PRESS CLIPPINGS WEEK OF 15 MARCH

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 79
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 5, 2009
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: March 13, 1980
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

LdFFK f1F I r, M/Dr9
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
T
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
ARTICLE Apt' '' THE WASHINGTON STAR (GREEN LINE)
Oil PAG3 13 March 1980
The Nation
is Carter Backed on CIA,,,-
Secrecy
A House committee relented yesterday
and approved legislation that would allow
the president to withhold advance notifica-
tion to Congress of sensitive covert U.S.
intelligence operations. .
A subcommittee voted earlier to require
prior. notice of all covert intelligence ac-
tivities, but-Carter administration officials
objected that some operations might be too
sensitive..,
The compromise would allow the presi- -
dent to withhold advance notification if
the delay was necessary "to meet extraordi-
nary circumstances affecting the vital in-
r terest. of the United. States or . to avoid
unreasonable-risk-to the safety of the per-
sonnel or methods employed."
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
;1'LL "f THE WASHINGTON POST
~,I PAGE 13 March 1980
L.1 1 xills.:
Covert' Operation
Reports RestrictTd
OT
0.Commiee&
?By Georg' 7.ar~ne=-Jr. -" 9
Washington Post Stiff Writer'''- sr.,
The House Foreign Affairs ,Com;
'mittee.yjQted, yesterday to supplant the,-layv governuig-the Central In
telligence Agency's.. coverttt- opera=
tions:with;.a.newTrule,providng for-
muchmpre secrecy
Acting. on a series ; of voice votes
after.a closed-door briefing from. tire-,
Cr`A, 'the coitititfee decided to restrict,
reports. to- Congress about covert oper-
ations.,to :the Senate and,House Intel-
ligence committees, and: to allow the
president to avoid prior notification
when he deems it - "essential.
A`move to require the president to
give at -least some vague: advance no-
tice of especially risky, operations
without specifying any: details - Wis.
beaten down..
It was the first test this yean.bf-tb'e
Carter administration's drive to-get.'
rid of restraints imposed on the CI
in the mid 1970s and. provide it with'a..
freer hand' in the, new' Cold Waz:atr
mosphere
Rep. Lee H ,Hamilton (D-Ind. had.
`won approval ; last . week, from.?a;;FOr;.
eign-Affairsv subcommittee, of-,ate #lat'
rule;calling::for.,Priori otice to Ur'
gress of all covert. operations,: fitif he
trimmed :it:. back.. substantiallyyin the
face-of opposition, from, the CIA?and;
committee, Chairman ,Clement,J: Z r;
They-'final='version cosponsored..by:
Hamilton- and Rep.' William S. Broom-
',field' (R.Mli h:).ocalle'for'?advance:no-.
:tic. ofc'overryactivities,to: the.?two?in-
-telligence `'committees ;.; but :with., two-
.broadly' stated exceptions::;-..it
. Under {he :committee?approved,
measure;;:."fhe president may "deter,.
for the shortest practicable perio
such prior reporting if, at the time tine..
report-is given, the president certifires~;
that such deferral was essential
meet extraordinary circumstances
fecting. the vital interest of the U.S. or
was: essentiar-..to'avoid::unreasonable
risk- to-the"isafety or securtty?oR.the`,
personnel or methods employed :..
- Hamilton, said he.meant, this provi?,;'
sion to be invoked only in highly.unu-
sual circumstances. but some :nen '
hers voiced' fears that it would lie-'
come the rule rather than the excep
tion. ' ~.
"The president` can certify these'
.conditions any time. he.:wants,' pro-.
.tested Rep ,.Donald J. Pease (D-Ohio)..:
"we're.-essentially `saying, here that, I
whenever the president is so inclined-'
.there. can be-a. covert operationAvitli-,
out notification to Congress"., for as
long as he chooses.
'Pease' moved to add a proviso, that
,would require the president at least to
tell the intelligence committees "that,
an unspecified covert operation' is
about to be undertaken,' but the idea
was rejected.
"It would provide a field day for-the
press." declared Rep.. David R. Bowen
(D-Miss.).
Pease vainly sought to. remind his
colleagues that the notifications themselves are
supposed to be tightly guarded secrets. "There's 4
nothing in my amendment.., that says it would be
broadcast-to -the media or anyone else," he said.
Tlie , present law governing covert operations,
knoiaxr''s;.the Hughes-Ryan amendment, was en-a
acte i' fd 1974 as part of that year's foreign aid.
bill.,,The Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday-ap-
proved ~the new. version in, the-process- of marking
up 'th'ls'year's foreign .aid. authorizations; ; _
Tinder the provisions `of Hughes-Ryan,. na, covert-
actiomi t-foreign_oountries:can be. undertaken. ,,un?
less-andsuntil theipresident""findai each snctl'"operaL
tionaaiportant to.the':national"secuiity:and-'rep6rt!1:
inratimelyiifashioni at desc 1'ptioni and!scope~of ire-
operation. to the appropriate. committees-'of Con'
gressi'Eight Senate and House committees;: includ-
ing;Foreign-Affairs; are entitled to receive those-re-
ports
ports under the lawp although one of the panels,
House,iArmed Services. has= said .it;' doesn't want
themAs7ooz `io .lnsrttn9czzs!rt -n to Iraiiat?i5~ ~ifscci
Yesterday's action would cut the number?'~o tbioil
ttid:traditionally tight?lipped;'Senatel'and-,Houseif
tdlligence:committees:;?Rep,;-Howarth Es Wolpe'(DJ
Mictt);iarguingthat covert:operations clearly affect,
foreignf policy, sought to, keep the House, Foreign,
'Affausif Committee, and - Senate- Foreign Relations:
Committee on, the list: `but, ,his. colleagues; turaedi
hwndowri;:again on avolee.vote;,:~ :;.;.;~=x
'110tifad; FlamlIton?-said the'Foreiga:=Affain?Coni.
mittee'Will'seek-a change - in,HOase'rules,'that would
entitleIt-to three seats -oz-the House- Intelligence
Comlm1tteei'It currentl iias:one seat, which'ls-~occu
pied)by&h blockt. c-c a*x 4; r.?.
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05TOO644ROO0501360003-7
ArTrcL' P EARED
'House Panel Votes,!'
13 March 1980
to Ease Requirement on Reporting Covert CIA. Ac
By CHARLES MOHR
Sw.W toT2r Nw Yak Mcm
WASHINGTON, March 12 - Five and
one-half years after being given the right i
to review the Central Intelligence Agen-
cy's covert operations, the House Foreign i
Affairs Committee voted to discontinue
that responsibility and to give the Presi-
dent. discretion to carry out clandestine.
actions wi thout informing Congress.
The voice vote by the 34-member con
mittee seemed to- be an illustration of a
strong sentiment in this session of Con-
gress, fed by the Iran and Afghanistan
crises, to "unleash" the Intelligence
'agcy.
If, as seems likely, the committee
measure is upheld by the full House, It
will probably undercut efforts In the Sen-
ate to write into law an obligation on the
White House to give prior notification of
covert intelligence operations to the Sen-
ate and House Select Committees on In.I
telligence, Senate sources said.
Today's action by the Foreign Affairs
Committee rewrote an amendment to the
Foreign Aid Authorization Act of 1974,.
which specifies that no funds can be ex-
' pended on covert operations "unless and
until" a "timely" notification is given to!
the House Foreign Affairs and the Senate
Foreign Relations Committees and other
"appropriate" Congressional Commit.
tees.
That so-called Hughes-Ryan amend-
ment led to what advocates of less-re-1
'strained intelligence operations called)
the "absurd" situation in which eight
Congressional committees with more
than 200 members were briefed on covert(
acts. However, a recent study indicated
that in practice only 46 members of Con-
gress were briefed.
The )Foreign Affairs panel today voted
to require that only the select intelligence
committees of each House of Congress : e-
ceive briefings on clandestine operations..
However, the committee also approved
language that would, in effect. permit the
President to order a covert operation
without informing the intelligence com-
mittees, in "extraordinary" circum-i
stances affecting the "national interest"'
,or to protect the safety of intelligences
personnel and methods.
The author of the measure, Represent-
ative Lee H. Hamilton, Democrat of Indi-
ana, originally also included a provision
that would have permitted the President,(
apparently at his discretion, to limit noti-j
'fication to the two chairmen and ranking
minority members of the intelligence
committees. 1-
But even this limited form of prior noti-
fication was dropped when Represents-1
tive Stephen J. Solarz, Democrat of
Brooklyn, and some other liberals, at-
tempted to suggest legal wording that)
might have limited the President's dis,
cretion to restrict briefing to the four sen,'
'for members of the two intelligence corn-1
mittees.
The committee's action today gave the
Central Intelligence Agency and the
White House the authority to limit noti-
fication to Congress, which Adm. Stans-
field. Turner, the Director of Central In-
telligence, requested last month in testi-
mony before the Senate Intelligence Com-
mittee.
Representative Gerry I? - Studds,
Democrat of Massachusetts, argued that
the Foreign Affairs Committee was possi-
bly exceeding its jurisdiction by legally
excusing the Administration from full re-
porting to other committees. Clement J.
Zablocki, the Wisconsin Democrat who
heads the committee, responded that
varying versions of intelligence legisla-
tion would probably have to be reconciled
before final passage.
Officials of the Carter Administration
and the Central Intelligence Agency have
argued that the Hughes-Ryan amend-
ment "inhibited" covert intelligence
operations because of the fear that wide-
spread reporting to multiple committees I
would lead to disclosures of secret plans.
However, it was learned this week that
in 1977 the Administration sought and re-
ceived from the Department of Justice a
legal opinion asserting that the Hughes-'
Ryan amendment did not require prior
notification. Sources said that, presum-
ably, the C.I.A. had used that loophole
and might have difficulty demonstrating
that it had been inhibited by the law.
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05TOO644ROO0501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
12 March 1980
CIA Op'-eratamns Froposa1
S, fits Bill. Panel
By George Lardner Jr.
WMhinston Post stsu w i .c'-
The battle over the 1aw"aoverning
the Central Intelligence -Agency's co-
vert operations broke out yesterday in
the House Foreign affairs committee
with a conflict on the crucial issue of
when Congress should tier' told of
them.
Foreign Affairs subcommittee
last week approved a. proposal that
would require advance notice, but
Rep. Clement A. Zablocki (D-Wis.), the
committee chairman, countered yester-
day afternoon with an amendment that
would allow the president, to ignore
the'rule whenever he thought it neces-
sary.
Both plans would sharply. reduce
,:the number of congressional, commit-
tees that would share the secrets.
The current law, enacted: in 1974 as
an amendment to the Foreign Assist-
ance Act, calls for reports-to all the
,'appropriate committees" `of' Con-
gress, a description that now covers
seven House and Senate panels. The
new legislation would restrict such no-
tices to the House and Senate Intelli-
-gence committees..
The 1974 law, known as the Hughes-
Ryan amendment, is somewhat ambi-
guous on when the reports are to be
made. Conflicting interpretations, al-
though written down-years ago, have
surfaced in the past week.
A study by the Congressional Re-
search Service, conducted in 1975 but
just' made public by Rep. Les Aspin
(D-Wis.), concluded that, advance no-
tice is already required gader Hughes-
Ryan:
;'. The Justice Department then made
public a portion of a 'secret opinion
drawn. up in 1977 for then-Attorney
General Griffin B. Bell, -which drew
exactly the opposite conclusion. Law-
yers for the. Justice Department's Of-
fice of Legal Counsel held that it was
"clear from the legislative history [of
Hughes-Ryan] that reports - to Con-
gress need not occur before the opera-
tion is conducted."
A Justice Department spokesman
said the rest of the 10-page opinion on
the Hughes-Ryan. amendment was be-
ing .kept secret for. "strategic rea-
sons." He. denied that, the portion
dealing with the prior-notice issue was
being released with an eye on the con-
gressional debate., He,-said it was
made.,public _this, week at Bell's re-
quest simply by coincidence, as the re-
sult of a newspaper interview with the
former attorney general.
In practice, the CIA generally noti?
fies the House and Senate Intelli-
gence committees, and several other
panels such as Foreign Affairs, in ad- I
vance of its covert operations. But'
President Carter has come out
strongly against writing the practice
into law, contending that this would
encroach on his constitutional prerog-
atives.
The dispute has already led to an
impasse between the White House and
the Senate Intelligence Committee
over a legislative charter for the CIA.
The charter would also repeal
Hughes-Ryan, but progress on the
charter legislation has been slow.
In the House Foreign Affairs Com-
mittee, Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.).
sponsored the subcommittee version
that would require notification to
Congress of covert operations "prior
to the initiation of such operation."
Zablocki moved yesterday to tack
on a proviso that would permit the
president to wait whenever he decides
that prior notice would "prejudice"
the operation itself, the national secu-
rity, or the lives of the individuals in-
volved in the operation. An aide to!
Hamilton indicated he feels excep- ~
tions should be made only when lives
might be endangered. The issue may i
come to a vote today during the full
committee's markup of this year's for-
eign aid bill.
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
NORTHERN VIRGINIA SUN
11 March 1980
Should St "Leashed"
Editor: assassination attempts." I do not want the)
There is a great cry to "unleash the CIA "unleashed" in the area of covert)
CIA". activity: I want a legislative charter for
- The CIA's primary function is. in- CIA that spells out- its functions and l
telligence gathering. In the past it has not allowable procedures. It should'
been too good at this. In 1978-CIA predicted specifically prevent any covert foreign
that the ? shah was secure;, earlier, that adventurism without prior approval of the
Vietnam would not collapse in 1975, and president and the Congress. CIA has l
that war. would not break out in the Middle , engaged in-covert activity in the past that
East in 1973. CIA has a very difficult job. It many disapproved (when they found out
has to winnow out the significant bits of - about them after the fact). Interference in 3
information from the great mass of data.. someone I else's government should not)
tips, and misinformation received. This is occur without- prior approval,, by out
a- function 'that-=should be the -primary` '"'elected representatives.-:4 '~ -
agency mission, and it should be done well. -" I hope your paper will publicize the
It is essential that significant % data be proposed contents of the CIA charter being
relayed promptly 'to the president. This debated on the Hill. All citizens should)
"intelligenee function"' is not under any have a chance to comment on the proposed
debilitating restrictions that I know of. The charter, and to inform their congressional
CIA is already "unleashed". I hope it is representatives of their views. I, for one,
improving its capacity in this regard. do not want the CIA "unleashed" in the
Covert activity (subversion of other area of covert activity. I- want it under
governments) is, an? entirely different firm control by ours elected represen-1
matter. Here, too, the CIA has not always tatives-that is,. "leashed".
performed brilliantly. It botched the Bay
of Pigs and a"grotesque mixture of evil- THEODORE W. TAYLOR
and clownishness. characterized its Arlington:.
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
". ,.~XTICLE 'r::1}
Olt PACs &_r 9
On'ii~bu$"
THE VILLAGE VOICE
10 March 1980
14/P$ICharters on
II'DreSIC 43, y
By Nat Hentoff
"If the truth is the first casualty of
war," The. Nation said recently, "civil
liberties are the first casualty, of cold war."
Predictably, the Cold Warrior in the
White House has called for the removal of
"unwarranted - restraints"; on United
States intelligence agencies. He particu-
larly wants to liberate the CIA. But, as we
shall see in this examination of pros-
pective CIA and FBI charter legislation
now before Congress, the President also
yearns to return the FBI to its glory days'
when special agents were so resourcefully)
free to protect the nation against its in-
digenous enemies that they could strangle
the Bill of Rights with impunity. Well,
maybe Carter doesn't intend to go all the
way back to the boundless criminality of J.
Edgar Hoover, but the Justice Depart-
ment's FBI domestic charter now in the
Senate Judiciary Committee ? has ? more,
than enough loopholes to gladden the
black-bag heart of the. departed Director.
Four years ago, Carter campaigned as a
born-again civil libertarian, so appalled at
pyramiding revelations. of .CIA and FBI
abuses that he pledged his Administration
would practically - cgmpel Congress , to i
enact charters spelling, out what our in-
telligence agencies, at. home and abroad,
are empowered to do 'and what they'are,
forbidden from doing. Like breaking the
law. But four years is quite ancient history
in the American psyche, and besides, such
niceties as the civil liberties of Americans
who are not intelligence agents surely be-
come dispensable when the:.tiiition pihybe,
at the brink of World War III. Or so
Carter, his intelligence chiefs, and various
members of Congress-most notably the
ever-alert Daniel Patrick Moynihan-be-
lieve. ' .
Yet, even though it was four long years
ago, some of you may remember the Sen-
ate Select Committee on Intelligence's re-.
port. on "COINTELPRO: The FBI's Cov-,
ert Action Programs Against American
Citizens." COINTELPRO was the :often
devastatingly successful campaign by our
secret police to disrupt and destroy lawful
dissenting political parties, provoke vio-'
lence among members of black nationalist
organizations, and even, when in the na-
tional.interest, destroy marriages of here-
tics.
The Senate Committee concluded that
these FBI operations were "unworthy of a
democracy and occasionally, reminiscent
of the tactics of totalitarian regimes."
-:.The. remarkably- industrious FBI also
engaged-without judicial.. warrants-in
wholesale wiretaps, mail openings, and
plain breaking and entering., Moreover,
that. Senate committee, headed by Frank
Church, disclosed that "between 1960 and
1974, the FBI conducted over 500,000 sep-
arate investigations of persons and groups
under the `subversive' category predicated
on the possibility that they might be likely
to overthrow the government of the United
States: Yet not a single individual or group
has been prosecuted since 1957 under laws
which prohibit planning or advocating ac-
tion to"overthrow the government." (Em-
phasis added.)
FtlSo_' over:. a half-million': dossiers-at
least=were maintained' on' 'innocents
citizens for no lawful purpose whatever.
Many were surveilled, had , their mail
opened, and, as is often-, the case with
intelligence . agencies, had *their in-
vestigatory 'records as "subversives" trans.
ferred to other government departments,
ivith results they may never know... ' -,
As for the CIA, although the 1947 In-;
ternal Security Act barred these otherwise
unguided missiles from performing
domestic security functions, dashing.CIA
agents were all over the. American land-
scape. They cultivated covert informants
among professors (some' of-whom doubled
as recruiters of students). They. engaged
for 20 years in MKULTRA, an experimen-
tal mind-control program based. on drugs.
Among.MKULTRA's guinea,.piga were a:
sizable number,-of wholly unwitting Amer
icans.. _(For_ instance, -'LSD .was-. adminis.'
tered,under CIA auspices,to..students,
mates in state! prisons,'". and,; patients in
mental hospitals throughout the.country: i
They weren't told it,waa LSD.) . " :
And for its most. ambitious domestic
venture, the CIA ;created::Operation
CHAOS, which., involve& surveillance of.
hundreds of thousands 'of anti-Vietnam
War activists.-The entirely-disingenuous
rationale for this massive 'CIA violation of ?
the National Sequrity:Act let alone. the,
First and Fourth Amendments-.was'that.,
its agents had to-collect information on the !
political activities of these citizens in or-
der. to find out whether they had foreign
connections. Some of these CIA agents, by
the' way, actually. infiltrated : "leftist','
groups, so you may have beerI demonstrat-
o~~iT~G~9
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
ing alongside a veteran of the Bay of Pigs.
One of the targets of Operation CHAOS
was this columnist, as I found out recently
when,. in repsonse to a Privacy Act re-
quest, the CIA sent me a "sanitized" ver-
sion of my dossier. It is as abundant as my
previously obtained FBI file. There is
nothing-in the CIA dossier that I did not
write about-in the Voice or other publica-
tions, although I question the accuracy of
certain.unnamed agents' reporting of my
anti-war speeches. (Their minds seem to
get terribly confused by discussions of
constitutional law.) In any. case, although
these spy reports awaken - a . certain
nostalgia and momentarily. amuse my
children, I" am not amused, because I do
not like being secretly surveilled, especial=
ly by my government. All these years later,
it's still a disquieting feeling.
-With regard to. the "foreign connec-
tion,"there is' only one link to another
country.. in my dossier. Under "an in-
tercept program" called HTLINGUAL,
the bastards. took a letter to me from
Moscow,-opened and read it, put a copy in
my file, and-then sent it along. In June
1962, a,21-year-old Russian student and
reader of- The Jazz Review (which I co-
edited) had written me about the suddenly
vigorous state of jazz in his country. He
also included the foreign intelligence that
Benny Goodman;: at that .very moment,
was playing a- gig. in -Moscow. And the
Russian ended with references-obviously
code names-to Coltrane, Monk, Stitt, .
and 0. Coleman...
Markings on. this farrago of "sub-
versive" docunients.indicate that some-of
them. traveled back and forth among the
CIA,. the~FBI, the-Department- of State,-.
and. other agencies whose names ,-I can't
make outfIf dissenting were not my pro.
fession,. I''might well worry;-.about where
these tracings of? this suspect citizen
have: taken root=and with-.what- malig
4=
nant' a harvest..
"?=: ,Other lives were maimed, however, and:
.some-were destroyed, 'because'of the "ex-
cesses'?. of -the' intelligence "agencies Yet
"despite, the' exhaustively, ' documented
Church Committee reports and the vari-
ously astounding exposes by civil liberties
? ups,`; journalists,``and.''former . in= l
gro
telligence agents, no legislation controlling;
,the CIA and the"FBI-?has been enacted.:.:
Accordingly, when the President, 'as in
his recent State of the Union address, so
earnestly urges the.emancipation .'of the
intelligence agencies; he is whistling Dix.
t-*ie. They have hardly.been fettered. In the
February 9 Neer:". Republic, Morton
-Halperin, a former 'National Security
Council staff official,- points out: . Fou '
years after congressional' investigators
documented - that." the CIA and other in-
telligence agencies-had' seriously abused
the. rights- of Americans,-. Congress- hasl
done nothing but'create committees- and
charge them with considering legislation.'-'l
Vying with Senator Hudd4nston'a Na
tional Intelligence Act in the Senate is a
glow; however, Congress might finally.;
best
do something. The wrong thing. qIA and measure friend.-Daniel Patrick Zvloynihan. In the
FBI- "charters" have- been .introduced in yn
but they-are very. light on rest of this series, I shall explore
this session
,
reform, and very heavy'. on legitimatizing
many ' of the abuses of- -the past'-'"As
Halperin notes:' ?"Now' the intelligence
agencies' and others have seized the op-
portunity of the current crisis to press for
legislation weakening the democratic lien-j
its on intelligence behavior that-,already
exist.,. ? _ <
One of the bills S. 2284, has been
introduced by' Senators Walter Hud-
dleston, 'Charles Mathias, Birch_Bayh,
and Barry Goldwater;, Much of it is sup-
ported by the Carter Administration. It's
called the National-.-Intelligence- Act -of
1980. (Worth noting. is that the last such
bill introduced was- -the National In-
telligence Reorganization and Reform. Act
Moynihan's garden of horrors, as well as
the domestic FBI charter (S. 1612), which
Ted Kennedy, alas, is not equipped to
understand. in civil liberties terms be-'
cause, in his student days, he was ap-
parently absent the day they studied the
Bill of Rights.
As for `Huddleston's National In
telligence Act of 1980, the American Civil
Liberties Union has greeted its appearance
by sounding a loud alarm. Under the bill,
warns the ACLU, "The FBI at home and
the CIA abroad could search records, en-
gage in physical surveillance, .'plant
agents, and use other techniques to secret
ly gather foreign intelligence-information
in the possession of innocent Americans."
(E h
of 1978.-Ain't rig emphasis on reform-this - mp asrs . added.) Or, information
time around.)- thought to be in the possession of innocent
It is somewhat ofan'exaggeration' to Americans. These- provisions in the new
say.'as do some, critics of the bill,.that'its bill would have authorized the FBI and
-only substantial lim'itation'on the'CL4 is. CIA surveillance of the anti-war' move.
to-: prohibit. it from.. assassinating. people went:
.- =
But it is true that the measure hardly puts In other words putting these particular
much of a legal strain on our native James spy-licenses into a congressional charter
Bonds-. By the way, even the stricture on no longer makes these kinds of operations
'assassination - bothers such of the CIA's at all dubious. On the- contrary, it, en.
more devout. admirers as the Wall Street courages them. Similarly, says the ACLU,
Journal.'-In a February- 21 lead editorial, if the bill is passed, "FBI agents could-
that :guardian of the liberties.-of covert break into the homes- of Americans sus- !
operators complains that the Huddleston Petted of being agents of a foreign power'
bill overly restricts the CIA by not defining and steal papers without serving a warrant
or having probable-cause to believe-that a'
the term; assassination.' What looser crime has been or is .about to -be -tom: i
definition' does the Wall Street Journal witted:"
have "'in mind?-.. Maybe assassination
=Who is to give these FBI agents the;
should be permissible only if done by a - . -
hired third party from another country. Or secret warrants-that they do not have to
another galaxy. Or maybe assassination serve-which will legalize. these burglar
should be "lawful" if no mark is left- ries?- A secret Federal court-, already in
either on the surface of'the cadaver or in operation and currently deciding on ap-
the tissues. Or if the poison doesn't take Phcations for- national security wiretaps. -I
effect until a year and a day have gone by. You never heard of it? You are not alone.
-? "To its credit, however; the Wall Street 1' Also in the bill is this vintage J.. Edgar
Journal does not equivocate on how far the 'ACLU.- Hoover stratagem, as- distilled' by--the-
CIA should be allowed to go in all matters: Americans could be secretly in-
"Given. the world that has emerged, we vestigated under the guise of considering
should be able to recognize that the CIA is them for. use as sources or agents or be-
'not a-law-enforcement agency;.in impor-
tent. respects it is- intended - as 'a- law-
breaking agency. "(Emphasis added.) And
that` n-deed is -the spirit of 'much of the
cause they are believed to be targets of a_!
hostile- intelligence service." The latter:is
"exactly'the kind of justification the FBI
used In ; attempting to defend its' sur
National Intelligence-Act oL198a. The bill ! veillance of: Martin Luther King, Jr., at'
also includes a charter for the FBI vrhen it the height of the Civil Rights Movement."
is involved' in operations-in'this country. Who was targeting Dr. King? The KGB, of
.'' _ _
.dealing with foreign- intelligence. (As al- course. If you believe the FBI
read noted, the?domesticFBI charter The Huddleston bill also has'no effec
y ' tive -restrictions on the CIA's covert use of
quite-another bill, is marinating in .Ted ajournalists, or members of the
Kennedy's Senate'Judiciary Committee:. academics, c The government will continue to
It's S. 1612, The Federal Bureau of In clergy., g
vestigation Charte~r.-Act.. The House _ver nurture a seemingly innocent person's be
sign is HR. 5030.) trayal of fellow professors, .of?students, of
journalistic sources, of readers - (through
planted stones), and of true believers.-And
in . the . process, the-. credibility. of
academics, journalists, and clerics who are
not spies will. be increasingly damaged.
"Whom can yoir trust?" will become the
national credo.
r?n,emTiilD
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
But I have left out one ultimate safe-
guard. After proclaiming the need to ex
tirpate all "unwarranted restrictions" -on--
the CIA, Jimmy Carter has reminded is
that he personally would "guarantee that.-
,abuses- do not occur." -
So long-as we have Honest Jimmy, of
what need is the Bill of Rights?
Also next week:. the patriots'* push in
Congress to exempt the CIA from most of
the requirements of the Freedom. of In=
formation--Act. That- way, -you'll never
know about-the, next Bay of Pigs, the next
Operation-. CHAOS;, or._ the -CIA's next
mind-control. venture. And not. knowing;=:.,
.you'll have;muchless to worry about and
.will-:learn to"be a ,much -.more. contented
citizen:;`
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
ARTICLE .iefLl LSD
05
U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT
17 March 1980
Letters
Limits on CIA
If only things were as good as Repre-
sentative Ted Weiss envisions in "Take
the Wraps Off CIA?" [Pro and Con,
February 25]. The U.S. cannot, in a
world of such diverse idealistic beliefs,
carry on an effective intelligence net-
work if it is to be subjected to such
scrutiny. At times, "legitimate intelli-
gence gathering" is not as advanta-
geous-as covert (cloak and dagger) op-
erations. If we were to do what the
good representative advocates, we
may as well invite the KGB to the next
National Security Council meeting. So,
Mr. Weiss, cut the moralistic garbage.
Utopia is a long way off.
PAUL A SCRUDATO
Denison University
Granville, Ohio
Your February 25 editorial compar-
ing the CIA unfavorably with the KGB
overlooks the reason why we frequent-
ly find ourselves in conflict with the So-
viet Union in the first place: The Sovi-
ets have no qualms about ignoring the
most fundamental rights of their citi-
zens--and those of other countries-to
freedom from government intrusion
into their lives. Nothing could defeat
our own purpose more than to mimic
the KGB by sanctioning a return to the
gross abuses of the Nixon-era CIA.
JIM KLANN
Mount Prospect 111.
For 30 years, the CIA has proved
over and over again that no war effort
or U.S. foreign-policy effort is complete
without the supplementary support of the agency's covert action. Since 901,
percent of these highly professional op-
erations depend on improvisation, swift
flexibility and speed in execution, it
stands to reason that all politicians
should be summarily disqualified from
having anything to do with them. If we
fought wars by political committee on
the firing line, everybody would be
dead. Everybody has seen politicians
mess up practically everything. They
are now messing up the biggest, best
and most efficient secret intelligence
organization in the world.
HANs V. TOrTE
Washington, D.G
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
'r I CI,E ~i'P15.aiiL'A
PAG$
THE WASHINGTON POST
10 March 1980
,RePV`A-S;P U*1 4-1- al Ps C
has 'Buffaloed' Co'nuress
By GeorgeLindner Jr. .
Wasuitfitom ?Ogg SKT Wl ter
The chairman of the House Intelli-
gence oversight subcommittee'
charged yesterday that the Central In--
telligence Agency has - "buffaloed"
Congress into accepting ;a. warped in-
terpretation of the law governing co-
vert operations.
Subcommittee Chairman.Les Aspin
p-Wis.) said the HughesRyan
amendment; of ;1974- was inteyndedeio
require notice to .the congressional
?ommittees before the CIA could un-
dertake covert activities in , foreign
countries.
The CIA has maintained that it
need not give Congress, prior notice.
President Cat'ter? oppose!a provisions
of a proposed charter for the CIA that
would require prior notice even more
explicitly. White House aides and CIA
officials contend that-this would en-
croach on the president's constitu-
tional prerogatives.
However, Aspin, said a study by a
senior lawyer for the Library on Con-
gress' Congressional Research Service
concluded that prior notice is re-
quired by the 1974 law.
"But in an effort to cooperate with
the. intelligence community, we have
accepted a warped interpretation of
the law" Aspin said.
"The key term is `unless and until,`
he:-declared. "The CIA cannot launch at
covert act on:.;pnlesa :and until' Con-
gress has been notified. And that
plainly means prior notification."
The Hughes-Ryan amendment was
enacted after a furore over CIA activi-
ties in Chile. Under it, the CIA may
not undertake any foreign operation
-other than those strictly limited to
intelligence gathering-"unless and
until -the. president finds that each
such operation is important to the na-
tional security of the United States
and reports, in a timely fashion. a de.
scription and scope of such operation
to the appropriate committees of Con-
gress...: "
The CIA has always emphasized the
,.in timely fashion" clause. The words,
"and until,"'were added on the House
floor at the behest of Rep. John Bur-
ton (D-Calif.) shortly before the law
was passed in final form.
In practice, the CIA notifies key
members of the House and Senate In-
telligence committees, and several
other panels, in advance. But CIA of-
ficials contend that the practice ought
not to be nailed down in law on the
grounds that there always will be a
need for unforeseen exceptions.
The practice. in any case, is some-
what diluted. The notifications some.
times are extremely vague. Both Pres-
idents Ford and Carter have made so.
called "generic findings" declaring in
.advance that the CIA could carry out
a wide range of covert operations
dealing with narcotics, terrorism and
counteri.ntelligence,' according to in-
formed sources. r r.
Other secret-. subjects. sources say,-
since have been added to the list. The-'t
congressional committees are not told -!
of the specific covert actions dealing
with those problems unless they ask
about them:. '\
The author of the Library of Con-
gress legst study; Raymond .J. Celada?
said the legislative history of the
Hughes-Ryan amendment strongly
suggests that the conditions it laid
down-for presidential approval and
for notice to Congress-"must be com-
plied with before the planned covert
activity is put into operation."
The study pointed out that the-law
was enacted alter a more stringent ef-
fort to outlaw covert activities. The
House version. drafted by the late
Rep. Leo Ryan (D-Calif.); was the one
that- became law, with Burton's
amendment. Celada concluded that it
'still was meant. tar require prior no-d
tice, except in wartime when reports
-`'in timely fashion" would suffice.
His study was done in 1975 and.
made public yesterday by Aspin, who
recently discovered it. -
The- CIA has-been seeking repeal of
the - Hughes?Ryan - amendment for
years, primarily on the grounds that it
requires reports to too many congres.
sional - committees. But Aspin said !
only three-the two Intelligence com--1
mittees and a House Appropriations.,
-subcommittee--systematically review'
covert actions..
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
I'D
?'`tVy ~movVL
9 March 1980
rt41,~,i&,a1L It-was. there;for-50 million. Americans,tofseel
.during President: aster's Jan. 23 State.of the Union:
? sieechThe television' cameras focused on the CIA director;
justas.Car'ter:came-tothe part.about removing "unwar=
?ranted restraintss''on the intelligence_aJe icy . i~
The. admiral's smile lit up the screen.,There was hi s old'
"Aiiaaoolis. classmate,, the. President: of-the United' States,
r .adyonce again to unleashthe CIA: Iii that briefmoment. i.
1onecould-easily visualize the agency rising from the ashes
of intelligence reform.-
The CIA's timing is? flawless. Iii the present hawkish at-
mosphere in Washington, intelligence reform has become
almost'a)dirty word, an X-rated idea?whose time has come
s-and-probably gone ,Thanks tothe -Ayatollah ,Ruhollah
Khomeini, the Soviet takeover in Afghanistan and Carter's
'hard=line foreign policy; the emphasis now is on? streng-
'thening the CIA's powers and punishing its critics with jail.
sentences and fines.
4- All. but forgotten are the abuses. that were-revealed by a
Senate investigation in a much different atmosphere five
years,_agor. when a committee headed:.by,?:Sen Frankl
.Church~-.(D-Ida.) disclosed how theCIA-,had??tested:.drugs
.on-;unsuspecting American citizens. (one,--of whom:- Dr.l
.Fran(-Olson, committed suicide); how- it opened- first-class
:mail in violation of federal-law,. spied on the anti- ietnam
ti~ai^movement in Operation CHAOS,.and hired two:biafi-
asi .Johnny Rosselll and Sam- Giancana-both. of. whom
have since met violent -deaths-to-,try,to murder,,Fidel
,Castro. The list of CIA horrors was much :Ionger, of .course.
,ast:;gionth. the Senate .Select. Intelligence '.Committee,
ith t$e'. virtually complete! ,supportof President Carter,
i>~,froduced an intelligence 'c. ;,that seemedonlyre-?
rnoteIy' related to the findingsh of he Church .committe
tV e.
hilo outlawin g, CIA assassinations, the. bilt would loosen
Prgcedures..for covert operations, ,gtve the-agency a free
alLbut exempt the CIA?from complyingwith the' Freedom I
of4i-d ationAr' : r
or atone, in the wake of the Church comruttee Imes
Flo trdrr there was ;considerable pressure: to reform the
;CIAO the ;FBI and the other.: intelligence'agencies..,'wo-
;years:ago; the Senate iatelligence'committee, thesucces-
sor'to-the Church panels hammered-out its first-charter, at
tempting to define_in- law- what the-agencies could and
could-notdo. The bill, S 2525, set off"a great howr amongl
the'agencies and their -conservative:supporters on Capitols
1 JL I'oo restrictive, they said.
'Tlie staff of the- Seriate'committee diligently wens' back
to'the drawing board: An endless . series of.meetings ensued
betwe'ere the. committee -staff ?and"representatives-of the'
National SecurityCounciL-the Justice' Department : and the:
iiiteTIigence agencie"srEittlebylittlert eprovisions-of the,
ref6rm=bill were whittled: away:: At':.. ~- = rr.4:?
Pffrt&emeantime;'t)ieoriginal'reform"measure did "at-thee
end of 19r7& It was -not ' reintroduced- last year: ,The- new,
inilder'version? of the"charter' that made its appearance' on'
iFebi &;was supposed'to have been'unveiled by the White'
=House and 'the Senate. committee=last fall: But.a series of
fdreigrr=policy ?nsesZ intervene&4irst!:the= skirmishing.
averSALT' H ;.then' the:seizure-of:the=hostages.in'Iran,
then lAfghanistan:':?r~;-w;s~~
Lrthe';vake of these eitents, Adm.:Turner and his depu-'
:tyi at;the`CIA, Frank .Cc'Carlucci;:saw, thehole in-:the line
,andrplunged through:-.Not: only might it be possible to i
avoid'-any reform, but in the crisis atmosphere: the agency
-might be able toram through legislation vastly ding:
dis powers. >-.a,- . s; .. a u;. ,, ~.,_..,?~
L.The-President's speech had barely ended when Sen. Da='1
mel P Moynihan`(D-NY) broke -ranks with 107601"1
leagues :on the intelligence committee and introduced a
fhree'proneed:_;CIA-backed lepaslatiivepackage. The,fust
part of his bill would repeal;the Hughes-Ryan amendments
and:free the CIA to conduct.more covert operations with-?
out telling Congress in advance. The second part would;
virtually-exempt the agency from the Freedom of Info-]
mation lAct, and the third is a mini-Official Secrets Act;
that would punish government officials and-until Moyni-
han lateif modified his position-the press and other citi-
zens who talked or wrote about. the agency,,if. "identities"
were revealed.
k > ,
bioynihan's ploy was apt designed , to.endear him to Sen.
Birch Rayh (D-Ind.), chairman of the Senate Select Com
mittee on Intelligence, or. to Sen. Walter D. Huddleston;
(D-Ky.), who heads: the-.subcommittee, that has been:
trying to salvage a CIA charter; bill. In. varying form, all three'of the features of the bare
bones Moynihan bill are contained=irethe-.Carter-backed.
CIA' charter 'package. The danger, however; is that Con:-'l
gress in an election year=and amid the relentless beating '
of war drums-will choose to pass only the three pro-CIA
parts of the package and abandon all or most of the curbs;
on the agency.:
There is. broad support in Congress for repeal of:`the
Hughes-Ryan amendment, which has required the CIA to-
report covert operations to as many as eight congressional
committees.:.
CG11jv! Uzj.
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
The amendment; sponsored by the late Rep ?I;eo Ryan of
California. and former Sen. Harold Hughes of: Iowa, ?was'
passed in the wake of the CIA's covert: undermining of the:
regime of President Salvador Allende-in Chile (on Richard
Nixon's orders)'and the failure of CIA,-Director Richard:
Helms to tell Congress the truth about. it Its language ,is-
simple. No funds may be. spent by;.CI on covert opera= f
tions abroad unless the -President'finds the operation:is;
"important" to national security and reports "in a timely;
fashion" to the "appropriate" committees of the Congress,
including the foreign relations committees of both houses. I
In practice, the:CIA~initially reported to those commit-'
tees plus the armed, services and appropriations commit-
tees'in both houses; six in all: By 1977, with the formation,
of intelligencp? committees in the Senate and House, thee.,
number had -grown toeight. (Currently it is down to sev-1
en;since?.the2ous& ned Services Committee has decid- i
ed-.zt-- does:: nstr'*ant?;to, be briefed) The CIA. and, its
suppgter3=ar$ieaGffugh>'s-Ryan-meant sharing CIA j
secrets?with, i63.members of Congress' and 41 staff mem-1
:bers. This, the agency argued, would result in leaks of se-
crets to the press: When iris pointed?out that no such leaks'
off covert operations have occurred, the agency's advocates-,'
fall back on. the claisilhatAhe mere requirement for, re-
porting to so manycommittees_has so inhibited and intimi-
.dated?Ithe agency-: that. it.-has.virtually-ceased running1
:covert opera tionswThe:truth is,4iowever that the agency. 1
b ~
The Carter-backed intelligence charter would require
the CIA to report to only two committees, the Senate and
House intelligence. committees. It would weaken the exist- i
trig requiremenE that the President certify- covert opera
tionsas- 'important'-': before' they could take place. The bill
would require ? the,President,to- do so only- if the operation
involved.."substantial. resources, risks ' or.: consequences."
And it would establish whole categories. of, covert opera-
tinns,that the CIA..could conduct..without.telling Congress
about each individual operation, as long as the`President
had approved.the categories and informed the intelligence
committees about them. -blembers of the Senate panel say
that in practice, the CIA has eustornarily notified it in.ad-
vance of conducting any covert' operations.: It is' a vital
point, since reporting' after: the fact gives Congress little
.voice in controlling them
= But the. senators came in for a rude shock when Turner!
recently testified before the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence. that it. was "not correct" that the agency had
notified the committee in advance of every covert opera-
:tion., indeed; he indicated that such information had been
withheld more than once
The issue-had come:-to .4 head when Senators Bayh,
.Huddleston,:conservative-Jake Garn (R-Utah), and liberal
;Charles Mathias-Jr. '.(Ratitd:);met at the.White House on
'the=-morning of Jair-30`with'the President, Turner, Zbig-
.niew. Brzezinsld;,Carter's national security adviser, and
.David Aaron; ` deputy .adviser. According to -Huddleston, '
.the President and his aides argued against prior notifca
tiin on "extremely difficult-. cases where lives. were at
stake''-and in cases. where "another country would refuse
to deal with us if it had to be reported to anyone.
Chairman Bayh was unconvinced, arguing that even in
Jrextremely sensitive" operations of "short-term duration"
it .would be possible to notify- the committee in advance if
I.M. senators and the President could agree. on -"special
procedures" for doing so. After the White House meeting
roke p lawyers for both- sides stayed behind and ae-
_terripfed`to'draft language that would bridge the gap be-~
3wteeri Carters position and the committee's. That effort1l
abed. .t- ... .. r - Z. -.. .-., , ....-Si :. ...-!'.
:' - When the charter was made public, a little mcre than a;
week later, it contained-language requiring the President'
to-give the two committees "prior notice" of covert opera-
tions, except in "extraordinary circumstances" when for 48
hours the advance notice could be limited to the chairmen
and ranking minority members of the two committees and
the four leaders of the House and Senate; These were the
"special procedures" Bayh had inmind._
=_ Carter would not go along with blanket prior-notice. In-a,
letter to ' Bayh, he gave: the., bill his general 'support but
made itclear that "a few-- issues remain to be resolved" so
that the CIA would-b- freeto carryout "action-in extraor-+
:dinary- and difficult. circumstances."' At the same time,
Carter endorsed "a majority. of the provisions" in the char-
..-,:,Among those provisions as the'one exempting-the CIA
.from the Freedom of Information Act except for_requests;
-=by Americans for?.data?aboutthemselves contained in CIA
files. Critics of the measure argue that there- is: no.valid
reason, to.except: the. agency and that if such a.law'had;
'..been-in'effect;; the. details of the CIA's drug-testing pro-
an information about CIA spying on Americans in
Operation CHAOS would have been suppressed.
Morton H. Halperin, a. former. National Security Council'
-official -an ,.director of: the- Center. for National Security
"Studies,argues.that: the CIA already has substantial con-
.troI. over what=it chooses to release, since-the Freedom of
Information Act permits the agency to withhold. classified
data. Although. the courts ; could conceiveably: force the'
?CIA to release secret material under the Freedom of Infor-
mation Act, no such information has been made-public by
- court.action up.to now. - a
One of the more difficult measures ?being?pushed-by'the:
:CIA is the so-called "Agee" bill, prompted by (b.-in ::officer Philip Agee's disclosure of the names-of dozens of
CIA"officers and agents in his book-, "Inside the Company:
,CIA Diary.":In the Carter-Senate committee version, the;
CIA charter. legislation would impose criminal penalties on.i
.government officials or former officials who disclose-clas./
.;sified information that reveals the identities of CIA.agents,~
informants or sources.. 7A
The much broader Moyniharrversion-as on,
inally p/ -)
posed-would have provided jail or fines, or both, fox re-
porters or other persons outside the government who-dis-
closed information that could. reveal the identities Of CIA
agents, inforniants or sources. On Feb. 20, Moynihan re-
:treated. He said he would withdraw the section applying to
~thepress because it might have a chilling effect" on Jour-
Another troublesome . issue . tliattongress will Have to
face if it?passes- a comprehensive intelligence charter is'
-whether and to what extent the CIA should be-allowed to.
use journalists, clergy and Academics as_ spies. Iii 1976,
George-Bush, then the CIA director, announced that=the
Agency would- no. longer pay full-time U.S. reporters to act!
as intelligence agents. Stated another way, it meant the
;agency would not employ spies using full-time reporting
jobs as cover..(In the same announcement, the CIA said it!
;would not use American .clergy as spies.) But the Church
.committee revealed that of 50 CIA' journalists,. fewer than
half would be terminated under.the new rule,since'it- did
:not apply to news executives or free-lance writers A year,
;later,; Turner . issued a new directive eliminating "strin-
gers"-part-time.or occasional news correspondents -but '
continuing the.use of executives and free-lance writers: It
also permitted "exceptions" to be made by the CIA..-director.
;allowing the agency to use press cover at will.. y 1
gATIir ULD
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
Turner, in fact, recently testified that he had waived the
;ban on the use of such groups "on rare occasions, and that
he had. done, so without informing the senate committee.
The. CIA's deputy. director, Frank C. Carlucci, subsequent
fly. told the-Senate:.intelligence committee that,, although
!Turner- had- authorized waivers for the use of 'the 'pro
:'scribed groups, the waivers had not been used.
`How, this and other reform issues will be resolved'by the
96ttr Congress--is,. not yet clear,;but most observers in
.Washington are-doubtful whether even Carter's tame.-re-
`forms will pass.' And CIA critic Halperin points out-that,
'none of the changes sought by the agency "would-imprbve;
;the CIA's ability_ to predict world events."Jerry'J:-Ber-
man;- Washington legislative counsel for the American:Ci-
fvil Liberties Union:;warned gloomily that if the three.CIA'-
''goodies'.'-are enacted:"that.wiu be the end of charterre-
form. The train may be going out of the station without'the
`protection against abuses that the congressional iuvestiga-
}}{ ~Lions disclosed." Small wonder that Stanfield Turner is
-ILIA
David Wise, co-author of "The InvisgCrGovernriient'' and
author. of the "The "American :Pollee State:' .writes. from
=Washington. His article is adapted from the current issue of
Enquiry magazine
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
AFT1CLE APPEARED
THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE
9 March 1980
push
for and to-to.curbs
Bar !times Coates WITHIN THE so-called intelligence
and John Maclean community, recent events in Iran and
Afghanistan are credited with winning
Chicano Tribune Press Service
WASMINC.TO:V-The United States' in-
telligence community has seized on "a
chanced national mood to press .from
the removal of restrictions on their
agencies.
Moving on several fronts under lead-
ers of the Central Intelligence .Agency,
administration officials are seeking to,
ease demands on disclosure of agencyI
files under the Freedom of Information'
Act and to decrease requirements of'
informing Congress of covert schemes in
advance. The restrictions were imposed
in the 1970s after agency abuses of civil
rights were brought to light.
Perhaps most importantly, the agen-
cies have won support for the idea that
new charters should be written for the
Federal, Bureau of Investigation and the:
CIA in a fashion to increase their pow-
ers in some areas while restricting their,
The " moves are in 'sharp contrast to
the past when, for example, then-CIA I
Director William Colby sat meekly at a
hearing table while former Rep. Sella)
Abzug [D.. N,Y.] ridiculed him for hav-
ing her mail opened.
INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS. obvi
ously pleased, contrast Colby's humilia-
tion to the forceful - some have said
arrogant - presentations recently made
by. CIA Director Stansfield Turner on
Capitol Hill-,
At a session of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, Turner stunned Sen.' Steven-
son [D., I11.] by disclosing that he has
broken. a promise to advise the intelli-
gence panel in advance of all covert
CIA activities.
Turner insisted that when he said un-
der oath in 1977 that he would have "no
difficulty" in reporting all covert plans
to Stevenson, he only meant he would
"try" to pass on data. Besides,- Turner
told Stevenson's Senate Select Commit-
tee on Intelligence, there is no law forc-
ing him to inform that committee.
Later, Turner aides. disclosed one sto-
ry that the CIA had. withheld from the
Senate - the agency's knowledge that
the Canadian diplomatic mission to Teh-
ran was hiding six American embassy
workers.
support, rather than condemnation, for
the various spy agencies after nearly a
decade cf concern over civil liberties,
domestic spying against U.S. citizens,
and even efforts to kill U.S. dissenters.
A newsletter circulated among the in-
telligence and defense communities re-!
cently summed up the new climate by
saying: "Out of the gathering clouds of
the Iranian and Afghanistan crises there
may be a silver lining.
"... Because of the lack of good in-
formation about Iran [before the Shah's
downfall and since] there is growing
sentiment on Capitol Hill to revamp the
laws governing the intelligence agencies
in such a way as to restore a clandestine
capability."
The letter was endorsed by several
hardliners, including Adm. William
Moorer, former chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff.
Many hardliners argue that clandestine
operations are limited severely by the
1974 Hughes-Ryan Amendment to the
Foreign Assistance Act, which requires
the House and Senate Foreign Affairs
committees be informed of plans for
covert operations.
SPEAKING ABOUT Hughes-Ryan and
the Freedom of Information Act, at a
recent House hearing, Frank Carlucci,
deputy CIA director, said that numerous
foreign intelligence networks have re-
fused " flatly to work with the CIA or
other U.S. intelligence operations be-
cause they fear leaks on Capitol H11.
Just as Turner had surprised the Sen-
ate, committee with his strong position,
Carlucci startled the House Government
Operations Committee when he argued
that he personally believes the CIA can
guarantee that no information will leak.
But foreign spies just uon't believe that,
Carlucci argued.
"Foreign agents - some very- impor-
tant-have either refused to accept. or
have terminated a relationship on the
grounds that, in ?ir minds-and it is
unimportant whet:- they are right or
not-bat in their minds the CIA is no
longer able to absolutely guarantee that
the information which they provide the
U.S. government is sacrosanct."
Following Carlucci and Turner, FBI
Director William Webster and Bob In-
man, director of the super-secret Na.
tional Security Agency, along with rep-
resentatives of the-Defense Intelligence
Agency made congressional appearances
to argue that their agencies need some
of the same relief from past reforms..
At the White. House, an official told
reporters that President Carter endorses
"relief across the board" for intelli-
gence officers who "have complained
about the Freedom of Information Act.
That prompted Sen. Daniel P. rvloyni-
han [D., N.Y.] to" wonder aloud . about
the changes in national mood.
Moynihan said that in the fall of 1979
Vice President Mondale, who led the'
drive for CIA reforms as a senator; dis-
played a change of- heart at a meeting:
with lawyers for the CIA, National' Secu-
rity Agency, defense intelligence, and
the FBI.
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
CIA,
journalists
disagree
on nevus
ethics
By Richard Hoops
The guarded border between the
press and the Central intelligence
Agency (CIA) has grown tensed
ur~tg
the past month..The-CIA is showing. new interest irnusing reporters as.'.__
agents but is cracking down on
agents who Kant to report about the
agency.'
Many fears of CIA involvement with
the media were laid forest several""
years ago byself-imposed agency
regulations. journalists' concern has.
been-renewed by the Feb: 19 U.S. Su-
preme Court ruling in Snepp V:'
United States and by the opposition.,
of both the CIA and,the-Carter adm-`
ministration-to sectionsof a propose'
charter for U.S. intelligence agencies
that would protect reporters.
The Supreme Court ruling in the case
of Frank.Snepp, a CIA agent-turned
reporter, upheld as constitutional a
C iA contract requiring prior agency
approval of any book written about it
by past or present employee. Edito
rials across the country denounced
the ruling as a serious blunder into -
delicate;FirstAmendment territory..
The CIA;.$rragencX representative.
said, is"deligf'.;ed by the ruling.
.A touchy issue ir;. the new charter
the Na*Tnnal !nteh*enceAcf of'r
1980;=is Oro, sign to cleatfys :71
rate journalistand government' agen
ties like theCtA.. In the past; the,
press has beeittapped by the CIA for
agents, information and cover. -
Former CIA-di ector George Bosh=-
limited thesepra ices in 1976'-and a
year later the CIA~s current director.
Stansfield Turner,. banned agency-
contact with-journalists, clerics and
academics, except in rare instances_.-
-But in recent testimony before the
U.S. Senate Select Committee on-ln,_?
tell igence-,Jurner said he opposes
legislated restrictions of the CIA's use
of journalists and admitted that he-'
has made exceptions tohis own-
rules.-
MINNESOTA DAILY
4 March 1980
In a February:visit to Minneapolis.
Turner also labeled the unwillingness
of reporters to cooperate with the CIA
as "cynical and disloyal." ? . - -
-Not everyone shares Turner'ssenti-
ments. "I'm not-under the impression
that reporters are under any obliga-.
tion to be loyal to the CIA," said
Bobby RayMiller, de6uty foreign -
editor for United Press International
(UPI)." What we are under the obli-
gation to do is to be loyal to fairness
and unbiased reporting. That means
not being members of the CIA the . -
KGB or anything else
The agency maintainsit is not trying'
to revert to dayswhen the press was.
open territory,
"We're not advocating the use of- -
journalists, said Herb Hetu, public
affairs directorfor the.CIA. "We
agree that the-V -should not be used
except in-extraordinary circum--
Interaction between the press and the
CIA goes backas far as the agency
'itself. The CIA?ieceived routine.brief_,
ings from correspondents in the 1950s
and actively employed reporters in
the 1970s.
Convicted Watergate conspirator E.
Howard Hunt told a Senate panel
and the New York Times in 1973 that
his dutiesas a former CIA officer in-
cluded financing a Washington,
D.C., news service and subsidizing a
travel guide publisher. The news ser-
vice, Continental Press, provided
material for foreign clients; the travel
guide, Fodor's Modern Guides, gave
CIA agents cover as travel writers.
In 1976, after inquiries into abuses by
U.S. intelligence agencies, the select
committee reported the CIA had sub-
sidized hundreds of books during the
1960s: One of them, a book about .
China,-was even favorably reviewed
in the New York Times-by a CIA:.
agent_
hibitactivities like these. Part D of,.-
the -bilI bars any agent's 'real or osr
tensible' affiliation with a-U .S.=
as awi:..
.media organization for use
cover. A select committee represeri
tative said the ban would extend to
religious and academic institutions
and to.anymedia-abroad-that might
The CIA opposes the press ban be-
cause it "would tie our hands too
much," agency spokesman Hetu
said. The agency would rather follow
its own regulations, which allow use
of journalists with the director's ap-
proval, he said, because "we want to -
have that option under specialized - ,
circumstances."
UPI's Miller disagreed and said "the
CIA and American journalism should
be kept very separate.'" Any chance
that a-reporter could be_a CIA agent
creates suspicion. Miller said-This
causes problems for reporters,.he ..;
added, because even if-none of them
are agents, "thesuspicion will be'; .
there that all of tttem PIT.;. r " ..
Also under Senate consideration is a -
bill which would exempt the CIA
from parts of the Freedom of Infor-
mation Act that.allows public access.
to the unclassified files of govern-
ment agencies,- The bill-the Intel li-
gence Reform Act of 1980-is
sponsored by Sen. Daniel Patrick
Moynihan (D-N.Y-). It would also
prohibit any past or present CIA em-
ployee from naming undercover
agents. Moynihan last month with- -
drew one section or the bill that
would outlaw publishing names of
CIA agents. Critics pointed out that if
the bill had been law during the Wa-
tergate investigation, printing --
conspirator Hunt's name would have
been illegal because of his connec-
tion tothe CIA -
Press advocates support a ban on CIA
use of journalists, arguing that when
CIA agents and-reporters collaborate
or become oneand the same, the
media is compromised. -1
Hetu disagreed. "I don't see how it -i
does that," he said. "Are journalists
such. moral weaklings that they need
a law. to protect them from this?" . -
Miller countered that credibility is a
critical issue. '.A reader should have
the confidence in what he reads in
the newspaperand hears on the radio
and television newscasts, to believe
that what he hears is the truth and not_
some CIA plant or the official U.S..
government line," be said
"Journalism,"headded "is not an
arm of the U.S. government. ';.
'knowledged.-
Both the C rter administration an
the CIA oppose the pressrestrictions,,
The CIA would rather rely on its-own
ternal guidelines,:= the committee.;
representative. said_"_TF ey (CtA and''"
administration) don't wantit-har'd -
enedinto law.'.
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
T O IAA ?
THE RETIRED OFFICER
March 1980
The history of failure in war can be summed tip in two words:
Too late. Too late in comprehending the deadly purpose of a
potential enemy; too late in realizing the mortal danger; too
late in preparedness; too late in uniting all possible forces for
resistance; too late in standing with one's friends."-Gen
Douglas MacArthur
MacArthur's words of decades ago forcefully remind us that
this nation needs the best intelligence services possible.
Events of the more immediate past-Iran and the
onslaught of Soviet power in Afghanistan-are even
tougher reminders that timely, accurate intelligence and
military preparednetss go hand in glove in this hostile
world.
We are deluged with communications of every descrip-
tion from electronic and printed media. We know every-
thing and yet we know nothing. From around the world,
almost as if we were one people, the concussions and in-
flammations of each community are instantaneously
passed to others. The floodtide tells all, but we are drowned
in its immensity. The scale of values within our societies is
so different that the true significance of events is lost. And in
our rush to protect our civil liberties, we forget that there
will be none to protect if we fail to put first things first.
INTELLIGENCE SERVICES EMASCULATED
The all-out assaults of the civil libertarians in the Con-
gress and the press in the aftermath of civil disobedience in
the United States and failure in Vietnam, emasculated
what used to be the best intelligence services in the world.
The CIA, the Defense intelligence agencies and the FBI
made mistakes. They needed to be corrected. Unfortu-
nately, those agencies were effectively shackled, even
blinded, in the zeal to correct real and imagined abuses.
Undoing that mischief will be a long, difficult process.
Those unhappy events in the Middle East and Southwest
Asia have their brighter side. From all appearances, the
Administration and most members of Congress seem de-
termined to halt the disgraceful and dangerous decline in
the prestige and capabilities of our intelligence services.
They have seen the truth and it is bitter. They have learned,
that the danger to our security lies far less in the likelihood
of the intelligence services willfully preempting our civil
rights than in their incompetence to perform their vital
tasks.
What is it that hurt the intelligence agencies so badly?
The Hughes-Ryan amendment of 1974-a parody of
accountability-requiring the CIA to report covert ac-
tivities to eight committees of Congress made any effective
clandestine operation impossible. Further, in the face of
anarchy, war and anti-Americanism abroad, our govern-
ment has retired or dismissed many of our experienced in-
telligence officers who were tempered in the conflicts of the
1950s and 60s, according to a former CIA deputy director
for intelligence. Thus much of the human element so neces-
sary to knowing what potential adversaries are thinking
has been cut in favor of "technical means." Cut off from
many valuable foreign sources, CIA effectiveness and
morale have suffered.
Noble as it is in purpose, the Freedomof Information Act,
in addition to allowing Americans greater access to gov-
ernment information, has permitted enemy agents to tap
the same sources-to obtain critical files from CIA and FBI,
at taxpayer expense!
Leaks, official and unofficial, together with statements
by disaffected former members of the intelligence commu-
nity, have gone unpunished. The result is that Allied intelli-
gence services are losing confidence that we can keep a se-
cret. One old intelligence hand has observed that the Ameri-
can news media conduct the only unrestricted intelligence
operation in the country-they are protected by the First
Amendment.
Self-imposed administrative restrictions and judicial in-
terpretation of U.S. laws have further hampered operations
essential to the security of the nation. Recognizing that in-
formation is power in this dangerous world, there is an in-
creasing ?.I
demand to unshackle our intelligence agencies.
MEET THE CHALLENGE
Is it too late? Only time can answer that question. But we
had best be started. We must have intelligence services that
can meet the challenge of the Soviets and their surrogates.
Intelligence must be responsive to national security and not
be paralyzed by the fantasies of civil libertarians.
An obvious necessity for survival is to help our friends
and thwart our enemies. We can take a long step in that
direction by removing from the intelligence agencies those
unwarranted fetters which were put in place by Congress
and the Administration. _
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
ARTICLE APPEAR
TAC
HUMAN EVENTS
1 March 1980
IflsidCMshIilgtOfl
Grave Defects in
New Intelligence Charter
Hard-headed intelligence analysts are less than
happy with the National Intelligence Act of 1980,
recently introduced with much fanfare by Sen.
Walter Huddleston (D.-Ky.) and co-sponsored by
Senators Birch Bayh (D.-Ind.), Charles McC.
Mathias (R.-Md.) and Barry Goldwater (R: Ariz.).
.Despite Goldwater's backing, these specialists,
say the Huddleston intelligence charter-appar
ently being surreptitiously pushed by Vice Presi-
dent Walter Mondale ark i his man on the National
Security Council staff, David Aaron-is, in the
words of one expert, "badly written, badly con-
structed and confused. In fact, it would place into
law many of the existing restrictions and would go
even further than current regulations."
Called the National Intelligence. Act of .1980,
this charter could, for instance, require a CIA
agent overseas to obtain a U.S. court order before
placing a tap on an American, even though that
individual was likely to be meeting with foreign
enemies of the United States. Because the court
order would have to contain certain information
which, if disclosed to an outsider,. would almost.
certainly expose the agent, many specialists feel
the taps would never:be initiated.
The charter would also place severe restric-
tions on even physical surveillance of Ameri-
can subjects', 'and would prevent the CIA'
from working with. U.S.. students. or even
There has been'much'discussion iri* recent- years
about the inhibitions on covert operations im-
posed by the . Hughes-Ryan amendment. Under
that amendment, as Prof. Roy Godson points out
in an excellent booklet called "The- CIA and the J
American Ethic,".'which':'he. co-authored with"-
Ernest Lefever, no fewer than eight committees of
Congress are to be informed about "covert opera-
tions.". This, in practice; means about 30 senators
and 25 staffers. And under the rules . of . both
houses, any individual member who wants to
know about such operations can have access to the
information as well.
In short, virtually any covert action is likely to
be blown through leaks. As Godson. writes, "Un-
der these circumstances, almost all former senior
CIA officials concerned with clandestine activities
maintain covert action has become a thing of the
past."
While the new Huddleston charter reduces the
number of committees that would have to be in-
formed-from eight to-just the House and Senate
intelligence panels-the legislation also makes a l
new requirement: the CIA must give prior notice
to the Congress of covert action. Yet "prior' no-
tice," it is said, could have, just as "chilling" an
effect on covert operations as the current report-
ing requirements.
Indeed, it is believed that the liberals put in the
"prior notice" requirement in the hope that the
more leftish legislators in Congress will be able to
squelch any significant covert actions before they
even enter an embryonic stage.
Aside from these perceived defects, intelligence
analysts are concerned that the Huddleston bill of-
fers little protection against the public exposure of
an officer or agent in the field.
While the CIA's Chief of Station in Athens,
Greece, Richard Welch, was murdered after his
CIA affiliation was exposed through an American
publication called CounterSpy, the Huddleston
bill barely addresses the problem and poses no real
threat to those engaged in exposing undercover
CIA employes.
In referring to the Huddleston legislation, God-
son, who also edited a recently released publica-
tion on intelligence put out by the highly respected
National Strategy Information, Center, told
HUMAN EVENTS:
"This bill was written- primarily by a closed
group of congressional staffers in cooperation :
wifh*the Administration and the American Civil
Liberties Union. It focuses in too large-a'part on
the concerns of those who-believe this country has
had an excess of intelligence. Unfortunately, like
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978,
it has been endorsed by a leading conservative who
has not yet awakened to the hard facts of our cur-
rent vulnerability. Instead, we need to look coldly
and dispassionately at the threats and challenges
facing us and to decide upon the kind of intelli-
gence we need to maintain our freedom."
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
INDIANAPOLIS NEWS (IN)
18 February 1980
ions, acessar'll
CIA 2r;(fC- _'f
The Cent,
zaL ntelligence Agency avoid that, but we would have the
should be allowed to makg"t':Ceeptions" latitude to make exceptions."
to its general policy against using the-.'..:._ - He also said the Soviet Union's inva-
paid services of newsmen or university.,'.,. sion of Afghanistan has put the Rus-
professors, according to agency direN-.: sians. on the-propaganda defensive for
-tor Stansfield Turner:, the first time in decades:
Turner made .the-comment -at a;::- Turner said, ".. for the first time
private luncheon preceding a speech ._ since World War II, the Soviet Union is
Saturday to a gathering sponsored` by really on the defensive about something
Sen. Birch Bayh, D-Ind., and a munber they have done.
of veterans' and, other military-service - "They- got away with the Berlin
related organizations.: - - :,;. Blockade, they got away with Hungary,
Bayh chairs the Senate's Select Co m-, they got away with Czechoslovakia, but
mittee on Intelligence.-- this time they bit off something differ-
Turner said an exceptional situation ent. I don't think: they anticipated how
arose-when the U.S. Embass personnel difficult it was going to be for them, the
in Iran were taken hostage. '; amount-of resistance they have encoun-
"I have-a regulation not to -use or tered from. the freedom fighters inside
pay academics or newsmen. ?We-keep Afghanistan and more particularly, it
both of these two professions out of the ? seems they underestimated the Ameri-
intelligence process under. normal cir-
cumstances. But here we were in a- -~
situation where a newsman ? might be.
able to find us something that. would be
of great help to the hostages: - -
"You would riot want me. not to be
able to pay his ticket to Iran?".
He did not say the CIA had or had
not done so.
"What we will set up," Turner said;
"is guidance that generally- we'll not
.use a newsman. or_academic if we can
can and world opposition to this act.
"They are internationally on the de--
fensive with respect to the many Mos-
lem nations of the world. One of the;
reasons they may have underestimated.
is they have a closed society. Perhaps,
they don't understand as well what the.
rest of the world is thinking and saying.
"We have such international commu-
nications you just can't get away with
some of the things the Soviets triedi
without someone- perceiving what is.
happening.
"So this time, the Soviets have runi
into a much more difficult- time than
they ever had before. How they are;
going to a itricate? themselves is going;
to be a fascinating development of,
international affairs over the months
..and years to come." _ _
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
STOCKHELL/SNEPP/KISSINGER
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
ARTICLE APPEARED
CN PAGI?; .-
The Supreme Legislature
Is the Supreme Court a court or a super-
legislature? Many think of it as an
automatic vending machine; put in a
quarter, press the button, and out
tumbles a decision, like a bottle of Coke.
The machinery was invented, according
to this theory, by the Founding Fathers
200 years ago. It shocks some people to
think of the court as a place of uncertain-
ty, where there is constitutional give
and take.
Ronald Reagan attacked the court last
month over a supposed ruling on federal
funds for Medicaid abortions. "This time
the court's majority has gone too far!"he
cried. "Its -unprecedented grasp for
power over the federal treasury must be
blocked-" He said thecourt needed a new
m4jority and that he would supply it.
THE NEW REPUBLIC
15 March 1980
Snepp, requiring him to "disgorge" his
profits ($115,000 so far) from his book
Decent Interval. He disregarded the
written pledge of all CIA workers not to
publish "any information" without
submitting it for prior review. He wrote
an angry account of the last hours on the
US embassy roof in Saigon in 1975. The
Justice Department does not claim that
he violated secrets, but that Snepp failed
to submit his manuscript in advance to
the CIA. Now a case from another
agency is on its way up. The Supreme
Court can make Washington a different
city if it widens its precedent.
It's different in London. Once, while
in service there, I dialed a government
office for a harmless statistic that I
needed, just as I would have done in
Washington. You proceed in Washing-
ton on the assumption that some-
where, in some agency, some little man
knows just the fact that you want, and is
bubbling over to give it to you on the
phone. In London a shocked upper-class
voice registered astonishment at my
presumption and ultimately promised to
send me a "chit" which, of course, never
arrived. There is a ferocious libel law in
England, and a sweeping Official Secrets
Act. It is questionable whether Water-
gate could have been exposed in
England. It is one of the most surprising
differences I know in the usually com-
prehensible parallelisms of the two
common-law countries.
Let me come back to the Supreme
Court. If you don't think of it as a policy-
making body, study these decisions. One
ended racial school segregation, when
Congress and president hesitated.
Another took prayers out of public
Actual) the court hadn't made a schools. The Court instituted one-man-
button was pushed and a papal bull
popped out: a handy device indeed in an
uncertain democracy, if not abused.
It has been abused. In 1932 the court
was "in the , grip of a sterile and
outmoded laissez-faire economic phi-
losophy" says Martin Shapiro, Univer-
sity of California. It tried to excom-
municate the New Deal; it failed; it
surrendered in 1937. The court has been
in general accord with lay authorities
since then. Shapiro thinks of the high
court as a "super legislature" that can
change the direction of public policy in
vital particulars. He gives an example.
The Warren Court, dominated by
Roosevelt appointees, declared the con-
stitutional right of citizens to equality in
many fields such as voting and birth
control. It seemed headed toward similar
expansion in housing, education, sub-
sistence, and so on. The Burger Court
checked the drive abruptly in 1973. The
key case involved a wealthy San Antonio
school district that was able to maintain
a lower local tax rate and yet spend far
more per student than poor districts.
Was this fair?
The system is universal iii the United
States. Rich kids get better public
schools than poor kids because their
parents are wealthy. A plaintiff named
Rodriguez brought suit. If upheld,
Rodriguez would have been as famous as
the Brown v. Board of Education decision
that ended school segregation in 1954.
Two state supreme courts had already
declared against the San Antonio
system. But the Burger Court said no, 'i
five to four, and the system remains.
The majority: the four Nixon appointees .
(Burger, Powell, Blackmun, Rehnquist)
with justice Stewart concurring. The
minority: the egalitarian veterans of the
Warren Court-justices Marshall,
Douglas, White, and Brennan. That's
the way the high court legislates.
This does not mean that the Burger
Court is necessarily conservative: on the :
contrary, in various fields (abortion, for
example) it can shock Ronald Reagan.
But justices exercise considerable discre-
tion. "There is no reason not to say
openly what the justices care so little to
disguise," explains Professor Shapiro.
"They make their decisions on the basis
of seat-of-the-pants predictions of the
immediate and direct policy benefits of
the various alternatives available to
them."
Few people want to believe this. They
prefer the vending-machine illusion. It is
to be hoped that the high court doesn't
extend the Snepp gag rule all over
Washington.
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
J
ruling at all; it had just agreed to a one-vote reapportionment, ending an
hearing on the subject later; Reagan was abuse. in which some rotten boroughs
shooting from the hip again. (A famous had 18 times the ratio of votes to
earlier case was in September 1975 representatives as others. It shook up
when he proposed turning welfare, food the criminal justice system, guarantee-
stamps, education, health, and other ing accused persons the right to a
functions amounting to a total of $90 lawyer. It loosened federal and state
billion-a quarter of the budget-back obscenity laws (for better or worse),
to the states. Later he said enemies had producing the present controversial era
"distorted" his proposal.) of permissiveness. And it opened up the
The tattle-tale book The Brethren right of birth control and abortion
continues on the best-seller list because services to millions of low-income
people are fascinated with behind-the- women and girls.
scenes tales of these nine black-robed The Constitution does not say in black
justices in their marble palace, palaver- and white that the public must wait 25
ing and bargaining. There are too many years to see Henry Kissinger's tran-
"leaks" in Washington, the justices seem scripts of his telephone conversations
to have decided, perhaps smarting from while he was secretary of state. Con-
their own experience in the book. They ? gress passed a freedom of information
have imposed, six to three without oral act that might be interpreted as giving
argument, an unexpectedly harsh penal- immediate access to them. But the court
ty against former CIA agent Frank last week said no. The vending machine
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
ARTICLE , r; ^_t - D
ON PA1G vo
THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE
11 March 1980
The Kissinger . files
The Supreme Court, which only weeks
ago was so imaginative in finding a way
to punish an ex-CIA agent accused of
mishandling information he obtained in
the course of his employment, suddenly
lost its boldness when it came to a dis-
pute concerning the papers of Henry
Kissinger.
Granted, the cases were in some ways
dissimilar. The one involving ex-spy
Frank Snepp concerned his publication,
without prior clearance by the Central
Intelligence Agency as required by an
agreement he signed, of a memoir of
.the final days in Saigon before the
North Vietnamese victory.
The one involving Mr. Kissinger
raised the question whether individuals
could use the Freedom of Information
[F.OI] Act to get copies.of summaries of
telephone conversations Mr. Kissinger
made while he was assistant to the
President for national security affairs
and later secretary of state.
But in both cases the court was asked
to create law protecting the public inter-
est in the way ex-government employes
treat information they gain in the course
of employment. In both, Congress had
failed to authorize clearly the kind of
protection the plaintiffs sought. In the
case of the ex-spy, the court willingly-
and witlfout so much as the courtesy of
oral argument-created a law Congress
had not seen fit'to enact. It ordered `Qr.
Snepp to surrender to the government.
every penny his book earned in royalties.
In the case of IVIr. Kissinger, the court
took Congress at its word-in its narrow-
est possible definition.
Mr. Kissinger, as he left the State
Department, moved from his office to
the New York estate of Nelson Rockefel-
ler documents containing summaries of
his phone conversations (which had
been prepared from transcripts made by
secretaries who listened in on the line or
tape recorded the words}. Later, he
deeded these documents to the custody
of the Library of Congress, which like
all congressional affiliates, is exempt
from the FOI requirements Congress
saw fit' to impose upon the executive
branch.
A number of people called on the State
Department under the FOI Act to make
the documents public. The court ruled
that even if Mr. Kissinger removed the;
documents illegally and even if the State.
Department had a legal right to those]
files, it could not be compelled under the-,
Fol Act to recover them and make pub-]
lit those that were not appropriately left
confidential under the act's exemptions
concerning classified information an d
other matters. The reason given by Jus-
tice William Rehnquist for the five-man
majority was that Congress had not em-
powered federal courts to issue such an order.
This reversed a lower court opinion
that found judicial authority in the
courts' traditional powers of "equity."I
But in the Snepp Case, the Supreme j
Court. used the same sort of "equity"'
power to seize back the ex-spy's royal-I
ties. And it 'did so with scant concern
for the First Amendment issues the dis-
pute raised.
When the Snepp Case was announced,
commentators condemned its result, and
the way in which the Supreme Courti
reached it. They criticized the court for
going out of its way to write new law int
the absence of legislation. Now, some of i
the same commentators are criticizing;
the court's failure of creativity in the,
Kissinger case.
We have no quarrel with government
efforts to stop ex-spies from disclosing'
the government's most highly classified i
secrets. And we support the greatest
possible freedom of access to unclassi-
fied material-which is the purpose the
F0I Act serves.
But the Supreme Court should defer to
the people elected to write the laws. Thej
court was right to hew closely to Con-i
gress' expressed intentions in the Kis- I
. singer case. And the fact that when it
came to a less exalted ex-employe the
court was willing to overstep its bounds
and act like a legislature does not re- i
fleet badly upon this principle of judicial
restraint. It reflects badly only upon the
Supreme Court
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
ARTICLE AFPE_A.RED
ON PAGE r " G
This has not been a good winter for
Americans who believe in the free flow
.of ia'ormation and an informed public
as the most fundamental safeguards
of democracy. The Supreme Court, the
.Central Intelligence Agency and
President Carter's war scare have
combined to bring back secrecy- that
.hardy perennial of arrogant govern-
ment.
First, in one of its least defensible
.decisions, the Burger Court ruled that
Frank Snepp had violated a valid se.
crecy agreement In publishing- with-
out C.I.A. approval - a book about the
disgraceful performance of the agency
-during the last days of the South Viet.
namese Government in Saigon. As a
consequence, the Court ordered him to
;pay over to the Government every
cent - about 512D,00D - earned by the
book, "Decent Interval," together
with all future earnings.'
The Government did not accuse Mr.
Snepp of disclosing classified informa-
tion or damaging the national securi-
ty. At issue, ostensibly, was nothing
but the validity of the secrecy agree-
ment the C.I.A. made him sign when
;he went to work there, and which the
Court held to override his First
Amendment rights. But the real Issue
was whether Mr. Snepp, who had been
rebuffed by the C.I.A. in trying to re?
port his story through official Chan-
nels, had the right to inform the public
about the deficiencies of an agency
paid for by taxpayers and operated
suoposedly in their interests.
the Burger- Court held that he had
no such right, and the stiff penalty it
imposed on him guarantees that, in fu-
ture, whistle-blowers will be unlikely
to take their stories to the public as
openly and in such convincing detail as
he did. Already, the agency Is trying to
-apply the decision to John Stockwell,
who wrote "In Search of Enemies,"
detailing agency bungling in Angola.
The Snepp ruling will also encourage
other agencies with claims on national
security information - say, the State
.and Defense Departments- to use and
THE NEW YORK TIMES
11 March 1980
Following the Iranian and Afghan
crises, meanwhile, a new war spirit!
has been flaring in the country, owing.
much to Mr. Carter's hard-breathing
response and his calls for draft regis
traticn and increased military spend
ing. Seizing the moment, the C.I.A.'!
has been seeking to reverse numerous
restrictions it brought on itself with its
free-wheeling activities. Among other
things, the agency wants virtually
total exemption from the Freedom of
Information Act.
Under the pending bill, all
:ts opera-
tional and technical files would be un-
touchable; illegal activities probably
could be concealed; Inquiries about
documents could be rejected out oft
hand, without anyone-even thecourts
- having the right to Inspect them t
see if the withholding was proper.
Yet, the C.I.A. already has the
power, under present law, to withhold
legitimately classified information]
from Freedom of Information de-
mands. That is apparently not enough.
to satisfy the agency, for several dubi-i
pus reasons.
One is that, at present,-if .the C.I.A.I
withholds a document, a Federal ccurti
can review the document to jee if thei
decision was a proper defense of a le.,
gitimate secret. Another is the agen
cy's ritual insistence on protecting its!
"sources and methods" - which:
sounds fine except that it's a grab-bag;
term under which can be lumped al-j
most anything that the C.I.A. wants to
cover up. Agency officials also say
they need to be able to persuade ford
eign intelligence services that infor.
matron they share can be kept secret)
by the C.I.A. No doubt that's so, but',
the present authority to protect classt.
fed information ought to be sufficient.
The C.I.A.'s more likely reason, and:
one the public should beware, Is its oft-!
stated desire to be "unleashed." It'si
easier, after all, to destabilize a gov-~
ernment, wage a secret war or try to
make Fidel Castro's beard fall out if 1
you can operate in secrecy and under
the pious label of national security. .:j!
IN THE NATION
By Tom Wicker
enforce secrecy oaths. That may not
only limit the freedom of many more
Government employees to speak out; it
could even discourage bold and inde-
pendent persons from entering Gov-
ernment service at the price of such a
restriction on what would otherwise be,
their constitutional rights.
On the heels of that decision, the
Burger Court also ruled that requests
and suits under the Freedom of Infor-
mation Act could not apply to steno.
graphic notes of Henry Kissinger's
telephone calls as Secretary of State.
The reason was not any special se.
curity value attached to the notes, but
that Mr. Kissinger had removed them
from State Department custody before
any demands for them were made.
Hence, the Court held, the State De-
partment had no means of responding
to Freedom of Information requests
for these official -and certainly valu-
able-Government records.
It does not take a cynical veteran of
Washington ways to predict the cone.
quence. Officials in possession of docu-
ments they do not want made public
will simply find means to remove
them from official custody, as Secre?
tary Kissinger did. This sharp limita-
tion on the reach of the Freedom of In-
formation Act can hardly result In
anything but further concealment of
the public's business from the public.
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
THE NEW YORK TIMES
11 March 1980
Why' Decision in'
SneppCase Disturbs. Publishers
By RICHARD EDER A minority of the court -Justices
John Paul Stevens, Thurgood Marshall
and William J. Brennan Jr. - sup.
HE recent Supreme Court deci-' ported the Snepp defense argument
a+ : -a son curtailing the right of
for-, that th
.
e ct d not reasonably
mer Government employees to} cover more than classified material,
write about their experiences) and that to extend it fu-t- m b
ht
e
. fig
a
has left publishers and- constitutiopal; violation of the First Amendment.
lawyers seriously disturbed; it has left The majority, however. said that M:
Frank Snepp both gagged and broke. Snepp's failure to get clearance was
All professions have their powerful i~ the kind of action that could cause thel
mysteries: medicine has psychiatry, United States "irreparable harm and'
journalism has unattributable sources, loss" and was in violation of his con-1
News
Analysis
and the legal profession: tract. It ordered the trust remedy on
has injunctions and equity; the grounds that a new trial for specific)
jurisprudence. -When the) damages could risk exposure of confi-I
Supreme Court rdecidedl dential Government affairs - even;
three weeks ago that Mr. though the Government had accepted;
Snepp had violated his the less sweeping Circuit Court trial
contract with the Central Intelligence order.
Agency, his former employer, by pub- $120,000 Held in Escrow
fishing his account of the last days of I For publishers, the court decision,
the United States presence in-Vietnam.
without clearing it with the agency, it i raises serious questions about the free-!
applied a punishment not out of law but! dom to write and publish; enunciating,!
as it does, a concept of breach of trust;
equity: and left him tied up with an in.;; .
junction in boot that could theoretically bind all kinds;
The court did not grant Mr. Snepp's:
request to be heard in appeal. Instead,
it issued an opinion?caftflrming, in of-:
fect, an original Federal District Court
'
judgment against him two years ago. It,
permanently enjoined him from circu-1
lating any of his writing arising from;
of former public or even private em-
ployees who wanted to write about';
their experiences. For lawyers,- apart
from these First Amendment issues, it
raises questions about the temper and
procedures of the present Supreme
Court. For Mr. Snepp, the concern is !
his years in the C.I.A., unless it was more urgent and odder.
first cleared by the agency. It went on! The $120,000 that he has earned from
to punish his failure to clear his book,) his book is tied up in an escrow account i
"Decent Interval," with something; dat a ecision local by- the bank. CoBarring an urt to rehear ely the i
considerably beyond the normal legal case, it must be paid to the Govern-', fora breach of contract. Such a,
medcane Circuit Court of Appeals,.
would have been an order for a new
lower-court trial. to determine dam-
ages. i
Background of Other Books
- Instead, the Supreme Court applied a!
punishment based on equity jurispru
dence. More than simply breaching ai
contract, it held, Mr. Snepp had!
breached a position of trust - even)
though classified material was not held)
to be at stake. Therefore, he must pay!
to the Government not a specific sum toil
be determined, but all present and fu-
ture profits from "Decent Interval."
The Government's prosecution o
Mr. Snepp was taken against a back-
ground of numerous other books that
former agents have published or argil
seeking to publish. It sought to estab-j
lisp the C.IA.'s widespread right ofl
clearance on all material, classified
not. It cited as specific justification the
contract that all its agents must sign;
more generally, it argued that an intel-
ligence agency must be sole judge ofd
whether material would be damaging. j
steadily for the last two years and has;
virtually completed two other manu-
scripts: a novel about the C.I.A. and
the assassination of President Ken-
nedy, and an account of his legalydiffI-
culties.
His publisher, Random Househas
lent him $12,000 for living expenses, in
expectation of being shown the manu-
scripts. These were lying on the table in
a borrowed apartment when Mr. Snepp
was in town the other-day, but he can-
not let Random House even see them,
let alone publish them. The injunction
requires Mr. Snepp to le't the C.I.A. see
them first and make whatever dele.
Lions it decides upon, before showing
them to anyone else. Thus, Mr. Snepp
cannot convert his debt into the ad-
vance that his publisher would provide
if it could look at his manuscripts.
"I'm absolutely impoverished," said
the author, who was the C.I.A.'s princi-
pal analyst and briefer in Saigon before
the evacuation at the end of the Viet-
nam War. "I've spent the last two
years writing; I couldn't go out and get
a job because I was going to pay back
Random House with the advances on
the new books. Now the novel is ready
and I can't even submit it. This must be
the first novel in American history that
is enjoinable in advance."
Mr Snepp intends to submit his novel
to the C.I.A. review apparatus in the
next week or two. Because of the vigor
with which the Government moved
against his first book - it details the
haste with which United States officials
evacuated Saigon, making few provi-
sions for vulnerable Vietnamese who
had worked with the C.I.A. and other
agencies - he doubts that it will be
cleared without major deletions.
The peculiarities in Mr. Snepp's
situation are considerable. For one
thing, his British publisher plans to
send him on a promotional tour in Brit-
ain when "Decent Interval" Is pub-
lished there. "Assuming that the tour
sells books, I'll really be working for
the Government: they'll get my prof
Its. But at least I'll be fed," he said,
passing over the theoretical possibility
that the C.I.A. would bill him for the
price of his food.
To the publishing world, the implica-,
tiors of the Supreme Court opinion are ;
highly disturbing. The freedom to read
committee of the Association of Ameri-
can Publishers Is expected to consider
the matter when it meets later this
month. It will have before it a lengthy
memorandum by the association's gen-
eral counsel, Henry R. Kaufman.
"The entire opinion, from beginning
to end, including several absolutely in-1
credible footnotes, is an unadulterated,
disaster," Mr. Kaufman wrote. He.
pointed out, among other things, that I
the Supreme Court opinion, and its use'
of the equity concept of "trust," could
be used to penalize the writings of any
former Government employee deemed
to have violated confidences.
"Furthermore," Mr. Kaufman said!
in an interview, "the notion of the coo-;
structive trust could allow the Govern-
ment to get money from the publishers .
as well." In the Snepp. case, the Gov
ernment did not ask for Random
House's profits, but it could have, In
CONTINUED
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law
School professor who specializes in
First Amendment cases and who as-
sisted in Mr. Snepp's defense, noted
that the implications could go further.,
"Take Deep Throat, in the Woodward-
Bernstein book," he said. "If he tomes
out to be an official under fiduciary ob-1
ligation, which surely he was, then the
authors and The Washington Post could)
be sued for their profits."
Editing Question Raised
om ;
At Ran
Robert Bernstein, cal.ed the situation i
'.very serious and very sad."
Them
have set up a censorship system.
said
are no rules of any kin& They have
that an organization can censor its critic."
"Further more, ' r.B a Bernstein in con -I
tinued, "how do you manuscript isl
posing the original
gestcharges? sent cchang gee would have
to go off to Washington, unless they had
a C.I.A. man sitting in our office."
Among constitutional lawyers, thei
a 1
irrion by the court eerrablfe Stir. "I ampappalled, Prof.
Thomas Emerson of Yale said. "I looks
at it as a continuation of what they have
been doing in other cases, but moving
beyond them. They have been contract- it this as if it were a private one
rnment thing to o imom' ttthiatkind of blanket
ion its employees n Its eeis a kind of
inhibition h
action that is simply not governed by
normal contract rules. it raises First
Amendment toles about of the public n
employee, and the sigh
obtain information and the right of the
press to publish it."
House its president,;
d
'It's a Loaded Gum'
Professor Dershowitz and other law-i
yers expressed concern not merely at
the substantive results of the decision,
but at the procedures used. Reflecting
the dissent submitted by Justices Ste
vens, Marshall and Brennan, they
noted that the Court had decided grave
constitutional matters without hearing
arguments from the two sides; by sim-,
ply deciding the question upon submis-
sion of the writ of certiorari.
"It's a loaded gun, " Professor Der
showitz said of the decision. "It con-
tains extraordinarily open and looses
language. It comes from writing the
decision without briefs. My God, when ;
three members of the Court want to
hear the briefs, doesn't simple courtesy
call for arguments to be heard?"
Noting that the Government had
asked for less than the Court awarded,
Mr. Dershowitzsaid:
"It's the greatest example of over-
reaching and lack of judicial restraint
in our memory. None of us can think of
any other example where the Govern-
ment asked for a remedy and the Court: gave so much more. There was one ex-
ample, in an antitrust suit, but then
there was full argument by both sides."
Both publishers and lawyers ex-
pressed hope that Congress might be
persuaded to limit the theoretical ef-
fects of the Court ruling. Two pending
pieces of legislation - the unified
crime bill and a C.I.A. charter-were
mentioned as areas where limiting lan-
guage might be adopted.
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
PUBLISHERS WEEKLY
7 March 1980
Supreme Court Says Snepp
Violated CIA Contracts I
;v a decision which threatens to se- restraint is the risk that the reviewing'
9 verely curtail disclosures of infor-I agency will misuse its authority to;
mation by government employees, delay the publication of a critical work
reme Court ruled February 19, or to persuade the author to modify the,
Su
th
p
e
that Frank W. Snepp III had violatedi
secrecy contracts with the CIA ands
must forfeit earnings from his 1977;
book, "Decent Interval."
The six to three decision upheld the:
lower court's ruling that Snepp had vio-I
lated contractual obligations to the CIA;
by not submitting his Random House;
book to the agency for prepublication
review. Proponents of greater govern-
ment disclosure, who viewed this case'
as a test of the right of federal emplpy-)
ees to reveal unclassified information,
saw the ruling as a setback for First
Amendment guarantees.
In stipulating that Snepp "disgorge'
the benefits of his faithlessness" by re-
turning his royalties to date from "De-
cent Interval"-approximately $115,000'
-the Supreme Court reversed the Court
of Appeals judgment that Snepp should
be allowed to retain his earnings.
"Since the remedy is swift and sure,
it is tailored to deter those who would!
place sensitive information at risk,"
declared the unsigned majority opin
ion.
A dissenting opinion by Justice John
Stevens, joined by Justices William
Brennan and Thurgood Marshall,
charged the Court with granting the
government "unprecedented and dras-
tic relief' by establishing the "con-
structive trust" over Snepp's profits.
The brief argued that such action "is
not supported by statute, by the con-
tract, or by the common law." Justice
Stevens also criticized the Court for
granting the government its petition for
certiorari but not granting Snepp's. He
wrote: "The majority obviously does,
not. believe that Snepp's claims merit'
this Court's consideration, for they are
summarily dismissed in a footnote."
The dissenting opinion expressed at
fear that the Snepp ruling may lead toi
restrictions upon "a citizen's right to
criticize his government." Declared
Justice Stevens: "Inherent in this priori
contents of his work beyond the de-1
mands of secrecy."
In a conversation with PW, Snepp
pronounced the Court's action "an in-
credible decision wrought without re-
gard for due process." He said that in
two years of litigation he was never!
granted a jury trial and he criticized the:
Supreme Court for not hearing oral ar-
guments before making its ruling.
He warned that the decision consti
tutes "a green light for the government
to aggressively pursue sanctions
against other former employees and'
against their publishers-even in the!
absence of secrecy agreements. Pub-i
lishers are now facing severe penalties
for publishing information from gov-
ernment employees. I wouldn't be sur-
prised if the government decided to go
after Random House," he said.
He felt that the Court's treatment of
his case as a contractual issue "misses
the point" of the controversy. "These
secrecy 'agreements are unlike agree-
ments found in commercial law," he
said. "They infringe upon the right of
the American people to know."
Snepp will be able to repay the
$115,000 from an account into which
his profits were placed at the time the
Justice Department moved to impound
them.
Voicing alarm at the ruling, Random
House president Robert L. Bernstein
declared: "Even if secret information
is not at issue and even if a secrecy
agreement has not been signed, the
Court has empowered the CIA, and has
invited all other branches of Govern-
ment, to filter and shape news and in-
formation about itself by effectively
muzzling with a 'fiduciary duty' those,
employees and former employees who
are in the best position to know of bun-i
gling and wrongdoing-and to call at-
tention to them in the public interest.!,
Employees of the State and Defense;
Departments, for example, the Com-
merce and Agriculture Departments,
and even employees of the Supreme
Court itself can now be bound by this
free-floating concept of censorship.
"It is not too far-fetched to say that
the decision in United States v. Frank
Snepp sets us firmly on the road toward
legal censorship throughout our coun-
try and that it may be just a short step
to extending this ruling to state and lo-
cal governments. That the Court took
this unprecedented action by an un-
signed signed opinion without receiving a
single brief on the merits, and without;
allowing a single word of oral argu-
ment, is simply mind-boggling."
Reaction from the legal community
ranged from disappointment at yet an-
other defeat for a First Amendment is-
sue to criticism of the Supreme Courtfor deciding the case on what are con-
sidered narrow grounds.
Norman Dorsen, professor at New
York University's School of Law, de-
creed the ruling "a potentially dan-
gerous precedent which should be re-1
versed or allowed to quietly perish be-
fore the government uses it to further
Thomas 1. Emerson, professor of law
emeritus at Yale Law School, agreed
that the ruling imposes "serious limita-
tions" on the ability of government em-
ployees to disclose information. He
found the most disturbing aspect of the
ruling to be the Court's dismissal of the
issue as "purely a disagreement over!
private contract violation" rather than
I a matter involving constitutional and;
political questions. Further, he deemedI
it "very unusual procedure" for three
judges to join in dissent against the,
manner in which the Court disposed of
the case.
"If enforced, this decision threatens,
to shut up practically every govern-
merit employee," Emerson remarked.;
Though he was "not entirely clear" on
the probable impact of ;he ruling on,
publishers, he conjectured: "It's pos-'
sible that a publisher could be held li-!
able for conspiracy to violate a con
tract, or for inducing a former govern-I
merit employee to break a contract."
Benno C. Schmidt, Jr., professor atl
Columbia University Law School, told!
PW: "Fairly substantial harm has been:
done to First Amendment interests in
this ruling. The liabilities involved inj
publishing a book not submitted for re=
view are so heavy that they will un-i
doubtedly prevent much valuable ma-
terial from reaching the public in book
form." Schmidt added that the decision;
does not strongly affect "leaks" of un-,
classified material to the press.
Ira Glasser, executive director of the;
American Civil Liberties Union, which
assisted in Snepp's defense, accused
the Supreme Court of granting censor-
ship powers to the government. "The:
decision gives the government even!
-C '44 W .L;, Id
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
more power to interfere with the First
Amendment than it asked for. It estab
lishes very substantially a censorship
principle in the hands of the govern-
ment," he declared.
Attorney Melvin L. Wulf, whose
client Philip Agee faced prosecution
charges for his book "Inside the Com-
pany: CIA Diary" (Stonehill), attacked;
the decision as "a disaster for First
Amendment interests." Wulf objected
both to the procedural manner in which
the ruling was carried out and to the re-i
suiting "license for the government toi
begin actions against others it consid
ers disloyal."
Wulf lambasted the order that Snepp;
return his earnings as "outright steal
ing." He accused the government of,
hypocrisy in pursuing action against.
"whistleblowers" such as Snepp,,
Agee, Victor Marchetti (author of
"The CIA and the Cult of In-
telligence") and John Stockwell (au-
thor of "In Search of Enemies"), but,
not questioning the right of such former
government officials as Henry Kiss-
inger or Richard M. Nixon to publish
their memoirs.
"It's Easter Sunday for the CIA..
They're back in business with a ven-
geance," he declared. "Authors and
publishers will not only be reluctant to
publish critical material; they're going)
to be terrified." He described the Su-
preme Court ruling as "completing the
total resurrection of the CIA."
STELLA DONG
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
A Ili
011 PAGE 2 r
NEWSWEEK
17 March 1980
The CIA's Case Against Snepp
MY TURN/GEORGE A. CARVER JR.
0 n February 19, the Supreme Court
issued a 6.3 decision in Snepp Y. U.S,
No. 78-1871 that generated a predictable
firestorm of press criticism. (One New
York Times columnist termed it "lawless,"
a sign of "disorder in the court.") Much of
this impassioned criticism, however, has
been flawed by factual error or a misunder-
standing of the questions at issue.
The case involves a formerCentral Intelli-
gence Agency officer, Frank Snepp, who
was stationed in Saigon at the time it fell and
who subsequently wrote a book about Viet-
nam entitled "Decent Interval." The gov-
ernment took Mr. Snepp to court because he
did not submit his manuscript to the CIA for
security review prior to its publication-
arguing that in so acting, Mr. Snepp violated
the secrecy agreement he had signed in ini-
tially accepting CIA employment, as a con- To have good
dition of that employment.
Mr. Snepp's basic defense, argued by the intelligence, our
American Civil Liberties Union, was that nation must effectively
his secrecy agreement did not apply bo-
cause nothing in his book was "classified."
itimate
The Supreme Court ruled unambiguously protect le g
in the government's favor, endorsing the intelligence secrets.
government's contention that the question
of whether or not "Decent Interval" con-
tained any classified material was irrelevant
in this action; that this was a breach-of
contract case, not one raising First Amend-
ment issues; and upholding a lower-court
ruling that for breaching his contract, Mr.
Snepp had to forfeit all earnings derived
from his book.
Appeals: The issues raised by this case are
complex and important. Though not a law-
yer, I have considerable familiarity with all
sides ofall of them. From 1966 to 1973, I was
special assistant for Vietnamese affairs to
three successive directors of Central Intelli-
gence,, for the following three years, I was
deputy for national intelligence to two. In
that latter capacity, I was a member of the
CIA's highest appellate board (under the
director), considering appeals on, among
other things, recommended deletions in
manuscripts submitted for prepublication
review by current or former employees. I am
now retired and on the other side of the
fence, earning much of the money needed to
support my family by writing.
I have known Frank Snepp and his work
for many years. We have often disagreed,
but our disagreements have always been
within a context of reciprocal professional
respect and personal regard. He and the
ACLU, in fact, had me subpoenaed-from
overseas-as a defense witness in this case,
and voluntarily bore the expense of my
round-trip travel. Frank Snepp" cannot be
legitimately faulted for writing or publish-
ing "Decent Interval." His mistake lay in
not submitting his manuscript for prepubli-
cation review, as required by the secrecy
agreement he had signed-voluntarily-
since no one is obliged to work for the CIA.
Despite mythology to the contrary, CIA
prepublication security review of employ-
ees' manuscripts is not "censorship" as that
term is normally understood. As I know
from my own experience on both sides of
this fence, such review focuses on one thing
only: the exposure of information that, in
the agency's institutional opinion, needs to
be kept classified to protect sensitive intelli-
gence or intelligence sources and meth-
ods-not on criticism, accuracy, personal
opinions or anything else.
As the government argued and the Su-
preme Court ruled, whether or not any-
thing in "Decent Interval" still required the
protection of classification was irrelevant. I
think several passages in it should have
been considered classified, and would have
so ruled had I been officially reviewing Mr.
Snepp's manuscript; but since I did not
review the manuscript officially, this is a
strictly private, personal opinion. That,
however, is precisely the central point here
involved. No former agency employee, let
alone any journalist, has any private right
to determine what is or is not properly
classified. The right to make that determi-
nation is institutional, vested by statute in
the United States Government.
Ruling on classification is not censor.
ship. Any claim that it is, or that our
government's exercise of this legitimate,
legally sanctioned right has a "chilling
effect" on former government employees'
exercise of their private rights of free ex-
pression as protected under the First
Amendment is hogwash-as I also know
from my own experience. Since retiring last
September, I have published several arti-
cles, and signed a book contract. All my
manuscripts have been or will be submitted
for prepublication security review in com-
pliance with the secrecy agreement which I
freely signed (as did Frank Snepp). Honor-
ing this obligation, however, has been no
bar to remunerative productivity; nor, as
anyone who reads my published prose will
see, has it been any impediment to criticiz-
ing the U.S. Government or its policies.
We are unlikely to survive this strife-
ridden and now thermonuclear era without
good intelligence, and our nation cannot
have good intelligence withouran effective
ability to protect legitimate intelligence
secrets. Prepublication screening of CIA
employees' or former employees' manu-
scripts-for this purpose--is essential; for
legitimate secrets can hardly be protected
if every employee or former employee as-
sumes a private right to make declassi-
fication determinations individually and
unilaterally.
Remedies: I would be more than pre-
pared to go to the mat with the agency and
the government and fight tooth and nail, in
the courts if necessary, if I were ever to feel
that any CIA prepublication review of my
prose was being expanded beyond what I
considered legitimate classification deter-
minations into anything I considered ille-
gitimate censorship. This has not hap-
pened, however, and there are ample
remedies available to me, as an American
citizen, if it ever should.
Even though I now earn a major portion
of my living with my pen and typewriter, I
applaud the Supreme Court's "Decent In-
terval" decision. It was wise, sound, just-
and necessary to protect me as an American
citizen and to protect our country.
George A. Carver Jr.. a retired CIA offi-
cer, is currently a senior fellow at George-
town University's Center for Strategic and
International Studies
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
dY:'i~..I l
JI1TICLE
0 PAGS__,~ .. _ TIME
17 1980
State Secrets
How to keep them
Federal officials intent on shielding rec-
ords from journalists, biographers and
other inquirers-'may have hit upon a very
simple way: remove the files from the
agency involved before anyone seeks ac-
cess under the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA). In a case involving transcripts
and summaries of telephone conversa-
tions that Henry Kissinger recorded dur-
ing his years in Government, the Supreme
Court last week ruled 5 to 2 that the State
Department had no obligation to retrieve
those records for members of the public.
Two lower courts had ruled against
Kissinger. They said that the records of
phone conversations he made while serv-
ing as the President's National Security ,
Adviser should remain under wraps, but
that those from his 3% years at State were
within the reach of the FOIA. In Decem-
ber 1976, shortly before he left office, Kis-
singer donated these documents to the Li-
brary of Congress (which is not covered
by the FOIA) under a complex deed that
limits access to them until the year 2001
at the earliest. Since Kissinger 's donation
came before the FOIA requests were made
by the Reporters Committee for Freedom
of the Press and other groups, the Supreme
Court concluded that State could not be
said to be wrongfully "withholding" the
documents. The proper remedy, said the
majority, is the Federal Records Act,
which allows agencies to seek retrieval of
files they believe should not have been re-
moved. State has not yet decided wheth-
er to pursue Kissinger's records.
As with last month's Snepp decision,
which backed the CIA's right to enforce
its secrecy pledge on former agents, the
new ruling is likely to help Government
keep a tighter lid on its secrets. ^
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
ON PAGE - ~.~.....
JUSTICE
NEWSWEEK
17 March 1980
The Kissinger Transcripts
Henry Kissinger was never a man to be
bound by narrow conventions. For
eight years, he made daily stenographic and
tape transcripts of his telephone conversa-
tions, which he and his foreign-policy staff
used to keep track of official business. When
it came time to retire as Gerald Ford's
Secretary of State, he collected these phone
records and had them delivered to the Hud-
son River estate of his friend, Nelson Rocke-
feller. There, among other things, tie docu-
ments would be safely out of the reach of
the Freedom of Information Act and the
American public. Kissinger did not discuss
this move with State officials; he just took
the files. On Christmas Eve, 1976, however,
Kissinger gave them back to the government
on his own terms: the Library' of Congress
accepted the papers with the understanding
that he controlled access to them until he
finished his memoirs and died. Last week,
the U.S. Supreme Court sanctioned this
maneuver, ruling that citizens have no right
to get at government records once a public
official spirits them away.
The Court's 5-2 decision turned on
whether the State Department improperly
withheld copies of Kissinger's transcripts
from groups of journalists and scholars who
sought them under the 1966 Freedom of
Information Act. The FOIA, designed to
give Americans access to government files,
presumes that except for very sensitive
matters, citizens are entitled to the docu-
ments they ask for. In effect, the Justices
ruled that Kissinger had taken the papers
outside the State Department's-and
therefore the FOIA's-jurisdiction. "The
agency has neither the custody nor control
to enable it to withhold," Justice William
Rehnquist wrote for the Court.
Advisers: Then Rehnquist went further.
Only the government has the right to seek
to retrieve the papers from the Library of
Congress, he declared. A private citizen
may not use the information law to force a
Federal agency to bring such a suit. This
ruling overturned two lower courts that
had ordered the records returned to the
State Department. Besides the State De-
partment records, some of the plaintiffs
also sought Kissinger's transcripts from his
four-and-one-half-year tenure as Richard
Nixon's national-security adviser. At each
level, the judges flatly rejected that request
because the FOIA does not apply to close
Presidential advisers.
The two dissenters, Justices William
Brennan Jr. and John Paul Stevens, argued
that the Court's decision will badly erode
the FOIA. Both contended that the FOIA
should apply to documents which have
been removed from an agency's custody
or control. The Kissinger ruling, Stevens
wrote, "creates an incentive for outgoing
agency officials to remove potentially em-
.Ae,(rcfns
, cr,
. -~tanl=a6e u/ l~~oet.':.rj. ce:.t.:?LO re...,.-
~
~
t
l
.1
j
r..
f t~ trrn
+crap.
ffl -t .. M~ QKe}ZA .1r.1 Mf.. ~???R/M? te,.e
=^+r..-~. 4'~rr.. (Cet.rr re.~ err.ts,
~~?~=7 t scete
barrassing documents from their files in
order to frustrate future FOIA requests."
He added that agencies that had a right to
documents but failed to go after them could
be presumed to be illicitly "shield[ing] them
from scrutiny." Justices Harry Blackmun
and Thurgood Marshall did not vote in the
decision.
Classified Information The Kissinger
material is clearly sensitive. He argued that
the transcripts were personal papers, and
that he left behind summaries of any official.
business discussed in phone conversations.
In short, the State Department's records
are complete. Not so, said a government
archivist who reviewed a sample of the files.
His conclusion: "The majority were State
Department records and their substance
was hardly reflected in the extracts." More-
over, when Kissinger left, he signed an
agreement that he was not taking any classi-
fied information or other materials relating
to the department's business.
The Supreme Court decision will only
encourage other efforts to diminish the
FOIA. While lower courts for the most part
have interpreted the act broadly, the Su-
preme Court has reversed a number of these
decisions. Just last week, the Justices ruled
7-2 that the Department of Health, Educa-
tion and Welfare did not have to make
public raw data from a medical-research
study that was conducted by a private
group funded by a Federal grant. In that
decision, Rehnquist said that since the data
from a study of oral drug treatment of
diabetes was never given to HEW, it could
not be considered an agency record subject
to release under the information act.
Both the CIA and the FBI are seeking
Congressional authorization to withhold
more information. At present, the law di-
rects agencies to release records except in
matters involving national security, active
criminal investigations, trade secrets or
invasions of privacy, among others. The
CIA would like a broader provision to
cover its operational files. The FBI wants a
total exemption for any material relating to
counter-intelligence, terrorism or organ-
ized crime. "These people wouldn't be
screaming so much if the act wasn't work-
ing," says David Vladeck of the Freedom of
Information Clearinghouse, a Washington
watchdog group.
Detente. Last week's decisions offer fur-
ther insight into the Supreme Court's view
of official secrecy. Recent decisions suggest
that the Justices will side with the govern-
ment's position as often as possible. In prac-
tice, this means the Courtwill even makelaw
when necessary, although the Justices will
act as strict constructionists when it suits
their purposes. With the Burger Court and
theCarterAdministrationnow seemingly in
tandem on these matters, only Congress can
move to protect the shrinking interests of the
public in this new era of detente between
branches of government that theoretically
are supposed to check each other.
ARIC PRESS with DIANE CAMPER in Washington
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
ARTICLE APPEARED
0:,1 PAGE: 3 7r
9 March 1980
By Aaron Epstein
Ei1~'S WOT
WCLSH1NGTON - Once again, sel
crecy is on the rise in Washington. -
The 13-year-old Freedom of Inforr
mation Act, intended to open the;
processes of government to ,public
examination. is under multiple asll
saults in Congress.
Several agencies, particularly they
justice. Department and the CIA. i,
routinely delay requests for informa-;
tion made under that law for months,
often years.
Now, in the last few weeks, the U.S.
Supreme Court has put its stamp of
approval on three ways that the gov-
ernment can place vital information
beyond the reach of journalists, his
torians, scientists, public-interest
groups and the rest of the people.
As a result of the court's actions,
the government can lawfully:
? Deter disclosure by requiring an
employe in a national security job to ,
sign a contract binding him to secre-
cy for life. If he later writes an unau-
thorized book about his job, he can i,
be forced to surrender all profits -;
even if the book disclosed no classi-
fied information whatsoever (Snepp
V. U.S-).
? Transfer sensitive documents to
the Library of Congress or some
other place not covered. by the Free.
'dom of Information Act (Kissinger v-!
Reporters. Committee for Freedom of I
the Press).
? Keep the information in the
hands of a private organization
under contract with the government.
It can remain secret, even though the
private group is paid millions in tax
dollars and compiles data. that. criti-
cally influence significant public
policy (Forsham v. Harris)
"The Supreme Court has consis.
tently screwed. up the Freedom of
Information Act, said American
Civil Liberties Union lawyer Mark H:
Lynch. an expert on the act "There
have been, around 10 Supreme Court
decisions on the act and virtually all'
of them... are attempts to shrink the.
act ..'
Fortunately; Lynch said; the conri
rulings deal with statutes and not thel
Constitution. so "Congress can ? al-
ways straighten things out if it wants
In the first of the court's 1980 rul-
ings on secrecy, former CIA agent
ordered to
d
was
Frank W. Snepp 3
forfeit all profits - $125,000 so far -`
on his book, "Decent Interval," .which criticized CIA activities ini
South Vietnam- but. contained no i
confidential data.
Still, the court said, Snapp bad vio-
fated an employment contract in
which he promised that he would
write nothing about the CIA "with-'
out specific prior approval of thei
agency." That, said the court, was a ;
breach of trust for which he must
pay the "swift and sure" penalty of
giving up all "the benefits of his
faithlessness."
The court did not weigh the public
benefits of the revelations in Snepp's ;
book, which was published in 1977.
Nor did it. consider the fact that
Snepp's employment contract men-
tjotied no penalty for breach, much
Jess a penalty so severe. - -
Now, however, a drastic penalty
has been sanctioned by the nation's
highest court and will become, as
Justice John -Paul Stevens wrote in
dissent, "a species. of prior restraint
on a citizen's right to criticize his!
government." - I
Already, the CIA has filed suit for
all the profits from the work of a
second former agent,. John R. Stock-
well His book. "In Search of Enemies
- A CIA Story," accused the agency!,
of mounting covert military opera-i
tions in Angola and then lying to the
public to keep them secret. I
Now that public support for the CIA.
and the FBI is apparentlyreviving.1
both-agencies are urging Congress toy
give them broader exemptions from4
requests for documents under the?
Freedom of. Information Act - i
;,.The Kissinger ruling, deliveredi
last week, presented a different se-1
Crecy problem.
'
? While Kissinger he- was, the top
-foreign-affairs policy-maker from
January 1969 to January 1977, his
secretaries kept records of his tele-
phone conversations From tape.sandl
stenographic notes, detailed summa-
ries and some verbatim transcripts
of -Kissinger's conversations were
prepared. Taken together, these
documents unquestionably contain
information vital to an understand-
ing of the foreign-policy decisions of
the Nixon and Ford presidencies.
While still secretary of state, Kis- !
singer moved the documents from I
the State Department to the New
York estate of the late Nelson Rocke.
feller, then gave them to the Library
of Congress under a deed that bars
public access for at least 25 years. ' {
The notes were sought by report-
ers, historians and political scien-,
fists. The Supreme Court denied,
them access because the documents,
were no longer in the possession of
the State Department. which is sub-
ject to the Freedom of Information
Act. but in the hands of the Library
of Congress, which is exempt.
The court sidestepped the question
of whether the telephone notes be-'
longed to Kissinger or to the govern-
ment. It simply decided that there
was nothing improper about the ;
State Department having given up;
possession of the documents before!
the request for them was filed.
"If FOIA (Freedom of Information I
Act) is to be more than a dead letter,"
Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote
in dissent, "it must necessarily incor-
porate some restraint upon the agen-
cy's powers. to move documents be- i
yond the reach of the FOIA request-
"
er.
He-urged Congress to require exec-.
utive agencies to ? keep important
records likely to be in demand by the
public.
The Snepp and Kissinger decisions
were publicized widely. But Lynch
and other authorities on government
secrecy believe that the third ruling i
may have the broadest impact of all.
That case focused on the relation-I
ship between the federal govern-,
ment and private enterprise paid by `
tax dollars to do research, write l
government pamphlets and give.
advice on an astonishing array of
public policy issues. Should information ? collected by
j; illy Ut;ll
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
private enterprise in the service ofi
the government be hidden from us? 1
That critical question arose whet',
medical scientists sought the raw
data collected by the private Univer-
sity Group . Diabetes ' gam
(UGDP) under federal Mats total'
ing?StS million.
over an eight-year period, the
UGDP tested 1,000diabetics
eat geWith fivC
treatment programs
millions of documents. The UGDP
then suggested that two drugs used
in diabetes treatment, tolbutamide
and phenformin hydrochloride, in-
creased the risk of heart disease- As a
result, federal officials sought to get
warning labels an the drugs, and
suspended the use of pbenformin.
The validity of the study was chal-
lenged by scientists and a bitter dis-
pute erupted. But a Freedom of Infor-
mation Act request for the data was
spurned by the Supreme Court.
Narrowly interpreting the act. Jus-
tice William Rehnquist concluded
that the raw data were not "agency
records," sub*t to public access -
r although they were. collected with
public.money under public,contract I
and produced important public
health decisions.
Rehnquist's analysis centered on
the technical question of who owns
the documents. But to Brennan, writ'
tag in dissent. the appropriate ques-
tion was a broad one. What is the
value of the document to the people?
"Government by secrecy is no less
destructive of democracy if it is car-
ried on within agencies or within iI
private organizations serving agen-
cies," Brennan wrote.
Advocates of government secrecy
can only be 'encouraged by these
recent court decisions to expand the
exemptions in the Freedom of Infor-
mation Act. The CIA and the FBI are
not alone in this effort. Corporations,
for instance, are supporting legisla-
tion to require the Federal Trade
Commission to keep secret such cur-
rently available information as safe-
ty tests on-consumer products, cvrpo-
rate pricing policies, executive Pay
and benefits, and profit and, loss
statements.
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
MINNESOTA DAILY
28 February 1980
Snepps
non-secrets
In cases involving a conflict between the gpvernment
.:i
and an individual, the Burger court usually sides with
the government. The most recent casualty of this prac-
Lice is former CIA employee FrankSnepp. But all gov-
ernment employees who might ever want to publish a
book or speak to a reporter may suffer from the fallout
of the court's execrable ruling on Snepp's case.
Snepp, you may recall, published a book called
"Decent-Interval," criticizing the conduct of the Amer-
ican intelligence community duringthe fall of Saigon.
When he joined the agency Snepp was required to sign
a promise that he would.not publish anything about th
-CIA without first submitting the manuscript for review.
Fearing the agency might delay publication or suppres
his book, Snepp chose not to turn it over for approval.
The CIA responded by suing Snepp for breach of con-
tract. The government did not claim that Snepp had
used any classified information. In fact, he had taken
great care not to disclose classified information. But
Snepp did not fare well in court. A district court held
that he had broken a legal contract and ordered him to
pay the government all the earnings from his book. An
appeals court agreed, but held that to collect damages
the government would have to prove to a jury that
Snepp had intentionally deceived government officials
into thinking that he would abide by his'promise.
Last week, theSupreme Court notified.Snepp that,it
would not hear the case. Incredibly, the court-with-
out hearing oral arguments-went on to say that Snepp
had violated a "fiduciary obligation'." In other words. -
though Snepp had not used classified informationthe
court concluded that Snepp's access to sensitive, and
-confidential materials put him in:a position of trust and
he violated that trust. The court held that Snepp,must
turn over the $125,000 in royalties his, book earned.. Re-
quiring the government to-return to court to prove to a
jury that,Snepp had violated a contract; the court
argued, would not provide-a "reliable'deterrent" to fur
This action was without precedent in Supreme Court
history, in the views of dissenting justices John Paul
Stevens, Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan.
Even if Snepp had submitted his work, Stevens' opinion;
pointed out, the government's authority to censor the j
book would have been limited to classified material.
And since Snepp did not include classified material,
the book would have been published unaltered
anyway.
The court majority acted in clearviolation of their own 1
procedures by penalizing Snepp for violating a law that
doesn't exist. Snepp may be guilty of violating some
kind of contract with his employer, but he did not vio-
late a "fiduciary obligation" such as he might have
done had he released classified information. In fact;
Congress still has not passed a law penalizing the dis-
closure of classified information. The situation remains
unchanged from six years ago when former CIA direc-
tor William Colby testified that there was "no statutory
authority" to go to court against some former agents
turned authors.
I el CI It: T. UUIL haw Ill w Iuu151'a$ W. vv , a ,.a. f..-----fir... --
separation of powers, furthering its efforts to protect
government institutions at the expense of the press, sus
pects, defendants and other individuals. Some observ-
ers have warned that the court's decision opens the
way for a major increase in government secrecy. The
decision may affect thousands of government employ-;,
ees who routinely sign secrecy oaths as a condition of
employment.
It was only a decade ago that the Supreme Court, over
the objections of the Nixon administration, decided to
permit the publication of the Pentagon Papers, citing
First Amendment rights and the fact that Congress had
not acted to formulate a remedy. Last week, the court
denied Frank Snepp the right to argue his case on a sen-
sitive issue involving an agency that has trespassed in-
dividual rights for decades, and then voted to penalize
him..
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
THE LONDON GUARDIAN
22 February 1980
looks at c is on unauthorise b~oks
From Alex Brummer
in Washington
The Central '.Intelligence
A;lancy is looking at the possi-
bility of further court action
against people' who- write un-
authorised books about its acti-
vity..
The , move :.follows I the
Supreme Court's' ruling this
week that the 'US Government
can severely restrict the re-
lease of information with x
bearing.on national security by
employees, or former.
employees.
The court had rdered that. a
former CIA agent. Frank the possibility of further
Snepp, should pay to the Gov- actions against authors cf
ernment the 5150.000 in royal- books about the CIA.
n
f
hi
b
k
i
h
d
rom
s
oo
o
e ma
t
es
e
The. Supreme Court's deci-
the CIA,. Decent Interval. The
court contended that Snepp sion has been criticised in the
e of e its
had broken his 'contract' of sera press sweeping here a because ecauswhi which f the
recy with the CIA when he e
uld mean that
t
em
w
r
x
e
o
wrote the book. even though books, such as Dr Kissinger's
much its material was un? memoirs, The White - House
classified. Years, might in future have to
The Justice Department has be scrutinised by Government
already moved to take similar censors before being released.
action against a former CIA
agent. Philip Agee. who has The Washington Post said in
written two controversial works ? its leading article that " by
about the CIA's operations. The failing. to discuss seriously the
Government is now looking at First Amendment implications
of such a review process, the
court opened the possibility
that review by contract can be
imposed in almost any area of I
government.' The First
Amendment guarantees the,
freedom of the press and the
freedom of :expression.
There was some relief in
newspaper circles yesterday,
however, that Senator Daniel!
Moynihan had decided to with-
draw from his bill, governing
the intelligence agencies, the
section that would have made
it a criminal act for the press
to disclose the names of intelli-
gence agents.
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
NEWSDAY (GARDEN CITY, N. Y.)
22 February 1980
'the 4) n strain
Censors an the J 90
The Constitution says Congress "shall
make no law abridging the freedom of
speech." But the Supreme Court has just'
decided that you can still sign away your)
own First Amendment rights. ~
Employees of the Central Intelligence
Agency, for example, have routinely been
required to sign an agreement not to pub--
lish "any information" about the agency!
without getting its approval first.
But when former CIA employee Frank;
Snepp wrote a book called "Decent Inter-i
oval," which was critical of the agency's'
performance- in Vietnam, he refused toj
submit it for censorship. Now the Su-
preme Court has accepted the CIA's con-i
tention that Snepp made an enforceable,
contract and has ordered him to forfeit his
royalties to the government.
The issue here is not simply the pro-
tection. of official secrets. The government
prosecutors have never contended that
Snepp's book contained any. The question
is whether it's necessary for the CIA to impose an extraordinary restriction on al, Amendment right when adequate
penalties already exist for those found
guilty of revealing classified material.
Three justices who- dissented from the
majority opinion -found the penalties'
against, Snepp "highly inappropriate and
perhaps even beyond this court's jurisdic-
tion." Perhaps -when. Congress finally
passes a CIA charter,. it can find away to
restrain- the - censors in the executive
branch even if the judicial branch will not.
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
AFGHANISTAN
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
Oil
orted
eld 1*11 Kah-L-11'
Friends, business ssociates sav rug merchant'
was arrested Feb. 23!!
By Ben Barber
Special to The Globe
A carpet merchant from Cambridge who reportedly
vanished recently in Kabul, Afghanistan, is being held
by Russian or Afghan autl}prities, according to friends
and business associates. ,
Rug dealer Charles Brockunier was arrested Feb. 23,
according to acquaintances of his who were interviewed
in Cambridge yesterday. State Department officials have,
begun secretive efforts to secure his release, sources said.
A business associate of Brockunier's said he had re-
cently spoken by telephone with friends in Afghanistan
who confirmed to him "positively" that Brockunier had
been arrested, though it was not known in which jail he
was being held.
Brockunier, a 41-year-old Harvard graduate and for-
mer history teacher, was drawn to the turbulent Asian
country by his concern for Afghan friends and a desire to
purchase carpets for his Cambridge shop before national-
ization might cut off access to rug markets, they said.
Brockunier is part owner of the Turkoman Balouch Rugs
shop on Arrow street
Brockunier's mother, Barbara Brockunier of Cam-
bridge, has been contacted by the State Department, but
she said yesterday she had been asked not to comment on
what efforts were being made to free her son.
The, tall, red-bearded Brockunier left Cambridge in
late January, telling a friend that he intended to travel
by bus among the people, as had been his custom since he
first visited Afghanistan in 1972. He had traveled there
,every two or three months. for the past three years to
supply his shop with carpets. The last trip previous to
this one was made in November, before the Soviet inva-
sion but during the troubled pro-Moscow regime of Hafi-
zullah Amin, who was killed when the Soviets invaded in
late December.
One person associated with' the rug shop, who asked
not to be identified, said Brockunier intended to buy up
to $20,000 worth of the colorful brown. and red hand-
knotted carpets to replace stock sold during Christmas.
Don Meier, an employee at the shop and a personal
friend of Brockunier, said he had received reports from
sources in London that the merchant.was seized at his
hotel following participation in a street demonstration
THE BOSTON GLOBE
12 March 1980
"which he may have been forced to join."
Brockunier had been staying at Kabul's Khorason Ho-
tel for nearly a month, unable to leave the capital be- i
cause of travel restrictions and political and military un-
rest.
"Even Mike Malinowsky, who was serving as a con-
sular-officer in Kabul, warned Charles not to go, saying
he didn't want any additional Americans over in Kabul
to worry about and be responsible for," said his partner.
Brockunier was described as a history teacher who
fell in love with the living history of feudal Afghanistan.
"He liked the kind of life over there - the bargaining
over cups of tea. Over here he was a lonely person."
"I think his sense of adventure just got him in trou-
ble," said a friend of Brockunier's. "He isn't political -
he just wanted to see what was going on."
"He's been very lucky," Pergola said, visiting Af-
ghanistan every two months or so for the last year and a
half.
State Department spokesman Ron Lorton said yester-
day that Brockunier had been reported to American offi-
cials only as missing in Kabul.
"We have yet to get any information from Afghan a'u-
thorities about him," said Lorton. "I'm not going to'get.
into a discussion of this case with someone from the
press at this stage." Lorton deelined to say who had re-
ported Brockunier missing. . -
Last month, during general strikes in Kabul in which
many persons were arrested and killed, the Afghan gov-
ernment announced that among those incarcerated we're'
several Pakistanis and an American identified as Robert .,
Lee. The Afghans accused Lee of being a CIA agent and
warned that he could be tried on espionage charges.
United Press International yesterday ouoted an
'American businessman arriving in New. Delhi from Ka-
bul as.saying he had witnessed the arrest of an American
and several Pakistanis. The businessman idetified the
American as a rug__ealer from Boston_and_said._he_wicas
arrested for taking photo a hs_
This raised the possibility that Brockunier, upon his
arrest, had offered up the name of Robert L as,
but the State Department denied this.
"Brockunier is' not Robert Lee to my knowledge."
Lorton said. "I have heard this theory before, but we do
not believe they are the same person."
_ ? ,
Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
 Approved For Release 2009/06/05: CIA-RDP05T00644R000501360003-7
THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
12 March 1980
an r s report trappin
-.g 11
Soviet tank c blumn; -100 iel
Islamabad, Pakistan (UPI}-An Af-
ghan rebel spokesman said yesterday
that insurgents trapped a Soviet ar-
mored column in- the eastern Afghan
province..of:._Paktia and killed more
than 100 Russiam soldiers in . a_ two-
day battle,,
The Islamic,! rebels` also'i:eported an
attack on Soviet and Afghan government
forces in and around the strategic city of
Jaialabad on the main highway between
the capital of Kabul, 89 miles to the east,
and the-Khyber Pass frontier with Pakir
star.'
By attacking the Soviet and Afghan.j
forces in and-around the town, the rebels
cut between Soviet-troops deployed in
offensives in the provinces of Kunar to
the north and Paktia to the south..
There.was no independent verification,
of rebel claims, but United States intelli-
gence sources did confirm that heavy
fighting was continuing in the region.
Soviets extend of enslve-c.,