Story Index | Area 51 Photos | Area 51 Maps

Attorney says a base by any name not same

There may or may not be a name for what goes on at a classified Air Force installation in Lincoln County, but the government on Friday said it could rule out one of the more common monikers - Area 51.

"There is no name for the operating location near Groom dry lake," Department of Justice lawyer Richard Sarver told a federal judge Friday, and Sarver added that names exist for programs that are classified.

The issue is of importance to former base workers who have brought two lawsuits claiming they were exposed to hazardous waste.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley is trying to compel the government to disclose the base's name and existence. He alleges the government is using secrecy arguments to hide hazardous-waste violations.

Sarver's position is that revealing information about the operation would be a grave threat to national security and potentially would result in loss of life.

Both sides made final arguments on the issue Friday to U.S. District Judge Philip Pro, who said he would release a ruling next week.

Pro told the attorneys he had recently met in a closed hearing with special agents of the Air Force to review classified material, and Air Force Secretary Sheila Widnall, a defendant in the case, submitted a declaration of why disclosure of classified information would be a threat.

"We make it clear we don't seek classified programs, just the unclassified name of the facility ... the public names used by the defendants," Turley said.

Turley last week filed documents that assert the base has been referred to in the Congressional Record, defense trade publications, a federal employeesU publication, government contractor correspondence and a Department of Interior letter as well as a host of media reports.

The papers occasionally refer to the base as Area 51, Groom Lake and Dreamland. Turley also said in a previous lawsuit the government used the name Area 51to describe the base.

But Sarver that was not true and that the term was used in a different context in another lawsuit.

He rejected Turley's argument that violations of federal waste laws supersede state secrecy considerations. He argued that any attempt to limit the privilege improperly limits the role of the executive branch of the government.

"Mr. Sarver and the Department of Justice are making new law today," Turley said, arguing that if his clients could show "a single barrel of hazardous waste burned at the facility, a felony has occurred."