[02/08/1996 - 03/18/1996]: 24194021-20060527F-001-004-2023

314DB577.FIN Page 2 of 4
asked Air Force/GC to consider whether it was appropriate to brief Hamilton
on the operating location.)
GUIDANCE: As a general matter, and because this matter is under litigation,
I recommend that you refer questions on this matter to Jim Sweeney at
Justice 514-2008 or to the Air Force/PA.
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
exemptions generally and has asked Air Force a number of questions about the
operating location near Groom Lake.
Presidential Exemption: President Clinton exempted the "operating location
near Groom Lake" from any requirement to disclose classified information
contained in federal or state laws governing solid and hazardous waste. 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 those provisions, if any, that would require the disclosure
of classified information." This exemption was published in the Federal
Register and was reported to the Congress.
Re: Tony Lake as a defendant. I do not recommend that you engage on this
point. Background: The case against Perry, Lake and Widnall was dismissed
on March 6, when the court granted the Government's motion for summary
judgment ruling that the Government had properly invoked the military and
state secrets privilege and that plaintiffs had failed to establish a
genuine issue of any material fact without running afoul of the privilege.
The court found that disclosure of any further information or a trial on
this matter risks significant harm to the national security. Additional
Background: In addition to invoking the state secrets privilege, with
respect to Tony, the Government argued that as a matter of law, he should be
dismissed from the suit in any event because the National Security Adviser
has no supervisory responsibility over the operating location. The court
did not find it necessary to rule on this matter.
If you are specifically asked about the Presidential exemption or Tony
Lake's connection to the suit I recommend that you draw from the following:
Please let me know if you need additional information. Thank you. Earlier
guidance on a WSJ article, giving more information on the background to the
suits, follows below.
From: Baker, James E.
To: @PRESS - Public Affairs
CC: /R, Record at Al; Bell, Robert G.; Sestak, Joseph A.; Kreczko, Alan J.;
Bass, Peter E.