Senator accidentally leaks info on N. Korea; defense agency error blamed
WASHINGTON — The top intelligence official disclosed on Thursday that a congressman inadvertently revealed classified information when he read aloud a passage from a Defense Intelligence Agency report that said North Korea had the knowhow to put a nuclear warhead on a missile.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the paragraph read out loud by Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., at a House hearing last week was “miscategorized as unclassified.”
“The section in question was clearly labeled as unclassified. Additionally, Armed Services Committee staff confirmed the classification level of the relevant section in writing with DIA before it was introduced in last week's hearing,” said Claude Chafin, a spokesman for the Republican majority on the House Armed Services committee.
DNI spokesman Shawn Turner said that the DIA mislabeled that section of the report.
Clapper repeated his contention in the hearing that North Korea has made progress on its ballistic missile and nuclear program, but “has not, however, fully developed, tested or demonstrated the full range of capabilities necessary for a nuclear-armed missile.”
He said that the “DIA has a higher confidence level than the rest of the community on that capability,” part of what he called the “healthy debate and disagreement,” over the issue.
“For those looking to find infighting within the IC (intelligence community) on North Korea, I'm sorry to disappoint,” Clapper said. “We lack uniform agreement on assessing many things in North Korea; its actual nuclear capabilities are no exception,” which he said is part of “integrated, collaborative and competitive analysis process that's open to all views.”
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.