Behind the Homefront

A daily chronicle of news in homeland security and military operations affecting newsgathering, access to information and the public's right to know.

Send comments,
leads, tips or other
information

RSS/XML feed

Return to the Reporters Committee homepage.

On Jan. 24, 2003, a new law enforcement and investigatory agency whose duties include functions taken from as many as 22 other federal agencies came into existence. The reorganization of these operations reportedly marks the biggest government bureaucratic shake-up since the creation of the Department of Defense half a century ago.
Even before the new Department of Homeland Security opened its doors, controversies arose over not just how it would operate and exercise its powers, but what level of access to information it would allow, and how it would respond to news media requests. Will new exemptions be carved out of the FOI Act, either by law or by practice? Will officials and agents feel free to tap phones of journalists, or subpoena their records during investigations? Will the new director consider procedural safeguards, like those adopted years ago by the Department of Justice, to ensure that freedom of the press will not be denied? And will those practices be followed?

But "homeland" security is not the only concern for journalists covering anti-terrorism initiatives; military actions abroad often present a greater challenge, as questions over disclosure of information, access to troops, and restraints on reporting seem to resurface anew with each conflict.

Questions and issues like these led the Reporters Committee to launch this "weblog," so that there will be a centralized site on the Internet for journalists who want to follow these issues and pass along information they learn while covering — or worse, being covered by — the new department and other anti-terrorism actions. Please submit comments and pass along tips to make this project as useful, thorough and up-to-date as possible.

A few words about what this project will not do. We do not intend to cover many of the issues that will undoubtedly come up as the Department takes shape, even if those issues are the ones generating headlines. We will cover information access and free press issues, but will not follow debates over many civil liberties issues that, while important, are outside of our domain.

Funding for the launch of this site was provided by The Robert R. McCormick Tribune Foundation.

All links will open in separate windows; close the window to return to this one.
Please send us tips, information & comments.

Below are the requested items. [Show oldest first][Go to main page]

May. 22, 2003

JUSTICE OFFICIAL CLAIMS NO KNOWLEDGE OF ETHICS ADVICE IN LINDH MATTER. The New York Times today looked into the case of Jesselyn Radack, the Justice Department ethics attorney who challenged the department's handling of the interrogation of John Walker Lindh and told her supervisor that documentation of her advice had been withheld from a federal judge. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), who, as we reported last month, had asked Attorney General John Ashcroft for answers on why she was forced out of her job, got to ask his questions again when Michael Chertoff, the head of Justice's criminal division and now a federal judicial nominee, came before the Judiciary Committee. But at the hearing last week, Chertoff claimed he had no knowledge of the e-mail dialogue between his subordinate and Radack. Kennedy said he was troubled by Chertoff's lack of active involvement in the case, according to the Times account.

"I'm very concerned about this Radack situation," Kennedy later told the Times. "It appears she was effectively fired for providing legal advice that the department didn't agree with."

The dispute has slowed but not derailed Chertoff's nomination. Kennedy, who got the confirmation delayed for one week over dissatisfaction with Chertoff's responses, told the Times that he planned to vote in favor of the nomination, and Chertoff's nomination passed the committee later today. But by the time of the vote, six Democrats -- including Kennedy -- decided they needed more information on a late allegation about the prosecutor's conduct when he was a U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, and only responded "present" when the vote was taken.

At today's confirmation hearing, the Times account of the Radack story came in for special abuse by committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, who opined, "It's disgraceful that at this last minute The New York Times is attempting to impugn anybody," and later noted that Eric Lichtblau, the author of the article, had "shared bylines with the infamous Mr. Blair," the reporter who has admitted faking a number of Times articles. That remark reportedly prompted Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) to warn his colleague about avoiding "McCarthyism."

The Times had also reported that a "senior Justice Department official said today that Ms. Radack's accusations regarding the possible concealment of documents and retaliation against her were recently referred to the department's Office of Professional Responsibility for an investigation." Better late than never; the investigation of leaks of Justice's concealment has been underway for a few months now.

— Posted by Gregg Leslie, Legal Defense Director, 8:02 pm [link]

Apr. 10, 2003

WHISTLEBLOWER CLAIM STILL UNANSWERED BY JUSTICE. The Senate Judiciary Committee reportedly still has not received a reply to its March 11 written question to Attorney General John Ashcroft about how the Department of Justice is dealing with whistleblower Jesselyn Radack, the former DOJ attorney who had revealed departmental misconduct in the questioning of John Walker Lindh and pointed out to superiors when evidence had not been turned over in preparation for Lindh's trial. The New Yorker had revealed in its March 10th issue that Radack's opinion on the impropriety of questioning Lindh without counsel obtained for him by his father had been disregarded by officials, and later email messages detailing the problem were never given to the federal court. The written questions from the committee asked Ashcroft for his take on the facts in the magazine article and asked, "Is Ms. Radack in fact now the target of a criminal investigation by the U.S. Attorney's office? For what conduct is she being investigated?"

— Posted at 12:48 pm [link]

Mar. 12, 2003

LINDH LITIGATION ISSUES. CBS News, quoting Jane Mayer's story in the New Yorker on the Justice department's handling of John Walker Lindh's case, discusses the case of former Justice Department attorney Jesselyn Radack, who had given government officials a legal opinion on whether they could question Lindh without an attorney. She was "slammed" in a performance review and is being investigated for possible leaks after she discovered that e-mail messages showing possible FBI misconduct in its interviewing of Lindh no longer exist, and tried to get the restored messages back in the file. Radack had enjoyed a bonus for her work the previous year, according to the account.

— Posted at 7:08 pm [link]

For more entries, use the search option above, or view a previous month:
  2003: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
    2004: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
    2005: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
    2006: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
    2007: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug