BASIC RIGHTS VS. CIA IMMUNITY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00001R000400190056-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: November 17, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 28, 2000
• Sequence Number: 56
• Publication Date: May 2, 1966
• Content Type: NSPR

Approved For Release W081143~ GKOPROP11r5-00001 R000400190056-3
May 2, 1966
vc
Wrong, then it is the vic-
t By RICHARD WILSON ployer, the CIA, and there- 'lie scope of his public em- tints of their words who
I Chict lot the Tribune's fore he cannot be called rpiovment. are without protection and {
il'nshiuf/fnn Bureau into court to answer for This seems so patently must suffer unjustly.
Washington., his acts. .absurd that it -liocks the
sensibilities,.o hear it put When secrecy and im-
IN A BIZARRE legal ac- A NUMBER of CIA peo- forward in this context as munity are combined, as in
'Lion in Baltimore one Es- pie have come in from the sound legal pi'inciplie b a malicious instrument has
mother ,`or slandering him court in Baltimore. Five wludt' has a federal oil e
by calling government ! in Baltimore stuml d, been created for the
him a Soviet h lawyers are , 'destruction of a man's en-
secret agent. handling the CIA agent in The Estonian who made tire career by careless or
'The d f his court a enr n 11 the charge would be hard
a ce
e
? ? Linn if they speak Withoui\ 91
ohAs `Q t ~~~~ ~a~.?~ i 711aIIC!'. But if the\~ speak
? aAl
with melice and arc nr
d
remedy.
gence intervals
Agency certifies , is that to instruct him n and perhaps with, the sup and he has no remedy
the defendant emigre was his answers to questions port of the CIA. Exactly We have moved into new
a CIA agent acting under so that he will not unwit- how it is to be proved in conditions since Bar V.
CIA orders and therefore tingly reveal how the CIA court, even by the CIA, Mateo and since the late
spy apparatus works. ? that a person who denies Judge Learned Hand came
totally immune from ]e ai the charge down in favor of
responsibility for what he Only the great fictional so vehemently giving the
said publicly about his fel- ? secret agent 007, James ? is or was in the employ of benefit of the doubt and
jow emigre. Bond, would know what is the Russian KGB is a little I good faith to public offi-
The Government t~ tatr_ really going on. The CIA hard to visualize. vials, lest harassing legal
rose, to which pp
s, flu - I venomous public officials,
}im off the stand at put to prove it without,
the Central Intelli
? ing this matter very Seri-
ously, both from the point.
of view of shielding the
black arts of the CIA and
in establishing the privi-
+lcge of government officials
in the performance of their
duties.
It does not seem to mat-
ter, in this legal action,
whether or not the CIA's
emigre lied pr told the
truth in labelling, his fel= 'in the line of duty. f audacious. He gave the FBI
:
low Estonian as a Soviet A government. official,) a perfect opportunity to ar-
a ge n t . The 'government by this standard, has the , rest him by Appearing in
'contends that he was or .same immunity as a mem- court in Baltimore last
de,red to do so'by his. em-' ber of Congress in what he week.
says during official ses- THE PRINCIPLE 0f,,ini-
sions of Congress. Presum- munity for official acts and
ably, anyone who publishes statements may be justi- .
what' the official says , fied in many cases. A 5-4'
would have the same im- ' Supreme Court decision in
munity. the Barr V. Mateo case,
A BUREAUCRAT can also a slander action, estab-
therefore call an honest lished the immunity of
citizen, a thief and get away public statements mae by
with it. The citizen has no government officials'. and
recourse 'if the bureaucrat employes.
' .was acting on official in. Government officials act.'
st.ructions, or' even within ing in good faith are en-
the ? "outer, perimeters" of ( titled to qualified protcc-
0
may be beyond comprehen- what ooviously bothers
sion, but the legal principle the CIA is not that one of
on which it relies is not. its agents might have to
This is a highly perni- pay a heavy judgment for
cious principle as it is being slander. But if it could
applied and is appalling in prove the Estonian was a
its ultimate implications.
Any truth or lie uttered by
.a public official against
any citizen, under this
principle, is privileged if
the truth or lie was uttered
KGB agent, it would have
to reveal how it found out.
If the accused Estonian
is, in fact, aif "agent of
KGB, as averred by CIA,-
pen ineir aruor
in discharge of duties.
Judge Roszel C. Thon7-
sen, who is sitting in this '
case, is not to-be envied.
He has rightly shown re-
spect for the CIA's impera-
tive for secrecy. I-tow the
CIA can maintain its
secrecy without immunity
is the problem.
But entirely aside from
the two Estonians, a
larger American imperative
is also involved - that of
protecting the citizen from
malicious, acts by govern-
ment, , :~o^?,,.
Approved For Release 2000/08/26 : CIA-RDP75-00001 R000400190056-3