Source: San Jose Mercury News Contact: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 NOTE: This the San Jose Mercury's, the paper that broke the original story, coverage of Reno's decision to delay the CIA-crack study. In the article they have provided many links to into the background of the story. The links that were provided within the text of the story have remained in place [within brackets]. On May 11, 1997, the Mercury News published a column that is important to an understanding of this document or story located at: http://spyglass1.sjmercury.com/drugs/column051197.htm Other links: The following article is posted at: http://spyglass1.sjmercury.com/drugs/continued/followup012398.htm Continued coverage: http://spyglass1.sjmercury.com/drugs/continued.htm Forum: (closed on June 11, 1997) History: http://spyglass1.sjmercury.com/drugs/start.htm CIA-CRACK STUDY IS BLOCKED BY RENO BY PETE CAREY Mercury News Staff Writer Using a provision of law that had never been invoked, Attorney General Janet Reno has blocked the release of a report on the actions of the Department of Justice in an alleged CIA-Contra-crack cocaine conspiracy. The report will not be made public until unspecified ''law enforcement concerns'' are resolved, Reno's order says. The attorney general said the report will eventually be released unchanged. Inspector General Michael R. Bromwich, [http://spyglass1.sjmercury.com/drugs/library/51.htm] who directed the investigation, said he disagrees with and regrets the decision but will abide by it and has no complaints about the way it was made. Both the inspector general and the Justice Department said the CIA was not involved in the decision. The law enforcement concerns are ''unrelated to the ultimate conclusions'' reached in the report, Reno said in ordering Bromwich to delay its release. [http://spyglass1.sjmercury.com/drugs/library/50.htm] The 400-page Department of Justice report, the product of a 15-month investigation by 13 people, including five lawyers, examines actions of the Department of Justice concerning two Nicaraguan cocaine dealers who were supporters of the anti-Sandinista Nicaraguan guerrilla force called the Contras. It also explores ''some additional related matters,'' according to Bromwich. In a series published in the Mercury News in August 1996, the two Nicaraguans -- Juan Norwin Meneses Cantarero and Oscar Danilo Blandon Reyes - -- were alleged to have financed the Contras with millions of dollars in cocaine profits from drug deals in South Central Los Angeles in the 1980s. The series strongly suggested CIA knowledge of the operation and also suggested the two men were protected from prosecution by unnamed government agencies. Then-CIA director John Deutch denied the allegations but ordered an investigation by his agency's inspector general. A second investigation of Justice Department actions concerning the alleged operation was opened by the department's Inspector General Bromwich, leading to the report that Reno blocked Friday. The investigation presumably looked at interference with the prosecution of the two Nicaraguans and with their relationships with the Drug Enforcement Administration. Both men eventually became informants for the DEA, which is under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department. Bromwich stressed that his investigation was ''wholly separate'' from the CIA's. Reno's order marks the first time a section of the Inspector General Act of 1978 [http://www.doc.gov/oig/info/igact78.htm] has been used to block an inspector general's report. The section allows the attorney general to intervene if a report would affect ongoing civil or criminal investigations or proceedings; disclose undercover operations; reveal the identity of confidential sources and protected witnesses; expose intelligence or counter-intelligence operations; or pose a serious threat to national security. Neither Bromwich nor the attorney general would discuss which law enforcement ''concerns'' are involved. But since the report has been declassified by the CIA and Department of Justice agencies involved, it appears unlikely that national security, intelligence, undercover operations or source information is involved. That leaves ongoing civil or criminal proceedings as the most likely factor. ''It's not that the report was invalid, or will have to be changed, or will never see the light of day,'' said justice department spokesman Bert Brandenburg. ''It's simply a decision to delay it until the law enforcement concerns abate.'' He said the decision ''is not made lightly and comes from an attorney general who has a very strong record of openness.'' The order puts in writing a last-minute decision by the attorney general's office that blocked the report's release in December. That decision caused the CIA to delay the release of its own inspector general's report on the allegations. Although the CIA report has not been released, its conclusion --that there was no merit to the allegations -- was leaked to the news media by sources familiar with the investigation. The Department of Justice report has remained a mystery. Bromwich said he is confident the report will be released. ''It will be released eventually, certainly,'' he said. ''I hope and believe it will be released this year.'' Members of Congress who have been following the issue closely were unavailable for comment on the order to withhold the report. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said it would have no comment before Congress reconvenes Monday. The Mercury News series and its suggestion that the CIA could have helped cause the nation's crack epidemic drew widespread public reaction. Some news organizations attacked the series as unsubstantiated, while some legislators and citizen groups demanded a thorough investigation of the charges. In a May 11 column examining the series, Mercury News Executive Editor Jerry Ceppos aknowledged shortcomings in the articles after an extensive internal re-examination. ''There is evidence to support the specific assertions and conclusions of our series -- as well as conflicting evidence on many points,'' he wrote. He concluded that the series did not sufficiently include that conflicting evidence and did not meet the newspaper's standards.