Petty officer Daniel M. King, a Navy cryptanalyst, was arrested in 1999 on suspicion of espionage. The case against him was based on an inconclusive polygraph examination that led to an interrogation over 26 days lasting as long as 19 hours per session. This arduous interrogation culminated in a confession that was subsequently recanted and was uncorroborated by independent evidence. Petty Officer King was released in March 2001 following 520 days in confinement after the presiding military judge found that the evidence was likely to be insufficient to support the charge. The prosecution of this case raises numerous questions, some of which are set forth in the following documents.
US v. Daniel M. King
Oversight of the Daniel M. King Case03 April 2001 -- Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
- Statement of Jonathan Turley, attorney for the defense
- Statement of Lt. Robert A. Bailey, Judge Advocate General's Corps, attorney for the defense
- Statement of Lt. Matthew S. Freedus, Judge Advocate General's Corps, attorney for the defense
Pentagon Press Briefing: Excerpts on the King Case, March 29, 2001. "Is there some strange aspect of military law that allows someone to be held for such a long time, almost two years, without being charged with anything?" Letter to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Richard C. Shelby from attorney Jonathan Turley, March 29, 2001. "We are eager to present evidence to the committee in closed session. However, we have been denied access to our classified notes and files in the case." Letter to Rep. Sherrod Brown from attorney Jonathan Turley, March 19, 2001. "This case has a troubling history of altered documents and concealment. We have seen ominous signs of an effort to cut off any review or charges in the last week." Letter to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Richard C. Shelby from attorney Jonathan Turley, March 16, 2001. "It is unlikely that an independent investigation will occur without the oversight of Congress." Recommendation of CDR James P. Winthrop, Investigating Officer, March 9, 2001. This is the climactic document in the case: "I believe dismissal is warranted in the interests of justice." Letter to DCI George Tenet from attorney Jonathan Turley, March 8, 2001. "Detailing ongoing national security violations in this case." Letter to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Richard C. Shelby from attorney Jonathan Turley, March 6, 2001. "I ask for your immediate intervention into this matter." Letter to DCI George Tenet from attorney Jonathan Turley, March 6, 2001. Even more allegations by the defense of Navy security violations. Letter to DCI George Tenet from attorney Jonathan Turley, October 23, 2000. Further allegations that Navy officials are violating security procedures. Letter to DCI George Tenet from defense attorney Jonathan Turley, October 16, 2000. The defense alleges, rather ironically, that Navy officials have engaged in wholesale violations of security classification procedures in the case and asks the DCI to intervene.