March 14–21, 2002

cover story| sidebar

Tues., March 12, 2002

My first call to the White House seeking comment about Site R results in a request that we consider not publishing its exact location due to national security concerns and the fact that The Washington Post , in its story breaking the news of the shadow government, agreed to that request. The spokesman agrees with the US Army’s position that "any information about the Site jeopardizes national security."

I tell the spokesperson that my inclination is to run with the location because I learned about it from a press release, so how secret could it really be?

The spokesperson promises "somebody" in the administration would call me back.

About 5:30 p.m., Joe Hagin, a White House deputy chief of staff, is on the line. I call CP’s publisher, Paul Curci, and the managing editor, Frank Lewis, into my office so that they can listen, and I tell Hagin he is on speakerphone. Hagin will not confirm specifics.

"What we have been saying, in working with a number of news organizations, is that they have all agreed not to name the specific sites," Hagin says. "The specific site is not the news."

As I am speaking with Hagin, Lewis hands me a print-out of a Village Voice piece, which hit the Web just hours before this conversation, naming Site R as one of the shadow government sites. I relay that information to Hagin as further evidence, along with the press release I received several weeks ago, that this secret site is not so secret.

"As far as we know, we were not contacted by the Village Voice ," says Nicolle Devenish, a White House spokeswoman who is on the line with Hagin.

Hagin then offers his take on the matter.

"One of the things we have talked about with people before is that, if one of the bad guys reads this article — and this is my basic test — if one of the bad guys reads this article and finds it helpful, then I don’t think it is a very good idea to go there. It is one thing to report on the program — and the fact that it was disclosed was not helpful — but the sites are for if something bad happens in downtown Washington. The less said, the better.

"Idon’t know what it means to readers, rather than just saying it is in a hardened, undisclosed site — other than a little town’s newspaper where this place might be — to the population of Philadelphia or Washington. Confirming the name of it does not mean anything to those readers, in my opinion."

Devenish offers her own opinion in trying to persuade us not to disclose the name.

"If a site is compromised, historically, it becomes a tourist destination," she says. "I say that to help you understand this."

Devenish then informs me they have time for one more question.

I ask two.

"What are the ramifications if we run with this?" I ask.

Hagin quickly says that there are no threats here, implicit or otherwise, that it is our decision entirely.

"Are you guys aware of the espionage investigation taking place at this facility?" I ask Hagin.

Both he and Devenish respond that they have no information about that.

After the White House hangs up, Curci, Lewis and myself have a decision to make.

Curci asks whether we are posing a risk to national security by naming Site R. Lewis and I argue that with this information already out there via a press release, a December Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article about hiding Cheney at Site R — before the shadow government’s existence was publicly known — and now, in the Village Voice ; there is no more issue of national security left.

"Can you sleep if Site R is bombed?" Curci asks.

"Will it be any safer if we don’t run the name?" I answer with my own question. "I can sleep knowing that we didn’t tell anyone who would bomb this place where it was. They already knew."

With that, we look at each other and make the call.

—Howard Altman