At his confirmation hearing in 2003, Mr. Chertoff said he and his deputies in the criminal division did not have an active role in discussions about ethics warnings in the case from lawyers elsewhere in the department.

But in previously undisclosed department documents, provided to The New York Times by a person involved in the case who insisted on anonymity, a longtime lawyer in the division who worked under Mr. Chertoff detailed numerous contacts he had with lawyers inside and outside the division on Mr. Lindh's questioning.

The lawyer, John De Pue, cautioned in one e-mail message that questioning a suspect represented by a lawyer could be perceived as "an ethical violation." Mr. De Pue told investigators from the inspector general's office of the department that his superiors were upset that he had sought the advice of the department's Professional Responsibility Advisory Office, or P.R.A.O., about Mr. Lindh's questioning.

A supervisor "informed me that the criminal division's leadership was disturbed that I had sought P.R.A.O.'s advice in this matter," Mr. De Pue said in his statement, which was included in an inspector general's investigation into a leak in the case. The supervisor also asked him to search his e-mail "trash" files to determine what internal discussions had occurred on the issue, he said.

Chertoff denied knowing about the opinion at his confirmation hearing:

At his confirmation hearing for the appellate judgeship, Mr. Chertoff said he was not aware of the dissent among department lawyers on the case, including an opinion from an ethics lawyer, Jesselyn Radack, saying an F.B.I. interview of Mr. Lindh would not be authorized under the law.

Mr. Chertoff said, "I was not consulted with respect to this matter," and he said he was unaware that the office that handled ethics issues had given an official opinion on interviewing Mr. Lindh without his lawyer.

Here's what Sen. Edward Kennedy had to say at the time:

Notwithstanding my concerns about Mr. Chertoff's performance as head of the Criminal Division, I am supporting his nomination to the Third Circuit. I am doing so based on his fine reputation as a lawyer, his achievements as a prosecutor and special counsel to the New Jersey legislature, and his assurances that as a judge he will apply the law with independence, integrity, and a commitment to due process and the core constitutional values embedded in the fabric of our democracy. My support for Mr. Chertoff's nomination today, however, should not be interpreted as an endorsement or approval for any other position.

Update: For those wanting a refresher course on John Walker Lindh, check out our complete coverage from 2001 and 2002 .