choose whom they want for plum assignments.

"None of those people want to be investigated," Clarridge said.

-- Anonymous, August 19, 2001