EXCERPTS FROM IMPEACHMENT STUDY BY HOUSE AIDES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 34
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 28, 2001
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: February 22, 1974
• Content Type: NSPR

--A oved-F 0&/08_ -ETA-ROP7.7-U043 OD01-60 X0003-9
CONFIDENTIAL
INTERNAL USE ONLY
This publication contains clippings from the
domestic and foreign press for YOUR
BACKGROUND INFORMATION. Further use
of selected items would rarely be advisable.
ij )1F13 `'J:, ? 1i U, APPAIRS
EUROPE
,D'ES B i EUROPE
EAST
Al-RI(i[
Fp, ~ T
',tJESTERN FIEMISI-IPEPE
Destroy after backgrounder
has served its purpose or
within 60 days.
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
 Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP7,7-00432R000100320003-9,
NEW YORK TIMES
4,2 February 1974
Excerpts From Impeachment Study ,by House Aides
im would never be adopted From the comments of the able conduct need not be'
here that the chief magis- framers and their contempo-' criminal. Of the 13 impeach+I
trate could do no wrong.". raries, the remarks of the ments voted by the House,
Impeachment was to be delegates to the state ratify- since .1789, at least .10 in-r
one of the central elements ing conventions, and the re- volved one or more allega-
of executive responsibility in- moval power debate In the 'tions that did not charge a
the framework of the new First Congress, it is apparent violation of criminal law.
government as they con- that the scope of lmpeach~ Impeachment and the criirt-
ceived it. ment was not viewed nar-, Ina) law serve fundamentally'
It was intended to' different purposes. Impeach-
The constitutional grounds rawl
;
y.
Introduction for impeachment of the Pres- privide a check on the Presi-k ment is the first step in.
remedial process - removala
,dent received. little direct dent throu
h impeachment
,
g
This memorandum offers, attention in the convention, but not to make him depend- from office and possible dis_
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21---1,
The following are excerpts
.of a memorandum prepared
for the House Judiciary Com-
mittee by the, impeachment
'inquiry staff lawyers on con-
,duct for which a president
;might be impeached:
termining whether grounds, and misdemeanors" was ulti- the Congress.
for Impeachment exist. The mately added to "treason"
framers did not write a fixed and "bribery" with virtually The American
'standard. Instead, they: no debate. There is evidence, Impeachment Cases
:adopted from English history however, that the framers Thirteen officers have been,
a standard sufficiently gen .were aware of the technical Impeached by the House
Feral and flexible to meet' meaning the phrase had ac- since 1787: one President;
future circumstances andi quired in English Impeach- one `Cabinet officer, one
events, the nature and char ments. United States Senator, and
acter of which they could: The convention had earlier 10 Federal Judges.
not foresee. demonstrated its familiarity Each of the 13 Ameri-'
with the term "high misde- can impeachments Involved'
The Historical Origins meanor." A draft constitution charges of misconduct in-,
of the had used `high misdemean-
compatible with the official.
Impeachment Process. or" in its proision fvor the
position of the officeholder.'
The Constitution provides extradition of offenders from This conduct falls into three
that the President "shall be one state to another. The broad categories: (1) Exceed
removed from office on , im- convention, apparently unan- big the constitutional bounds
imously, struck high misde- of the powers of the office
.peachment for, and convic- meanor" and inserted "other 'tion of, treason, bribery, or crime"..."in order to com- in derogation of the powers'
'other high crimes and mis- prebend all proper cases: it of another branch of govern-
demeanors." The framers ment; (2) behaving in a man
could have written 'simply being doubtful whether 'high ner grossly incompatible with,
'cor other crimes" - misdemeanor had not a tech- 'the proper function and pur-
`they did crimes"
the pr as nical meaning too limited." M pose of the office; and (3) em-
Indeed for extradition of The "technical meaning ploying the power of the
Yisiorv referred to is the narliamen- u. for an m ro er ur-'
rc
r
Ituture office. The purpose of
impeachment is not personal,
punishment; its function. is
primarily to maintain consti-.
tutional government.
`. ? Furthermore, the Constitu '
tion itself provides that im-
peachment is no substitutes
for the ordinary process of
criminal law since it specifies
that impeachment does note
immunize the officer , from,
criminal liability for his
wrongdoing.
To confine impeachable l
conduct to indictable of-,
fenses may well be to set A
standard so restrictive as not
to reach conduct that mightadversely affect the system'.
of government. Some of the
most grievous offenses
against out constitutional
form of government may not'
entail\violations of the crim
inal law.
e
P
criminal offenders from one, to the term high
'state to another, ry use of 1;h pose or for personal gain; Conclusion
misdemeanor. Blackstone 's Past impeachments are not Impeachment is a constitu
they They'did
meant tsi do that. t dif I. "Commentaries on the Laws ' precedents to be read with, tional remedy addressed to
'of England"-awork cited by an eye for an article of *in- serious offenses against the;
note seriousness, they could delegates in other portions of peachment identical to alle- system of 'government. The,
have done so directly: They the convention's deliberations gations that may. be current-'
t
did not do that either. They and which Madison later de- ly under consideration. The purpose urpo the se of f impeachment isin di-
'phrase instead a unique scribed (in the Virginia rati- American impeachment cases cated b the limited scope of,
phrase used for centuries in fying convention) as "a book, demonstrate a common theme by
English parliamentary im-' which is In every man's ? useful in determining whether the remedy (removal from of-
peachments, for the meaning hand"-included "high mis- grounds for impeachment ex= fice o from and pofutulere office) ifae and
and
of which one must look to demeanors" as one term for, :grounds
- that the grounds are by the atend
history. I positive offenses "against the derived from understanding, by the stated grounds for,
Two points emerge from king and government" the nature, functions and impeachment (treason, brib-s
'tote 400 years of. En- The "first and principal" duties of the office. cry and other fight crimes
glish parliamentary, experi- high misdemeanor, according and misdemeanors).
ence with the phrase "high to Blackstone, was "mal-ad- ? The Criminality Issue it is not controlling whether:
'crimes and misdemeanora." ministration of such high of. The phrase "high crimes', treason and bribery are crim-,
First, the particular allega-? 'facers; as are in public trust and misdemeanor? may con-, inal. More important, they
dons of misconduct alleged add employment," ... "usual are constitutional wrongs'
note "criminality" to some. that subvert the structure of
damage to the state in such ly punished by the method of i This likely is the predicate
,forms as misapplication of. parliamentary impeachment." for some of the contentions' government, or undermine the,
'funds, abuse of official pow-' that only an Indictable crime integrity of office and even
er, neglect of duty, encroach- Ground for Impeachment can constitute impeachable the Constitution itself, and
ment on Parliament's prerog- An extensive discussion of. 'conduct. Other advocates of thus are "high offenses in the:
.atives, corruption, and be- ' the scope of the impeachment" an. indictable-offense require- sense that word was used In,
trayal of trust. power occurred in the House ment would establish a crim- English impeachments.
Second, the phrase "high of Representatives in the first inal standard of impeachable The content of the phrase'
crimes and misdemeanors" session of the First Congress, ? 'conduct because that stand- "high crimes and misdemean-
was confined to parliamen-.+ The House was debating the, ' 'ard is definite, can be known' ors" for the framers is to be;
,tary impeachments; it had no power of the President to re- In ,gdvance and reflects a' related to what the framers'
roots in the ordinary criminal move the head of an execu-, contemporary legal view of, knew, on the whole, about'
law, and the particular alle- tive department appointed by what conduct should be pun., the English practice-the
gations of misconduct tinder him with the advice and con- ished. broad sweep of English con
that heading were not nieces- -sent of the Senate, an issue' ' A requirement of criminal- stitutional history and the,
?sarily limited to common on which it ultimately adopt-` ity would require resort to, vital role impeachment had,
law or statutory derelictions end? the position, urged, familiar criminal laws and played in the limitation, of
or crimes. primarily by James Madison,-- concepts to serve as stand royal . prerogative and the
F The debates on Impeach that the Constitution vested ards in the impeachment., control of abuses of minis=
!meat at the Constitutional the power exclusively in the process. (Furthermore, this, Aerial and judicial power. ' ~,
,Convention in Philadelphia President. would pose problems con- The framers understood'
th a 1'cabilit of t 1 rl that the consti-
c ea
cernm
r
y
g a pp
y qua e
focus principally on its ap- 'inc discussion in the House,
plicability to the President. lends. support to thr view that standards of proof and the tional system they were,
The framers sought to create the framers intended the im- like pertaining to the trial of creating must Include some,
a responsible though strong peachment power to reach crimes. ultimate check on the con-'
executive; they hoped, in the failure of the President todis- The American experience, duct of the executive, par-
words of ElbridgeA j 'oc d Fdta#Relases2O i1iIXDt O8f; CIA' -r 0 e " 2 2d6bb320 1Ma y as they came to
 Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
reject the suggested plural:'
executive. While insistent;
that balance between the
executive and legislative'
branches be maintained so
that the executive would not.
become the creature of the
legislature, dismissible at Its
will, .the framers also recog-;
sized that some means
would be needed to deal with
excesses by the executive.
While It may be argued
that some articles of im-,
peachment have charged con-
duct that constituted crime
'and thus that criminality is
an essential ingredient,, of
that some have charged con-!
duct that was not criminal'
and thus that criminality is-
not essential, the fact re,
mains that in the English
practice and in several of the,
American impeachments the
criminality issue was not
raised at all. ' ,
The emphasis has been on
the significant effeots of the
conduct-undermining the in-'
tegrity of office, disregard
of constitutional duties and
oath of office., abrogation of.
power, abuse of the govern-
Fmentaf process, adverse im
'Pact on the system of
government. Clearly, these
elE eots can be brought about
in ways not anticipated by'
the criminal law.
Criminal . standards and'
criminal courts were estab-
lished to control individual
conduct. Impeachment was
evolved by Parliament to
,cope with both the inadequa
cyy of criminal standards and
the impotence of courts to
deal with the conduct of
,great public figures. -
It is useful to note three
major Presidential duties of
broad scope that are explicit-
ly recited in the Constitution:'
"to take care that the laws
be faithfully executed," to
"faithfully execute the office
of President of the United
States" and to "'preserve,
protect, and defend the
Constitution of the United
;States" to the best of his
ability.
The first is directly im-
posed by the Constitution;
the second and third are in-
lcluded in the constitutionally
prescribed oath that the.
WE NEW YORK 7'1ME , [!'kIDAY, MARCH 1, 1974
President is required to takb@
before ~a enters upon the
.executioW of his office and'
are, therefore, also express-?
lY imposed by the Constitu,,
tion.
The duty to, take care is'
affirmative. So is the duty
faithfully to execute the of-
'fice. A President must carry
out the obligations of his
office diligently and in good
faith. The elective character
and political role of a Presi-
dent make it difficult tot,
define faithful exercise of his'
'powers in the abstract.
{ A President must make
policy and exercise discre-
tion. This discretion neces-
sarily is broad, especially in
emergency situations, but the
constitutional duties of, a:
'President impose limitations
on its exercise.
The "take care" duty em=
phasizes the responsibility of
a President for the over-alt
conduct of the executive,
branch, which the Constitu-
tion vests In him alone. Ho'
must. take care that the
executive is so organized and
operated that this duty it
performed.
Suthmary.by? the White House
WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 ment to due process that the 'standard for removal would'
special toTne New Yorlo farmers rejected the political' be more feasible than fqr a,
Followings is a summary of impeachments. They included' President elected for a four-;
,an. analysis of the constituj in the impeachment pious- Year term.
sions , the very safeguards The Sept. 8 impeachment
tional standards for impeach that had not been present-in debate, the only one based on
ment prepared 'by attorneys' the English practice. They a clear concept of the actual
for President Nixon 'nd sub-'
The duty of a President to`
'!preserve, protect, and de-
fend the Constitution" to the
best of his ability includes
the duty not to abuse his
.'powers or transgress their
,limits-not to violate the
,fights. of citizens, such' as
those guaranteed by the Bill
of Rights, and not to act In
,derogation of powers vested
elsewhere by, the Constitu.
tion.
Not all Presidential mis-
conduct is sufficient to
constitute grounds for lm-
peachment. There is a fur-
ther requirement-subs tan-,
'tiality. In deciding whether'
this further requirement has'
been met, the facts must be,
considered as a whole in the
context of the office, not in
;terms of separate or isolated,
events.
Because Impeachment of a
President is a grave step for
the nation, It is to be pre-
dicated only upon conduct
seriously incompatible with
either the constitutional form
and principles of our governanent or the proper perform-
ance of -constitutional duties
of the Presidential office.
tional provisions concerning
impeachment, such as Art.'
III, Sec. 2, Cl. 3, which pro-
,, in part, "the trial of all,
crimes, except in cases of im
peachment, shall be by
jury."
The American Impeach- '
ment Precedents
A. careful examination of
the American impeachment'
precedents reveals that the'
United States House of Rep=;
resentatives has supported
different standards for the
impeachment of judges and a;
President since 1804. This is'
consistent with judicial con-
struction of the Constitution
as defined by the United
States Supreme Court, and
the clear language of the
Constitution which recog
nizes a distinction between a
President who may be re-
moved from office by various
'tnethods and a judge who
may be removed only by im-
peachment.
In the case of a judge, the
"good behavior" clause
[Article III, Section 1] and
the removal provision [Ar-
ticle Ii, Section 41 must he
construed together, other-'
wise the "good behavior"
clause is a nullity. Thus,.
consistent with House Prece-
dent, a judge holds office for
a life tenure may be im-.
peached for less than an in-
dictable offense. Even here,
however, senatorial preced-
ents have demonstrated a re-
:luctance to convict a judge
in the absence of criminal
conduct, thus leaving , the
standard for judicial impeach-
ment less than conclusive.
The use of a predetermined
criminal standard for the im-
peachment of a President is
also supported by history,
10 it In^aI I
e
t
g
mitted to members of the
House Judiciary Committee's'
impeachment inquiry staff:
The English impeachment
precedents represent the con-
,fext in which the framers'
drafted the constitutional im-
peachment provision. In ,un-
derstanding this context and
what it implies two things,
should be remembered.
First, the framers rejected.
the English system of gov-,
ernment that existed in 1776;
.namely, absolute parliamen-
tary, supremacy. Instead, they
opted for limited government
,with a_ finely devised system
of separated powers in dif-
ferent branches.
Second, throughout, the his-'
tory of English impeachment
pratice, (beginning in 1376
,and ending in 1805) there
were two distinct types of
impeachment in England. One
type represented a well-estab-
lish criminal process for
reaching great offenses com-
mitted against the govern-
ment by men of high station
-who today would occupy a
high government office. The
other type of impeachments
used this well-established
criminal process in the 17th
and early 18th century for
the ' political purpose of
'achieving the absolute polit-t
e pr
en
and a
cal supremacy of Parliament cones ve Nad1I JUL the construction and statuto
Chief Executive. If, as Ham- rY, sound and sensible public
the executive penalt
Over
rovisi
It
f
.
y p
ons
is
ur polihih dd
..-cy wcemans sta-
'It is clear from the context ilton suggested, the executive titer evidenced by the criml- bility in our form of govern-
behavior .the constitutional commi-, were to serve during good nal context of the language merit. Moreover, the govern-
behavior a very different
narrowly defined the grounds, Presidency, emphatically re-
for impeachement, required; jected "maladministration".
various procedural safe- as a standard for impeach-
guards and eliminated for 'ment. Madison and Morris
nonlegal processes like bills. vigorously noted the defects
of attainder and address that of "maladministration" as an
had worked hand-in-hand impeachment standard.. Mal-
with the English political im-, administration would set a
peachments, vague standard and would
The language of the im-. -put the President's tenure at
?peachment clause is derived the pleasure of the Senate.'
directly from the English im-. Moreover,.it could be limited
peachments. "High crimes and' %y the ,daily check of Con-
misdemeanors" was 'the press, and the adoption of a'
standard phrase used by four-year, term.
those impeachments from Colonel Madison then with-
1376 onward. To the framers drew the term "maladminis-
it had a unitary meaning, tration" and substituted the,
like "bread-and-butter issues" current phrase in response,
has today. It meant such to the criticisms of Madison
criminal conduct as justified Morris. The debates clearly
the removal of an officehold- indicate a purely t criminal
er from office. meaning for "other high
In light of English and crimes and misdemeanors." '
American history and usage The Legal Meaning of the'
from -the time of Blackston
onward, there is no evidence Impeachment Provision
to attribute anything but a' The words "treason, brib-
criminal meaning to the uni- ery, or other high crimes and
tare phrase "other high misdemeanors," construed
crimes and misdemeanors." either in light of present-
The Constitutional day usage or as understood
Convention by the framers in the late
18th century, mean what
The only debate at the Con- they clearly connote --crimi-
stitutibnal Convention that is ' nal offenses. Not only do the
relevant to the impeachment words inherently require a
clause is that which occurred criminal offense, but one of
subsequent to agreement by a very serious nature com
the framers on a concept of mitted in one's governmental'
the Presidency. Before Sept. capacity.
8, 1787, the debates were ? This criminality require-
used in the other Constitu- 2
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
 Approved For Release 2001./08/08: CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
tional proscription against
ex post facto laws, the re
quirement of due process,'
and the separation of powers
inherent in the very structure
of our Constitution preclude
the use of any standard
other than "criminal" for the
removal of a president by,
impeachment.
In the 187-year history of
our nation, only one ? House
of Representatives has ever
impeached a President. A re-
,view of the impeachment
trial of President Andrew
Johnson, in 1868, indicates
that the predicate for such
action was a bitter political
struggle between the execu-
tive and legislative branches
of government.
The first atempt to im-
peach President Johnson
TIME, MARCH 11, 1974
failed because "no specific
crime was aleged to have
been committed." The Sen-
ate's refusal to convict John-
son after his impeachment-
by the house, has, of course,
become legendary.
His acquittal strongly indi-
cates that the Senate has
refused to adopt a broad
view of "other high crimes
and misdemeanors" as a
basis for impeaching a Presi-
dent. This conclusion is fur-
ther substantiated by. the
virtual lack of factual issues
in the proceeding.
The most salient lesson to
be learned from the widely'
criticized Johnson trial is
that impeachment of a Presi-?
dent should be resorted to
only for cases of the gravest'
kind-the commission of a
crime named in the Constitu=
tion or a criminal offense
against the laws of the
United States.
Conclusion
The English . precedents
clearly demonstrate the
criminal nature and origin
of the impeachment process.
The framers adopted the-
general criminal meaning
and language of those im-
peachments, while rejecting
the 17th century aberration
where impeachment was
used as a weapon by Parlia-
ment to gain absolute politi-
cal supremacy at the ex-
pense of the rule of law.
in light of legislative and'
judicial usage, American
case law, and established
rules of -constitutional and
/They) unlawfully, willfully and
knowingly did combine, conspire, confed. .
erate and agree together and with each
other, to commit offenses against the Unit-
ed States ... (They) would corruptly in-
fluence, obstruct and impede ... the due
administration of justice ... and by de-
ceit, craft, trickery and dishonest means,
defraud the United States.
'With those words, a federal grand
jury composed of 23 American citizens
last week presented a grave and most ex-
ceptional charge: a criminal conspiracy,
existed "up to and including" the pres-
ent at the highest levels of Richard Nix-
on's Administration. The accused in-
clude four of the President's most
intimate and influential former official
and political associates. And by clear
implication in the language of the in-'
dictment, the jurors disclosed their be.
lief that the President has lied about at
least one potentially criminal act of his
own in the still-s
readi
d
l
p
ng scan
a
. Cox. The evidence almost cer-
ly Nor was that all. Going beyond the tainly is meant to support any
indictment, which was carefully framed y
with the aid of Special Prosecutor Leon charges made in the report
Jaworski and his staff, the Watergate against Nixon. The briefcase is also ex-
grand jury took on its own initiative a pected to reach the House impeachment
that a investigators if that should be the course
step portends serious consequences Sirica elects.
for the President. In a hushed and tense Sirica has several options in han-
Washington courtroom, Jury Foreman dling the sealed report and the appar-
Vladimir Pregelj delivered a sealed re- ently explosive evidence now in his pos-
p
judge ort to Federal Judge John Sirica. The session. He can order it is tl
quickly scanned apcoveering letter, then dispatched to the House Judiciaprom Com
resealed it. Without a word on when-or mittee-a move seen as most probable.
if-the contents would be made public, He can await a request for it from that
Sirica ordered the envelope locked in a committee or hold a hearing of all in-
courthouse safe. terested parties, including Jaworski and
There was little doubt that the re- the White House, on what to do with it.
port contains the grand jury's critical as- He could simply make it public-or
sessment of Nixon's role in the conspir- have it locked up indefinitely. Whatever
acy to conceal the origins of the his course, it is likely to become known
wiretapping and burglary of Democratic this week.
headquarters in June 1972. The_report The long-awaited, judiciously word-
's`rea- indictment sketched, in devastating
may also spell out the grand jury
sons, presumably on constitutional detail, the cover-up plot that was
grounds, for not now indicting the hatched in the White House and in the
President. Committee for the Re-Election of the
In making that decision, the .
grand jury, perhaps with some
reluctance, was undoubtedly fol-
lowing Jaworski's own instincts. on June I/, IV-12. The indictment at- W~avvf4tvly
fighting to stay out of prison. Last week's
ast
Since there is no precedent for tacks nearly all of the previous Water- seven accused conspirators
indicting a sitting President, Ja- gate defenses put up by the men closest prison. Lwere:
Mt( es 0. Once the Ad-
worski feared that A f l= lad For Rei% /ft tO1IA AM0432ROO M O t of law-and-
3
Nixon might touch off a long
and nationally divisive series of
court battles ending in a Su- .
preme Court decision in favor of
the President. Such a prospect
is particularly unnecessary when
there is an impeachment inquiry
under way in the House, where
the Judiciary Committee is
ready and eager to secure all
evidence either implicating or
exonerating the President of
wrongdoing.
Undoubtedly at the grand
jury's direction, members of Ja-
worski's staff also gave to Sirica
a locked and bulging briefcase.
It is believed to contain tran-
scripts of White House tape re-
cordings, documents and other
evidence that was gathered
painstakingly-and often de-
spite dogged resistance from
fired predecessor, Archibald
President. The cover-up began almost
the moment that five lowly burglars
were arrested in the Watergate complex
statutory construction, the"
term "other high crimes and
misdemeanors" can only,
have a purely ? "criminal
meaning. Finally, in our re-
view of the American im-
peachment precedents, we
have shown that while.
judges may be impeached for
somehting less than indict-
able offenses-even here the
standard is less th4n con-,
elusive-all evidence points
to the fact that a President-
may not.
Thus the evidence is con-,
elusive on all points; a Pres.;
'ident may only be impeached.
for 'indictable crimes. 'That
is the lesson of history, logic,
and experience on the phrase'
"treason, bribery and other
high crimes and mis de-
meanors."
these aides tried to use the FBI and CIA
to conceal the Watergate crime, not to
protect national security. They arranged
for payments of large amounts of cash
to the arrested burglars, not for legit-
imate legal expenses but to keep them
quiet. They extended offers of leniency
and Executive clemency to the arrested
men-inducements only a President has
the power to fulfill. They destroyed
evidence.
Seven of the President's former as-
sociates were indicted, and four of them
were accused of lying a total of eleven
times to grand juries, the Senate Wa-
tergate committee or the FBi. These are
the men on whose testimony the Pres-
ident's own profession of innocence has
heavily relied. Significantly, no perjury
charge was made against John Dean,
Nixon's former counsel and the one self-
confessed member of the conspiracy
who has directly accused the President
of being an active participant in the cov-
er-up scheme. The grand jury has heard
some of the tapes of conversations be-
tween Dean and Nixon-and apparent-
ly is convinced that Dean's version of
those disputed talks is the correct one.
Last week's indictment of the seven
men brought the number of former Nix-
on agents charged or convicted in the
scandal to 25 (see box page 20). Indi-
vidual guilt or innocence is yet to be es-
tablished through trials in many of these
cases. But no equivalent litany of offi-
cial accusation has ever before been di-
rected on such a scale against the as-
sociates of any U.S. President. The
scandals of Ulysses S. Grant and War-
ren G. Harding were far less pervasive.
The Indicted Seven
Because the positions of most of the
men charged last week had been so high
on President Nixon's once powerful in-
ner team, their indictment, though long
expected, was still shocking. That staff,
once widely viewed as aloof and arro-
Igant but sure-footed and efficient, has,
of course, been progressively tarnished
'ever since Watergate broke wide open
nearly a year ago. Now an appalling
 Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
order, the former Attorney General and
head of Nixon's re-election committee
was undoubtedly Nixon's closest polit-
ical confidant. The two men had known
each other intimately ever since Mitch-
ell, a seemingly imperturbable munic-
ipal-bond specialist, and Nixon were
partners in a New York City law 9rm.
In the Administration, Mitchell was an
eager but unsuccessful prosecutor of an-
tiwar extremists (the Chicago Seven, the
Harrisburg Seven, Daniel Ellsberg).
Mitchell's most celebrated comment on
the Nixon Administration was his iron-
ically prophetic "Watch what we do. not
what we say." Now he stands indicted
on charges of conspiracy, obstruction of
justice, and four counts of making false
statements to the FBI, the Senate Wa-
tergate committee or the grand jury.
Last week Mitchell also went on trial
in a New York federal court on six
counts of perjury. He and former Com-
merce Secretary Maurice Stans are ac-
cused of attempting to intervene with
the Securities and Exchange Commis-
sion to help Fugitive Financier Robert
Vesco evade a massive fraud investiga-
tion in return for a secret $200,000 con-
tribution to Nixon's 1972 campaign.
H.R. HALDEMAN, 47. As Nixon's
stern chief of staff, the former Califor-
nia advertising executive once noted on
a memo returned to a White I-louse aide:
"I'll approve of whatever will work and
am concerned with results-not meth-
ods." The most formidable guardian of
Nixon's Oval Office, Haldeman curtly
and coldly ran a staff that protected the
President against unwanted intrusions
and unappreciated advice. Haldeman is
charged with conspiracy, obstruction of
justice, and three counts of perjury in
his public testimony before Senator Sam
Ervin's select Senate committee. .
JOHN 0. EHRLUCHMAN, 48. Formerly
Nixon's chief adviser on domestic af-
fairs, the outgoing and often witty Ehr-
lichman has acidly termed Congress-
men "a bunch of clowns" and argued
that a President has the right to simply
"set aside" anything Congress did that
was "not in the public interest." A Se-
attle attorney who specialized in munic-
ipal and land-use law, he is charged with
,conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and
,three counts of lying to the grand jury
and the FBI.
CHARLES W. COLSON, 42. A tough
and wily political infighter, Colson was
Nixon's special counsel, concentrating
on soliciting labor support and punish-
ing the President's political enemies.
Colson's footprints kept appearing at the
fringes of the Watergate scandal, al-
though he insisted loudly that he would
never be indicted-and for many
months investigators seemed persuaded.
Yet Colson, who once declared that "I
would do anything that Richard Nixon
asks me to do," and now professes to
have "found God" in a religious con-
obstruction of justice.
ROBERT C. MARDIAN, 50. A wealthy
Phoenix lawyer-contractor and a West-
ern coordinator of Barry Goldwater's
1964 presidential campaign, Mardian
was one of the architects of Nixon's
Southern strategy on school integration
while general counsel for. the Depart-
ment of Health, Education and Welfare.
Rigidly conservative, Mardian later
showed much anti-radical fervor but lit-
tle savvy as chief of the Justice Depart-
ment's Internal Security Division. Dis-
appointed when he did not earn a higher
position in the Nixon Administration,
he said with foresight about the Nixon
camp: "When things are going great
they ignore me, but when things get
screwed up, they lean on me." He was in-
dicted for conspiracy.
GORDO19 C. SMACHAN, 30. A for-
mer junior member of the Nixon-Mitch-
ell law firm in New York, Strachan was
Haldeman's chief aide in the White
House. He later became general coun-
sel of the U.S. Information Agency as
part of a White House effort to exert
greater contro?, over the federal bureau-
cracy by transferring White Rouse men
to key department and agency posts. It
was Strachan who startled the Ervin
committee by advising young people
who were considering government work:
"Stay away." He is charged with con-
spiracy, obstruction of justice, and one
count of lying to a grand jury.
ItEMtk91 TI W. PAC MNIS(DM, 46. A
Washington attorney specializing in
personal injury insurance cases, Parkin-
son was untouched by Watergate until
the Nixon committee hired him to de-
fend itself against a civil suit filed by
the Democratic National Committee
because of the wiretapping-burglary.
Once a law clerk in the same Wash-
ington district court in which he is now
indicted, he is charged with conspiracy..
The new Watergate Seven face max-
imum sentences of five years in prison
for each count of conspiracy, obstruction
of justice and making a false statement
to the FBI or a grand jury. if there are
convictions on all counts, the consecu-
tive sentences could total as much as 30
years for Mitchell and 25 each for Hal-
deman and Ehrlichman. Judge Sirica or-
dered that all seven men appear before
him this Saturday to be arraigned and
to plead to the charges. Trials normally
are scheduled to begin within 60 days
after indictment, although delays can be
sought by either defenders or prosecu-
tors. Though defense attorneys may ob-
ject, the prosecution hopes to try the
seven together. Sirica assigned himself
to preside over the case
The most intriguing detail in the in-
dictment was one of the counts against
Haldeman. In his televised testimony
before the Ervin committee last July 30
and 31, Haldeman told of listening to a
tape of a conversation among Nixon,
John Dean and, for a time, himself that
had taken place on March 21, 1973. The
indictment contends that Haldeman
committed perjury when he related his
version of what the tape records. Since
the jurors have heard the tape, the con-
clusion is inescapable that it does not
confirm Haldeman's testimony.
The details of this charge also
strongly support Dean's televised testi-
mony about this conversation-and im-
pugn Nixon's public statements about
the talk. To a surprising degree, Hal-
deman's testimony had verified Dean's
recollection of the conversation, al-
though Dean had thought that parts of
it had occurred earlier, on March 13.
Haldeman agreed that Dean told the
President that E. Howard Hunt, one of
the arrested Watergate burglars, was de-
manding $120,000 in cash. "or else he
would tell about the seamy things he had
done for Ehrlichman," presumably as
one of the White House squad of secret
investigators, "the plumbers." Accord-
ing to Haldeman, Nixon asked how
much money would: iiav to be raised
over the years to meet such demands,
and Dean replied, "probably a million
dollars-but the problem is that it is
hard to raise."
The President replied, according to
Haldeman, "There is no problem in rais-
ing a million dollars, we can do that."
Up to this critical point, Haldeman and
Dean were still in agreement. Then,
Haldeman testified, Nixon added five
crucial words: "But it would be wrong."
Those five words, claims the indictment,
as Haldeman "then and there well knew,
were false." They, of course, change
Nixon's position completely. Instead of
Agreeing to pay Hunt hush money, as
Dean charged, the President was por-
trayed by Haldeman as ruling such a
move out of consideration. Another Hal-
deman claim that the grand jury appar-
er':j did not accept was that through-
jut this exchange Nixon "led Dean on
... obviously trying to smoke out what
was really going on."
If the grand jury is right, Nixon has
repeatedly lied about never having ac-
quiesced in any cash payments by his as-
sociates to any of the original Water-
gate defendants. Nixon issued a long
Watergate paper last May 22, claiming
that "I did not know, until the time of
my own investigation, of any efforts to
provide the Watergate defendants with
funds" and "I took no part in, nor was I
aware of, any efforts that might have
been made to cover up Watergate."
Asked during an Aug. 22 press confer-
ence about Haldeman's version before
the Senate committee of the $1 million
discussion, Nixon replied: "His state-
ment is accurate." Nixon said he had.
in fact, told Dean: "John. it is wrong. It
won't work."
Woven through the grand jury's var-
ious allegations against the newly indict-
ed men was evidence that a large pay-
ment was, in fact, made to Hunt a few
hours after this crucial conversation of
Dean, Haldeman and Nixon. It would
have been foolhardy, indeed, for Nix-
on's aides to carry out such payoffs if
the President had flatly banned them
as wrong. According to the indictment,
after the end of this White House meet-
ing, Haldeman called John Mitchell.
Mitchell minutes later "had a telephone
conversation with Fred C. LaRue la
Mitchell deputy], during which Mitchell
authorized LaRue to make a payment
of $75,000 to and for the benefit of E.
Howard Hunt Jr." LaRue, who has
pleaded guilty to conspiring to obstruct
justice, according to the indictment gave
the $75,000 to Hunt's attorney, William
0. Rittman, that very evening, March
21. Next day, contends the indictment,
Mitchell told Ehrlichman that Hunt
,.was not a problem any longer."
The charges against Haldeman raise
an obvious question: Why would he risk
perjury by testifying publicly that the
tape contained those five words of Nix-
on's if, indeed, it did not? One answer
may tie in the fact that Haldeman was
testifying only a couple of weeks after
the existence of the secret Nixon tap-
ing system had been revealed to the
Irvin committee. Nixon later fought
vainly on two court levels to withhold
his tapes from Archibald Cox, then the
Watergate special prosecutor. He yield-
ed seven of them, including. the one of
the March 21 meeting, only after the
public uproar that followed his firing of
Cox, who was seeking the tapes and oth-
er White House evidence. Al the time
hu was before the Ervin committee, Hal-
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9'
 Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9?
deman may have felt certain that the
tapes would never have to be given to
the prosecutors or the committee.
Throughout, the 50-page indictment
handed up by the grand jury carefully
refrains from citing any acts of the Pres-
ident. It sometimes even fails to note
that a meeting singled out as an overt
conspiratorial act was attended by Nix-
on and was held in his office, although
:his presence there is public knowledge.
'This is presumably part of the strategy
of keeping the grand jury's report on
Nixon thoroughly separate from the
indictments, on the theory that Nix-
on's guilt or innocence ought consti-
tutionally to be only the province of
the House impeachment committee
headed by New Jersey Democratic Con-
gressman Peter Rodino.
The indictment spares no harsh
words in describing the cover-up con-
spiracy involving the seven indicted
Nixon associates "and others known
and unknown." The aim of the conspir-
acy, the indictment claims, was to con-
ceal the identity of the persons respon-
sible for the Watergate wiretapping, as
well as "other illegal and improper ac-
tivities." Toward that end, the seven
tried to prevent officials of the CIA, FBI
and Department of Justice from trans-
acting "their official business honestly
{ and impartially, free from corruption,
fraud, improper and undue influence,
dishonesty, unlawful impairment and
{ obstruction."
No fewer than 45 conspiratorial acts
were cited in concise paragraphs that.
undoubtedly will be buttressed. by ex-
tensive evidence, and sharply assailed
by defense lawyers, in future trials.
Those curt recitations of specific acts for
the first time detailed the chronology of
an increasingly desperate effort to keep
the lid on the scandal. Free of all the tes-
timonial contradictions and denials that
have so confused the complex affair, the
indictment included these overt acts:
June 17, 1972. On the night of the
ill-starred Watergate break-in, John
Mitchell and a group of Nixon campaign
officials were attending political meet-
ings in Beverly Hills. After news of the
burglars' capture reached him, Mitchell
told Mardian to ask G. Gordon Liddy,
the counsel to Nixon's re-election
finance committee and one of the orig-
inators of the political-espionage plan,
to seek the help of Attorney General
Richard Kleindienst in Washington to
get the arrested men out of jail. (Klein-
dienst has testified that Liddy accosted
him at Washington's Burning Tree golf
club and sought such help, but that he
sharply rebuffed the plea.)
June 18. Haldeman's aide Gordon
Strachan destroyed documents on Hal-
deman's orders. (Strachan has admitted
doing so, claiming that the papers in-
eluded reports he had prepared for Hal-
deman about Liddy's intelligence-gath--
ering plan before the men were arrested.
Federal investigators believe that tran-
scripts of the illegally intercepted,
Democratic conversations cadre also
'destroyed.)
June 19. Ehrlichman met with
Dean at the White House and directed
him to relay word via Liddy that E.
Howard Hunt should leave the coun-
try. (Hunt. had been a member of the
Ehrlichman that it was a mistake and
asked Liddy to rescind the order to
blunt.)
June 19. Charles Colson and Ehr-
lichman met with Dean at the White
House, and Ehrlichman directed Dean'
to open Hunt's safe in the Executive Of-
fice Building and take the contents
(which included various. secret docu-
ments and electronic equipment). Dean
has testified that he did so.
June 19. Mardian and Mitchell met
with Jeb Stuart Magruder, deputy to
Mitchell on Nixon's re-election commit-
tee, in Mitchell's Washington apart-
ment. Mitchell suggested that Magruder
destroy his files on the Watergate wire-
tapping plan, code-named Gemstone.
(Mitchell said, according to LaRue, who
has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to ob-
struct justice, "that it might be a good
idea if Mr. Magruder had a fire.")
June 20. Liddy met with LaRue
and Mardian at LaRue's Washington
apartment. Liddy told the other two that
certain "commitments" had been made
to himself and others who had carried
out the Watergate break-in. (Apparently
the commitments were from Hunt to the
others that if anything went wrong with
the operation his White House friends
would assist them and their families.)
June 24. Mitchell and Mardian met
with Dean at Nixon re-election commit
tee headquarters in Washington. Mitch-
ell and Mardian suggested that Dean ask
the CIA to provide secret funds for Hunt,
Liddy and the five burglars who had
been arrested in the break-in.
June 26. Ehrlichman met with
Dean at the White House and approved
a suggestion that Dean ask General Ver-
non A. Walters, deputy director of the
CIA, whether the CIA could use covert
funds to pay salaries and bail for the ar-
rested men. (Both Dean and Walters
have testified that Dean did so.)
July 7. Anthony Ulasewicz, a for-
mer New York City policeman recruit-
ed to help distribute payments secretly
to the break-in defendants, delivered ap-
proximately $25,000 in cash to William
0. Bittman in Washington. Bittman was
Hunt's attorney.
Mid-July. Mitchell and Kenneth
Parkinson met with Dean. at Nixon
committee headquarters. Mitchell asked
Dean'to get FBI reports on the Water-
gate investigation for Parkinson and
others. (Lawyer Parkinson was defend-
ing the Nixon re-election committee
against a Democratic Party civil suit,
and these reports could have been use-
ful for this non-Governmental purpose.)
July 17. Ulasewicz delivered ap-
proximately $40,000 in cash to Howard
Hunt's wife Dorothy at Washington Na-
tional Airport. (She later died in a crash
of a commercial plane, carrying $10,000
in cash at the time.)
July 21. Mardian met with Dean
at the White House and examined FBI
reports of its Watergate investigation.
(Mardian, then a member of the Nixon
committee staff, had no official right to
see such documents.)
July 26. Ehrlichman met with Her-
bert Kalmbach, the President's personal
lawyer, at the White House. He told
Kalmbach to raise funds for the persons
who had committed the break-in and
that the fund raising and the payments
absolutely necessary, John, that you tell
me, first, that John Dean has the au-
thority to direct me in this assignment,
that it isa proper assignment, and that
lam to go forward on it.' He'said,'Herb,
John Dean does have the authority. It
is proper: and you are to go forward.' ")
Aug. 29. Colson had a conversation.
'with Dean in which Dean advised him
not to send a memorandum to the au-
thorities. who were investigating the
break-in (The Colson memo reported
that he had been interviewed by Justice
Department investigators. But, the
memo noted, they had failed to ask him
about a meeting that he had held be-
fore the break-in with Liddy and Hunt.
At that meeting the pair asked Colson
for help in getting approval for their po-
litical intelligence-gathering plans. In-
vestigators believe that by showing the
memo to Dean, Colson made a clever at-
tempt to protect himself and entrap
Dean in the conspiracy. If asked later
why he did not volunteer information
about his meeting with Liddy and Hunt.
Colson would be able to cite Dean's or-.
ders to squelch the memo.)
Nov. 13. Hunt had a telephone con-
versation with Colson in which they dis-
cussed the need to make additional pay-
ments to the defendants.
Mid-November. Colson met with
Dean at the White House and gave Dean
a tape recording of a telephone conver-
sation between Colson and Hunt. (This
call has been described by Hunt as a di-
rect appeal for more financial help.)
Nov. 15. Dean played this Colson-
Hunt recording for Ehrlichman and
Haldeman at Camp David.
Nov. 15. Dean played the same re-
cording for Mitchell in New York City.
Early December. Haldeman had a
phone talk with- Dean in which Halde-
man approved the use of part of a fund
of approximately $350,000, then under
Haldeman's control, for the defendants,
Early December. Strachan met
with LaRue at LaRue's apartment in
Washington and delivered approxi-
mately $50,000 in cash to him.
Early December. LaRue arranged
for the delivery of about $40,000 in cash
to Bittman, Hunt's attorney.
Jan. 3, 1973. Colson met with Ehr-
lichman and Dean at the White House
and discussed the need to assure Hunt
how long he would have to spend in jail
if he were convicted. (This was the in-
dictment's oblique way of saying that
the talk centered on getting Executive
clemency for Hunt. Dean testified that
Colson told him that just after the meet-
ing he had asked Nixon about clemen-
cy. On the next day, according to Dean,
Ehrlichman gave Colson assurance that
clemency could be promised to Hunt.)
Early January. Haldeman had a
conversation with Dean in which Hal-
deman approved the use of the balance
of his $350,000 cash fund for additional
payments to the defendants.
Early January. Strachan met again
with LaRue at LaRue's apartment and
gave him about $300,000 in cash.
March 21. LaRue arranged to de-
liver about $75.000 in cash to Bittman.
March 22. Ehrlichman had a con-
versation with Egil Krogh Jr., one of
the White House plumbers, now impris-
la
nned for his role in the bur
f D
g
ry o
an
t
(Thi
t
d
en
s
s `o 's
convicted of the Watergate wiretapping. back up Kalmbach p
's Senate testimony iel assured EllsberKroght that Hurnttwouldi not re-
Dean testified that he carried out Ehr- L:_~ L_ .. I- . ,
lichman's instnKtfoMP ,u ... ni !1G 1G1Q1{ 1 eu,ai, evi,11, i aA, ~= m%Vr p
'r (One matter re-
~1tP8Sl*eldt$QIaltOBtbO$ou>C~lsRDR7s7'JQSA'7`f1IT1t~,0432 rglary of the psy-
 Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
chiatrist's office. This statement in the
indictment seems to signal that Krogh
will be a witness against Ehrlichman.)
The multiple accusations of lying to
official investigafive bodies is described
in even fuller detail in the indictment,
though the evidence leading the grand
"jury to believe that the statements were
false is tantalizingly omitted. Several al-
legations of falsehood are charged even
when a defendant testified that he could
not recall an alleged act. Such accusa-
tions are difficult to sustain without doc-
umentary evidence or corroboration by
.several witnesses, and they are certain
to be vigorously attacked by defense
attorneys.
John Mitchell was accused of lying
as early as June 1972, when he told
the original Watergate grand jury that
he had known nothing about any
scheme to spy illegally on Democratic
candidates or the Democratic Party.
At that time he also denied knowing
anything about Liddy's political intel-
ligence proposals, though he later pub-
licly admitted attending three meetings
at which Liddy's plans had been pre-
sented to him. The indictment claims
that Mitchell also lied to the grand
jury in denying that LaRue had ever
told him that Liddy had confessed his
role in the break-in.
The nation's former chief law en-
! forcement official was charged, too, with
lying to Senator Sam Ervin's Watergate
committee in his public testimony last
July. The indictment contends that he
falsely denied having even heard about
the existence of the Gemstone wiretap
transcripts when it was suggested on
June 19, 1972, that they be destroyed.
He said, moreover, that "to the best of
my recollection" the destruction of doc-
uments was not even discussed at a'
meeting he attended on that date-a
statement that the indictment also
charges was false. Another part of the in-
dictment charges that it was Mitchell
who suggested the destruction.
Haldeman, too, is accused of per-
jury in his Senate testimony. He denied
having been aware that money former-
' ly under his control and later paid to
the Watergate defendants was meant as
blackmail or hush money. He testified
that at the key March 21 meeting at-
tended by Dean (and Nixon, though
the indictment does not say so), he did
not believe that Dean had made any.
I reference to Jeb Magruder's having '
!committed perjury. Both statements,
the indictment says, were untrue.
Ehrlichman's untruthfulness sur-
faced, according to the indictment, be-
fore both the grand jury and Fin agents.
The indictment cited Ehrlichman's
claim to FBI agents last July 21 that he
knew nothing about the Watergate
break-in beyond what he had read in
newspapers. Also noted were a series of
answers that he gave the grand jury last
May, in which he could not recall when
he first learned that Liddy might have
been involved in the break-in. The-ques-
tions seemed to show that investigators'
'have proof that Dean had told Ehrlich-
man of Liddy's involvement shortly
after the Watergate arrests. Ehrlichman
was also accused of lying in his conver-
sation with Kalmbach about raising
money for the defendants. He spoke
,falsely, claims the indictment, when he
said he could not recall giving Kalm-
bach approval to use money for that
purpose-
The clearest indication of how ac-
tive the grand jury was in the question-
ing of witnesses came in the charge that
Gordon Strachan had responded falsely
in a grand jury appearance in June of '
1972. He was pressed closely by Fore-
man Pregelj and an unnamed juror
about his admitted delivery of the $350,-
000 in cash to LaRue. Strachan contend-
ed that he gave the money, which had
been controlled by Haldeman, to LaRue
only for him to return it to the Nixon re
election committee. But jurors wanted
to know why he carried it in a briefcase
at night to the apartment of LaRue in-
stead of taking it to.committee head-
quarters near the White House in the
daytime.
The indictment contends that state-
ments by Strachan that he did not re-
call who told him to give the money to
LaRue were false. The implication was
that - the grand jury believes that
Strachan was protecting someone
-probably Haldeman-who knew that
the money was to be sent to LaRue for
payoffs to the burglars. The grand jury
presumably has evidence of who that u'n?
named person was.
Despite the mass of detail, the hand-;
ing up of the indictment and the sealed
grand jury report took only twelve quick
minutes in Judge Sirica's courtroom.
When, it was over, most of the defen-
dants either refused comment or ex-I
pressed their certainty that they will be
cleared of all wrongdoing when all the
evidence merges in the impending trial
battles among high-powered attorneys.
The most likely defense tactics ap;
parently will be to seek a change of
venue from Washington, where the Wa-
tergate controversy is the hottest, and
try to have the defendants' cases split
off into separate trials. A mass trial af-
fords prosecutors greater opportunity to,
introduce more evidence affecting each
defendant. But the main strategy may
be to try to discredit the accusing wit-
nesses. many of whom have admitted
their own criminal roles. The defense at-
torneys may ask: How can anyone be-
lieve convicted felons who are making
charges against others so that they can
get away with the lightest sentences
themselves?
President Nixon issued only a state-
ment through his press office: "The Pres-
ident has always maintained that the ju-
dicial system is the proper forum for the
.resolution to the questions concerning
Watergate. The indictment indicates
that the judicial process is finally mov-
ing toward the resolution of the matter.
The President is confident that all
Americans will join him in recognizing
that all those indicted are innocent un-
less proof of guilt is established in the
courts."
That reminder was proper and es-
sential. -But the notion that Watergate
can only be resolved in the courts is not
entirely accurate. While the judicial role
is still vital in determining the innocence
and guilt of former high officials, the res-
olution of Nixon's own Watergate fate
rests with the Congress.
The grand jury's difficulty in deal-
ing with the President was clearly dem-
onstrated last week when Nixon, in his
first press conference since November,
revealed that the Watergate jury had
sent him a request asking that he ap-.
pear before it to answer questions. He
said he had "respectfully declined" on
constitutional grounds. Nixon said that
he had offered to answer written ques-
tions from Jaworski or to talk with the
prosecutor personally, but "he indicated
that he did not want to proceed in that
way." That would seem to represent a
sound legal judgment on Jaworski's part,
since such unsworn informal contacts
would have no standing in court and
would probably only serve to complicate
the situation.
The briefcase handed to Judge Si-
rica by Jaworski's staff attorneys may
well contain evidence that could render
irrelevant the continuing controversy
over whether a President can only be im-
peached if found guilty of criminal con-
'duct. House Democratic Leader Tip
O'Neill said as much last week at a sem-
inar with students at Harvard. "I have
absolutely no doubt in my mind that Ja-
worski could have indicted the President
of the J.S.," O'Neill said. "But he didn't
try and I'm glad he didn't, because I'd
hate to see the President of the U.S. in-
dicted." The evidence that Jaworski has,
'O'Neill declared, apparently indicating
he has some knowledge of it, "is ex-
tremely damaging. Rather than see the
evidence made public, I think the Pres-
ident will resign."
At his press conference, Nixon ap-
peared more relaxed, subdued and con-
ciliatory than he has in a long time. For
the most part, he fielded reporters' ques-
tions in an assured and forthright man-
ner. He gave not the slightest hint that
he either feared that any such fatal rev-
elation might be imminent or that he
would ever quit under any circumstanc-
es. Even if his continuance in
office meant resounding de-
feat for his party in the com-
ing congressional elections,
he indicated, he would not re-
sign. Once again confusing
his personal fate with that of
the institution of the ' presi-
dency, Nixon declared: "I
want my party to succeed, but
more important, I want the
presidency to survive." And,
Nixon added, "I do not ex-
pect to be impeached." Later
in the week he told a gath-
ering of cheering young Re-
publicans, "You learn from
your defeats, and then you go
on to fight again-never quit,
never quit."
That could be bluster be.
fore the fall, or it could rep-
resent Nixon's sincere belief
in his innocence of impeach-
able "high crimes and mis-
demeanors." Depending on
what may be in that brief-
case, his survival strategy has
some practical chance of suc-
cess. His lawyers are advanc-
ing the narrowest possible
grounds for impeachment,
limited to indictable crimes
of "a very serious nature committed in
one's governmental capacity."
Nixon's narrow view of the permis-
sible impeachment grounds might per-
mit his attorneys to stall. They could
argue that most requests for evidence
from the Rodino committee were irrel-
evant to impeachment. The Supreme
Court might have to decide these bat-
tles. The basic Nixon strategy still seems
to be to hold out and play for some un-
expected break.
There are few in sight. Indeed, many
more troubles still loom for the increas-
ingly isolated President. He as much as
admitted at his press conference-that his
income tax deduction of $482,000 for the
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
 Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
donation of his public papers was at least;
.technically illegal-because the paper
work was not completed before the law!
allowing such deductions expired-and'
he hinted that he would have. to pay a
large sum in back taxes. His own tax ac-
~countant, Arthur Blech. was quoted last
week as saying that he objected to some
of Nixon's 1970 and 1971 deductions but
had been prevented, apparently by
White House aides, from telling the
President of his misgivings before re-
turns were filed.
While pushing the cover-up prosecu-
tion, Jaworski's busy staff also netted an-
other top Nixon associate in a somewhat
peripheral phase of the Watergate scan-
dal-but one that also has serious impli-
cations for Nixon. Kalmbach, the Pres-
ident's piirsonal lawyer, pleaded guilty to
two charges: 1) violating the Federal
Corrupt Practices Act by helping create
and run a secret committee in 1970 for
which he collected nearly $4 million for
congressional candidates but had no
treasurer or chairman and failed to file
reports as required by law; 2) soliciting
and accepting a $100,000 political con-
tribution in 1970 from J. Fife Symington
Jr., Ambassador to Trinidad and Toba-
go, in return for a pledge-which Kalm-
bach testified that he cleared with an un-
named White House aide-that Sy-
j mington would get a higher-ranking
ambassadorial post in Europe.
The operation of the secret commit-
tee was a felony charge. The Jaworski
staff told Judge Sirica that three other
.unnamed former White House aides
helped Kalmbach run the committee.
I They, too, will,presumably be charged
' at some later date. It seems highly un-
'likely that such a large fund would have
been gathered without the President's
,knowledge. The deal with the ambas-
sador was only a misdemeanor, and Sy-
mington never got a European job; but
it would have taken presidential con-
currence even to make such an offer, if
,it was made in, so to speak, good faith.
Why the Kalmbach pledge was not ful-
NEW YORK TIMES
27 February 1974
filled was not revealed-and Kalmbach
cannot testify about his conversations
with Nixon unless the President waives
their attorney-client privilege.
Kalmbach pleaded to the relatively
light charges in return for his full co-
operation in the expected trials of other
defendants. One of the Nixon cam-
,paign's chief fund raisers, he has pub-
licly admitted soliciting some $190,000
that was passed covertly to the original
Watergate defendants, the five burglars
and their two team leaders, Liddy and
Hunt, while they were in prison or
awaiting trial. Kalmbach claimed that
Ehrlichman personally assured him that
the payments were proper and that he
should carry out John Dean's instruc-
tions to make them, and he apparently
will so testify if Ehrlichma'n goes on tri-
al. Judge Sirica postponed sentencing
Kalmbach-apparently until after he
makes good on his promise to cooper-
ate with Prosecutor Jaworski.
Not even the work of the original
Watergate grand jury is complete. Si-
rica ordered the understandably weary
jurors to be prepared to return within
two weeks. One pending bit of unfin-
ished business could' be serious indeed
for Nixon. The FBI and Jaworski's staff
have been investigating the 18Y-minute
erasure on one presidential tape record=
ing, as well as the claimed nonexistence
of two other tapes and unexplained gaps
in several more.
Two other grand juries have yet to
report on such Watergate-related situ-
ations as the clandestine operations of
the White House plumbers, the Presi-
dent's dealings with ITT and milk pro-
ducers, and possible campaign-funding
violations by Nixon's political money-
men. Any of these juries could produce
more indictments that would give new
impetus to the impeachment sentiment
in Congress. Indictments may be hand-
ed up this week in the plumbers', case.
Said one Republican member of the
House Judiciary Committee, "Impeach.
ment is most likely to come in the area
of obstruction of justice-the tape era-
sures, the possibility that the President
offered money to people to keep quiet
or to commit perjury, the possibility that
he authorized bribes in exchange for
campaign contributions."
Once, the President's lawyers had
claimed that John Dean, acting as the
mastermind of a cunning scheme to con-
ceal his own guilt, had duped all of those
powerful aides above him. In its indict-
ments the grand jury has exploded that
story, which always had defied logic, and
a good many other stories as well. The
result inevitably is to narrow the circle
of evidence around the President. To a
large extent a presumption of Nixon in-
nocence must rest on the vision of an ex-
ceptionally loyal and subservient White
House staff successfully deceiving one
of the most self-protective and political,
ly sensitive Presidents
How much narrower the circle has
been drawn by the grand jury remained
locked at week's end in Judge Sirica's
courthouse safe: a letter in a manila en-
velope and a bulging briefcase. Togeth-
er, those two ordinary artifacts of ev-
eryday life could contain enough critical
mass to produce the largest bombshell
yet in Watergate's long, concussive se-
ries. Richard Nixon may manage to sur-
vive whatever conclusions and evidence
they lay out; perhaps their contents are
not charges of sufficient clarity or mag-
nitude to persuade either Congress or
the American people that impeachment
is justified. But they surely, at least un-
til answered, pose the greatest threat yet
to Nixon's survival. For they are the
work not of his traditional enemies, of
a hostile press, of partisans attempting
to overthrow his mandate, or any of the
groups that the President has at various
times accused of magnifying and distort-
ing Watergate for their own vindictive
ends. They are the considered judgment
of 23 ordinary Americans who, if hav-
ing examined the evidence and found
cause for the probable guilt of Richard
Nixon, may be very hard to answer.
.Letter Explaining Nixon Refusal to Appear at Hearing
Speolal to The New York Tlmes
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26-
Following is the text of a
letter from James D. St. Clair,
special counsel for the Presi-
dent, to Chief Judge Harold
H. Greene of the Superior
Court of the District of Co-
lumbia regarding President
Nixon's refusal to appear at
a hearing to determine wheth-
er he must testify at the
California trial of John D.
Ehrlichman:
I have been directed by the
President to respond to your
order of Feb. 16,, 1974, set-
ting a date for a hearing to
determine whether the Presi-
dent of the United States
must appear in person to tes
tify as a witness in a Cali-
fornia state court in compli.
ance with a subpoena. I have
advised the President to fol-
low the precedents estab-
lished by his predecessors
and therefore, he must, and
does, respectfully decline to
appear at the hearing and as
a witness in the California
state court. I shall outline my
reasons for doing Approved
Jefferson was faced with a
similar situation, a subpoena
issued by Chief Justice John
Marshall requiring his. per-
sonal appearance in a Fed,
eral Court in Richmond, Va.,
to testify at the trial of
Aaron Bure. President Jef-
ferson returned the subpoena
with a letter asserting that
because he did "not believe
that the district courts have
a power of commanding the
executive government to
abandon superior duties and
attend on them, at whatever
distance, I am unwilling, by
any notice of the subpoena,
to set a precedent which
might sanction a proceeding
so preposterous.' President
Jefferson also aptly stated on
a later occasion that if a
President were obliged to
honor every subpoena at the
risk of imprisonment for dis-
obedience, the courts could
breach the separation of pow-
ers and "keep him constantly
trudging from North to South
and Last to WsL
The request, in this in- ference with the execut4'~r-
stance coming from a state function which is dee
court raises, in addition, a rooted in the law and history
serious constitutional ques- of this nation, and consistent
tion regarding the authority with the constitutional obli-
of a state judiciary to in- ations mandated by Article I[
fringe upon the effective op- of the United States Consti-
eration of the office of the tution, the reasons for his
President of the United declination to appear are
States. The traditional prin- manifest. As Chief Execu-
ciple of intergovernmental tive of the United States of
immunity has never been America, a President must be
breached by a state court concerned on a daily basis
asserting a purported power with significant national and
sufficient too vercome the international issues which
constitutional responsibility affect the public interests of
vested n the Chief Executive all Americans. To accede to
of the United States to per- the compulsory process of a
form his offical duties. Nev- 'state court would not only
ertheless, the language of unduly interfere with the
Article VI of the United grave responsibility of a
States Consttution is unmis- President to make the de-
takably clear: "The constitu- cisions which affect the con-
tion of the laws of the United tinued security of the nation
States . . . shall be the su- but would open the door for.
premel aw of the land; and unfettered and wholesale im- '
the judges in every state position upon the office of
shall be bound thereby; any the President by the courts in
thing in the Constitution or each of the 50 states. The
laws of any state to the con- effect would be crippling and
trary notwithstanding." would threaten the very es-
i ! ~~ 1li4ftge~ p ft office nof. , the
I o r i` Thf" P~i7ilffgrYcYY arrYYd, in turn, the
munity from judicial inter- nation.
7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
WASHINGTON POST
1 March 1974
FOur CIA~ Officials
Defend Censorship
Of Mar'chetti Book
By Laurence Stern
Washington Post Staff Wrltf r
In a closed federal court
.Boom guarded by U.S. mar.
shals, four d-puty directors of
the Central ' Intelligence
Agency yesterday defended
national security censorship of;
A .book by two former intelii-i
gence officials.
Brownman for management
and services.
The thrust of their eom
bined testimony, it was under
stood.'was that each decided
on the basis of his particular
expertise that portions of the
manuscript violated security
classifications.
This was the procedure that
was d^scribod as "capricious"
by attorneys for the two Au-
thors, who requested that the
documents and classification
standards be produced to ius?
tify the deletions.
CIA Director Colbv is ex
pected to testify, also in cam-
era, at today's session. To re-
but CIA testimony, the two au-
thors offered the testimony-
,also-behind closed doors-of,
former National Security..;
Council staffer Morton Halpe?
rin, who was an expert witness
in the Pentagon Papers case. '
The case, which is expected,
to he argued for a week, is an
.outgrowth of the government's
,first effort to impose. pre-pub-
lication restraint in the courts
on national security erounds.
:In-the Pentagon papers case,"
,which the government lost,
the Justice Department went
Ito court after publication of
U.S. Dist.tict Court Judge
Albert V. Bryan Jr. cleared
the Alexandria courtroom for
their testimony which touched
on 162 deletions ordered by
the CIA on grounds that the
.material divulges highly sensi-
tive intelligence secrets.
Attorneys for the authors,
former CIA analyst Victor L.
Marchetti and former State,
Department intelligence offi-
cer cer John D. Marks, are chal-
lenging the classification' pro-
cedures of the CIA on grounds
that the censorship action wash
improper and capricious. '
Marchetti and Marks are su-
ing the respectibe heads of
'their former agencies, CIA Di:
rector William E. Colby and
Secretary of State Henry A.
Kissinger, to restore all dele-
tions from their manuscript,
"The CIA and the Cult of In-
'tellisence," eeheduled for pub-
lication this spring by Alfred' 'in The New York Times; The
A. Knopf Jr.
Colby has said that the:
court test is crucial to his stat-'
utory role as a protector of nation
al security sources and se-
crets. Shoukt the CIA lose the
case. Colby has ordered legis-
lation draft-' for submission
to Congress which would im-
pose new criminal 'penalties
on former CIA employees who
divulge what the governments
'deems to be classified mate-;
rial. ? i
Attorneys for the two au !
thorn contend that the issues
in the-battle of the book touch'
on the First Amendment ques-
tions that were raised in the
Pentagon Papers case. In thp
current trial. however, the is-
sue at hand is the validity of
the security standards applied
by the CIA U, the Marchetti-
Marks manuscript.
It. was to defend its position
on this point that the govern-
ment marshaled the rare gath-
ering outside of headquarters.
of top intelligence officials in
the. Alexandria court room:.
'CIA Deputy Directors William
Nelson for operations, Carl
Duckett for science.hnd tech-
nology, Edward Proctor for in-
'teiligence and Harold L.
Washington Post and other
newspapers.
In arguing for the. book's
publisher. Knopf, New York
attorney Floyd Abrams said a
question in the case is
"whether Knopf 's right to pub-
lish can properly ' be deemed
less extensive than was that of
The New York Times in the
!Pentagon papers case."
The government won the
first round in the battle of the
hook in 1972 when Judge
Bryan enjoined Marchetti
from publishing classified ma-
terial gathered during his 14
years of ' CIA employment
without prior agency clear-
ance.
. When the 'manuscript was
completed last fall Marchetti
and Marks submitted it, under
the terms of the injunction,
for CIA review.
Initially the CIA ordered
more than 300 deletions. After
negotiation the number was
reduced to 225. By yesterday
the government was seeking
to' strike 162 passages. }
Should the government pre-i
wail' on the remaining points,'
Knopf 'reportedly intends tot
publish the ' manuscript tblth
the deleted 'passages marked
"Deleted."
LOS ANGELES TIMES
14 FEB'1974
.. 1,A Papers a'Ex-Agents- Battle,
Aenty'Ageqcy
BY RUBY ABRA3IS0N -
ThaN Staff Writer
WASHINGTON--Victor Marchet-
ti vividly remembers the day he cut
the umbilical cord and, after 14
years. left the insulated life of a'
bureaucrat in 'the. Central. Intel-
ligence Agency.. ... -
"I had the feeling I had to get out,"
he said, "out of the agency, out of in-
telligence, out of the government."
He told CIA Director Richard M.
Helms that he had decided to try his
hand at writing, "Maybe even some
fiction."
And' as he recalls it more' than
four years later, Helms said, "Fine,
Victor, goon and get it out of your
system and then come on home.".
At that time, in 1969, Marchetti
was y=et to. meet John D. Mlarks, a
young foreign service officer serv-
in as executive assistant to the
State Department's top intelligence
1.aL
Marks had come home from a tour
in Vietnam disillusioned with the
war. When American troops were
sent into Cambodia ? in 1970, his
estrangement from U.S. foreign poli-
cy was completed, . and he aban-
doned a promising foreign service
career. '
"I waited until I found another
job," he said this week, "but in re-
trospect.I wish r had walked' out
that first day after Cambodia -
There was one thing in common
between Marchetti,, a poor boy from
the Pennsylvania coal country, and
?darks,. a distinctly upper middle
class son of an insurance company
executive: they had been in posi-
' Lions where they could see some. of
the United State,' most sensitive se-
crets. .
Their effort to publish anlnside
description of the country's subter-
ranean intelligence establi;hment-
has landed them in a bizarre and
potentially far-reaching court fight
with the government. -
Marchetti and Marks maintain
that the government is destroying
their First Amendment rights by
blocking publication of their boo'?
,and by subjecting their manuscript.
to massive censorship. In their view,
the fight is a close. parallel to the.
Pentagon Papers case where the
government sought unsuccessfully
to stop newspapers from publishing.
,a secret history of the Vietnam war_
But the CIA and the State Depart-'
m e n t, g o i n g to unprecedented
lengths to keep the book from being
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
 Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9? _-
' published in its original form, insist
there. is only one thing at stake: the
right to enforce the secrecy oaths.
Marchetti and. Marks signed upon
entering the intelligence business.
The Supreme Court refused to re-
ivlew#'the matter after an appeals
court.upheld an injunctioti against
the authors. But now another test is
coming on a countersuit filed by
them.
men who entered the in-
telliacnce business in
droves during the cold
%,-,ar dad t. 'though he had
ripen rapidly. some believe
he had become angry be-
t?au-e he thought he de-
~,'rvt' l better'.
Iiucomplete as received.
Not much is known about the real "' ""'4C turUU,,n in ins
conversation. now that the
Sib:f .ancp _ of the case for it has been
long fight over the book
tau^ht through secret affidavits and ha_' anib i t t e r e r? h i m
I documents submitted to a federal
?u1dge in Alexandria, Va. against the CIA as an in-
The last, round in the His case, he says now, is
battle will begin in the one of "selective prosecu-
next few weeks in the tion," "If you are big
closed chambers' of U.S. enough and p o w e r f u I
(Dist. Judge Albert V. enough.and influential
Bryan Jr., There Xlarchet- enough, you're .at liberty
ti and Marks will chat- to write anything or say
lenge every one of nearly' anything. I was a middle
200 items censored 'from ' level man. I didn't go to
the manuscript by CIA the right schools. 'My fath-
and State Department off I- er was a plumber. I was.
vials. ' ? gettable. They felt .they
At - the moment, they had to make an example of:
find themselves authors of 'somebody, and I happened
Fa book officially classified to be the guy who came
i "Top Secret - Sensitive." down 7 the street - at. the
Apparently, its message is wrong time " '
that the CIA's undercover. ? In any. case;; Marchetti,"
operations are bumbling, In.his last years with the
i'e x pen sive, provocative. CIA,, served. in jobs that.
I and.unnecessary. 'gave him an unusual per-
E An affidavit by William ;spective on its secret-acti-
vities.
E. Colby, the new CIA, di-
rector, says publication of
t'the uncensored book will He was special assistant
"cause serious harm to the 'to the director of plans,
national defense interests' 'programs, and budgets,
of the United States and then executive assistant to-
will seriously disrupt the the executive director, and
.conduct of the country's finally executive assistant
'foreign relations." to the assistant director. -
The government even is :; By'estimates of well-in-
appealing a lower court .formed sources, there are
'order which would clear 10 people or less who have
Morton Halperin, a former a comprehensive view of
National Security Council' CIA's covert operations.
official, to read the com-i Victor Marchetti did not
plete manuscript so he can have it all,. but he knew
' be an expert witness for l : niore-about CIA than the
' Marchetti and Marks in, Vast majority of its em-
-the trial. loves.
But'the authors claim ` "I wouldn't say I knew'
that so many censors have more abciat the CIA than
j read the book 'that the Richard Helms," he told a
banned material 'is begin- reporter, "lint I knew
ning to leak into the press. more about certain aspects
The Justice Department, of it than Helms did.".
suggesting Marchetti and After he left the agency,
larks are letting out the Marchetti' retired at the
secrets themselves, has age of 39 to his home in
is u suggested there are suburban Oakton, Va., and
grounds for contempt. wrote a novel called, "The
Rope Dancer," a tale about
an official of the "National
J ti's t when Victor Intelligence Agency" who
Marchetti got onto a colli- b
en sold national secrets-to the
sign course with the a
g
cy` where he served and So let u plop.
prospered Is debatable. i\ot surprisingly, word
Some of his critics main- of the novel got back to
lain he quit a malcontent- CIA headgl+arters, and the
ed man, that he, the poor - agency asked to have a
'boy who had not gone to look.
the right I v y L e a g u e Marchetti accommodat-
school, had come to resent ed. and while he watched
the pin-st ipgd Eastern in- the Baltimore Orioles and
t 6 1 lectual e;tat pproved For Release 120s0oi? /C&IrdiI !ADP71-0043u2020ddib'W32f160?3=W',,-e,I
play the World Series of
1971, a security officer sat
with him and read the
manuscript.
NO ohjeetion was raised,
Iinccc+plete as received
too close to the bone, that
it made hint a marked
inan.
"When I finished the
novel," he said, "I' knew I
would never go back to
'CIA ."? '
Buoyed by its publica-
tion, Marchetti then wrote
a lengthy magazine article
on the agency. and out-
lined the book, "The Cult
of Intelligence." ' ' ?
The magazine,piece was
never published, but it
found its way to CIA head-
quarters, too. .
Then came a call from
Adm. Rufus Taylor, who
had been Marchetti's last
boss.-The admiral wanted
to have' a talk at a motel
near Washington. .
"He laid it on the line,"
Marchetti said, "He said'
the people at CIA were
worried about me and
what I was doing. He
asked me to make him a
promise, to let them re-
view the book. I promised
that I would, and that I
wouldn't go on the lecture
circuit, or write any other
articles." .
"He said he would .get
former senior officers to'
revieiv'the manuscript
and advise me as friends,
and then we could negoti-
ate things."
"We left it like that and
parted as good friends."
,"But a week later. the
door bell rang, and there'
were Marshal Dillon and
Chester with a restraining
order." '
The order required him
to submit any manuscript,
fact or fiction, to CIA for
clearance.
He has been in court
ever since.
Shaken by the court'or~
der, he had trouble getting
the new book on paper.
John Marks, by then
working for Sen. Clifford
P. Case (R-N.J.), quit his
job and joined 'Marchetti
as a coauthor. -
By the end of last Au-
gnst, they had finished the
314-page book and deliv-
erers it to the CIA. The
r.;amusci ipt. 3:I9 items had
~h^en delet&d.
next time they saw the
l.aI, nrous negotdations'
1++ca then have reduced
 Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
i.~.;-ts to a little less than
The CIA has -given!
bark" information about'
its budget: since Sen. Wil-
liam Proxmire 1D-Wis.)
{ made the same revelations
in a speech on the floor of
the Senate.
It withdrew its censor-
ship of a description of
CIA, involvement in the
downfall of the Indonesian
government in 196S be-
.cause that had already
been in another book.
It allowed the book to
say that "Air America," an
airline' in Southeast Asia,.
Is supported by CIA since
that had been an open se-
cret for years.
A little help came from
an unexpected source last
fall When the special Sen-
ate ' committee to study
questions related to?.con
fidential government 'dQc-
! uments unwittingly le-t:
the name of the \ational
Reconnaissance Office get;
into official print.
-The existence, the name,
and even the initials of the
organization had been top
'secret, and lfarchettt and,
Marks had talked of its
role in managing recon-
naissance efforts carried
out by U.S. spy satellites
and planes.
More than 30 items con-
cerning the office, be-
lieved 'to have a budget of
about 51.5 billion a year,
were censored from the
book. But after the -name
of the office. slipped into
an official congressional
publication, the govern-
ment agreed to withdraw
the deletions.
The bitterness that al-
ers developments ' s i n c e
Marchetti resigned, from
the CIA.
Given the seriousness!
the ..government ascribes.
to' the-.censored parts of
the book, the CIA and
Slate Department could
hive used criminal sanc-
tions to 'proceed against
the two authors.
But government sources
say this is inadequate
since criminal proceedings
would have come -after'
publication of, the materi,
Government attorneys'
see far-reaching implica-
tions from the case --.be-
cause they view it as a de-
monstration of. thhe.validi-c
ty of secrecy" agreements ;
signed. .11'p, employes with
access.,to secret material.
Marchetti acsnowieciges
there -are others who have.
been' in: the- CIA .who. are
,closely, watching. to,.:;see
whether he survives. '..
?A? -lot.'?of people" who
spend. their lives in 'a"se-
ready had developed
around the case was in-
creased by other things: a
ppress report that intel-
I i g e n c e gathering U.S.
submarines go into Soviet
waters to monitor the
movements of Soviet subs,
a magazine article said to
cover material censored
from the book:. and an an-
pearance by Marchetti and
Marks on a Canadian tele-
vi=inn program discussing
iaiellig?;u?e activities.
.XIa:'chetti and M a r k s
&n'? that they have
leaked anything from tbo
censored parts of the book, ;-
1)':! the7 will go into court
arguin: that non; of the
i' rt'maining items are legal-
Iv clas.siiied. ar:d if the"'
~re. :he" have already
F' CM I -nu.:i inip the public
rlo i.tin.
Incomplete as received:
much of the material cov-
. pret business like this feel
compelled- to write about
it to justify themselves,".
he said. "And the agency
keeps a lot of them around`
writing secret ..hiptortes:
That way they get. it out of
their systems and still it
stays under control.".
Marchetti said there was
a time even after he fin-
ished "The Rope Dancer"
when he had second
thoughts about going back
to the CIA, when he might
have been wilting to com-
promise on the book.
But no 'more. "There's
nothing' I would like bef?
? ter than for them to ewne
around looking for a deal."
After beginning some-
where. along 'the line to
disagree,* with what he'sativ
inside the. CIA, he'has be-
come more and more rigid
in his views. .
The. CIA is basically a
clandestine~a g' e n c y,, he
says, and in.:the'age of spy'
satellites, it need not be: "I
think it ought to be bro-
ken up; I think it ought to
be sunder .:stronger con-
The New York Times Book Review/February 17, 1974
trot.". ; ;.
.';Marchetti : insists.- that
the book Would not endan-
ger any U.S. agents or
covert operations still uz
:der way..
On. that point,-he an'o
Marks are irreconcilably
at odds with the CIA and
the State Department......"..
...A `CIA official familial:
with; the original manut-~'
script` maintains that:all of
:.the.itein's still deleted are
classified and pertain ? tp
vey sensitive matters.-"'.".
1V.h i le its ' publication ;
might not' cause grave and
imminent.: danger to ' the
country, he'said, it would:
create serious problems hi
a?number of foreign coun-
tries, for CIA sources, for:
'foreign leaders and for
other ? Intelligence agen-
cies. -
"RVhat.is involved here,"
he'`said; "is a former em-
p!oye of this agency, who
entered into a contract,
.under'so!emn oath that he
would not reveal classified
information. It is this con,
tract that we are attempt-
in , to enforce."
In Cold Print: Marchetti et Al.
By VICTORS. NAVASKY
Phyllis Chesler, feminist psycholo-
gist,.went to court and forced Avon
Books to stop distributing a defective
edition of her "Women and Madness"
and. in the process won some Ian-
guage from Judge Arnold Fein which
suggests that while it. is not yet es-
tablished law the author has a "moral.
right" to protect the Integrity of her
work, courts are willing to explore
the idea.
Bill Safire and William Morrow &.
Co. are in arbitration over just what
.constitutes an "acceptable" manu-
script on Richard Nixon. Morrow says
that Safire hasn't written a publish-
able book; but Safire, who contends
that the post-Watergate manuscript
delivered was the pre-Watergate
manuscript promised (i.e.', a "bal-
anced" view of the President), says
that Morrow doesn't want to pay him
the $250,000 it promised him in re-
turn, only because Nixon's fortunes
have faltered.
The literary community has always
been a litigious lot (Maurice Zolotow
crying heist over Mailer's "Marilyn,"
Groucho Marx having second thoughts
about his thoughts in "Marx Bros.
'Scrap Book"), but these days
more than ever the courts seem to
be a court of less than last resort.
Which is not, to my way of thinking,
a healthy development in the arts,
.but at least it's -within the family
,and occasionally it helps to keep the
`publishers and perhaps even an au-
thor or two, honest. The time to
worry is when it gets beyond the
family-when the Government gets
into the act. And that's what has
happened in the unprecedented case
of Victor Marchetti; the C.I.A. alum-
nus who has been enjoined from dis-
closing `any information about the
C.I.A. without the Agency's prior
consent, which means that if he
hadn't submitted the manuscript for
his forthcoming book, "The CIA and
the' Cult of Secrecy," to the Agency,
he could 'have been imprisoned for
contempt of court.
A good deal has been written about
the Constitutional implications of the
-case, which on its face seems to in-
volve the sort of censorship the First
Amendment. is supposed to prohibit,
but the role of the publishing com-
munity has more or less been taken
for granted. Since all publishers-not
to. mention the American people's
right to know-are the potential. vic-
tims of the Marchetti ruling (if it is
allowed to stand), and since the last,
people who tried this sort of thing,
Beacon Press, publishers of the Grav-
el edition of the Pentagon Papers,
ended up on the brink of bankruptcy
with legal bills in excess of $50,000,
it seems worth taking note of how
and why Marchetti's publisher, Alfred
A. Knopf, got into the business of re-
sisting the Government. (Incidentally,
copies of the four-volume Gravel edi-
tion of the Pentagon Papers may be
ordered from Beacon Press at 25
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
 Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9'
Beacon St., Boston, Mass. 02108;
cloth `$42, paper $20.)
First, Marchetti himself. Motives.
are complex-part resentment of the
Old Boy network that runs the Agen-
cy, part. disillusion with its "value
free" moral context, part disbelief in
the Agency's modus operandi, part
whistle blower's impulse to alert the
public to the Agency's crimes and,
follies, part a writer's instinctive de-
sire to tell his tale, part disappoint-,
ment that his novel about the C.I.A.,
"Ibe Rope Dancers," although it in-
furiated the Director, did not reach a';
wider audience. But when he joined.
the Agency in 1955 and when he re-
signed in 1969, Marchetti had signed
secrecy agreements which on paper
obliged him to clear with the C.I.A..
anything he wrote about it.
So aside from the obvious risks in-
herent in spook-exposure, by deciding :
to tell his story Marchetti was con-
ceivably subjecting himself to har-
assment under the espionage laws.
.In fact, he says, the agreements he
signed were of little concern because
as an employe of the Agency he had
been aware of countless examples of
official and 'unofficial violations of
it; he had also been assured that its
purpose was' psychological since. it
couldn't be enforced in a court of
law, and' in any event it seemed, of
dubious constitutionality. Neverthe-
less, the first requirement for a test
case of this sort is an author 'willing
to put his time and perhaps his lib-
erty on the line, and that is what.
Marchetti, and eventually John
Marks, a . former State. Depart-
ment employe in intelligence who
became co-author, did.
Next, there was the role' of the
literary agent. Not all.agents want to
or can be trusted to handle politi-
cally controversial material. In early
March, 1972, Marchetti,' who was
working on a piece for Esquire was
introduced to David Obst, a Wash-
ington-based agent who numbers
among his clients such troublemakers
as Dan Ellsberg, Britt Hume, Bob
Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Obst,
who wears a MacDonald's sport jack-
et and specializes in fast deals, flashy
advances, trendy topics and radical
politics, read Marchetti's draft, said
forget Esquire (which was dissatis-
fied with the piece in its current'
form anyway), come up with an out-
line ond'this will be a terrific book.
In late March, Obst held an auction
which means that he contacted six
publishers-Grossett & Dunlap (pub-
lishers of `"The Rope Dancers"), Holt, .
Rinehart & Winston, Simon &
Schuster, ? ' Doubleday, Viking and .
'Knopf-visited five of them ' on a
;Monday with copies of .the outline'
and a revised draft of the Esquire
material; they also met Marchetti.
They had until Friday. to submit a bid:
An auction is generally regarded as
bad for author-publisher relations;
since it can break up happy publish-
ing marriages, but' ' it is frequently
good for husband-wife relations, since
it can shore up poverty-stricken do-
mestic circumstances. In the Mar-
chetti case it. turned out to yield a
$40,000 advance ($10,000 on signing,
the rest contingent on what was de-
livered),and simultaneously to reveal
a weak security link in the publish-,
ing community. One of the six pub-
lishers leaked the Marchetti proposal
to the C.I.A., and a few weeks later
the Government was in court, mov-
ing to enjoin Marchetti from showing
anything to his publisher without
clearing it with the C.I.A. first.
And then there is the role of the
publisher. By Friday Knopf came in
with a $40,000 bid. and Obst and
Marchetti decided to go with Knopf,
even though they had prospects of,
more money elsewhere, because they
thought that Dan Okrent, then at.
Knopf and now with Grossman Pub-
lishers (although 'he continues to
work on the manuscript) would be
the right editor L r the book, and
also because they thought In the
event of trouble it would be impor-
tant to have a respectable publisher,
and Knopf was as respectable as any.
No purpose is served by going over
the complex legal history of Marchet-
ti's case here. It is well-covered, for
those who are interested, in Taylor
Branch's informative account in the .
January Harpers. What's important,
though, is that when Marchetti needed
a lawyer, his agent thought to alert
the A.C.L.U., ..whose attorneys Mel
Wulf and John Shattuck have guided
the case through .the courts and with-
out whom the book might have died;.
when Marchetti was low in spirit, his
editor'- although by order of the
court he was not permitted to see the
manuscript (nor would the C.I.A. clear
-another Knopf editor who had -for-
merly served with 'the agency) -
would journey down to Washington
to bolster his spirits. When he was
low on funds, Knopf advanced monies
not yet due. When he was low on or-
ganizational capability and his friend
John Marks from State, volunteered'
to help in a way that his editor was
not permitted to, Knopf publisher An-
thony Schulte journeyed down to
Washington, spoke with Marks and
Marchetti and authorized Marks's
participation.
And when, in the late summer of
1973, Marchetti and Marks turned in
to the C.I.A. a .517-page manuscript,
the C.I.A. sent it back with instruc-
tions to delete 339 passages. (They
later agreed to restore 114 of these
when it was pointed out that the
material was either not classified, had
already entered the public domain or
was learned by Marchetti or Marks
outside. of their Government employ-
ment.) At this point, Robert Bernstein,
president of Random House, of whose
publishing complex Knopf is a part,
announced that (a) they would pub-
lish the "book regardless, even if it
meant publishing with white spaces
where the censors had done their
snipping, and (b) that Random House
itself would now file suit in Federal
court to stop the Government from
interfering with the publication of
the book.
Before Random House acted, they
consulted their attorneys on how much
the litigation might cost (Floyd
Abrams, the Cahill, Gordon partner
who worked with Prof. Alex Bickel
on the Pentagon Papers case would
handle it) and were. told it could be
over $50,000, and informed their own
,parent. corporation, R.C.A., of the sit-
uation. Since R.C.A. has many defense
contracts with the Government, for a
Jew days rumors spread that it might
stand in the way of Random House's
legal participation In the suit, al-'
though when I asked Marchetti about'
that he said, "Ask me what the
,C.I.A.'s doing In Russia and I'll tell
you what I think. But something like
that, don't ask!" Apparently a delay
came about because Chairman of the
Board Sarnoff, who '.traditionally
keeps hands off on these matters,
had asked to be kept informed, and
he was traveling in Europe at the
time. Anyway, after a meeting of all
the principals, at which A.C.L.U.
Director Aryeh Neier made a stirring
statement for the benefit of Random
House executives about- the import-
ant principles at stake, Robert Bern-
stein, who has appeared on countless
platforms with Neier on behalf of
First Amendment causes and presum-
ably needs no instruction on these
matters, called the A.C.L.U. and told
them to count Random House in.
Unless it is postponed, the trial
should be under- way by the time
this issue of the Book Review goes
to press. Either way - ' with or.
without deletions -- the book is
scheduled for May publication. And
as Knopf 's legal expenses pass
the $25,000 mark, C.I.A.-stimu-
lated free publicity for 'The CIA and'
the Cult of Secrecy" by Victor Mar-
chettl and John Marks, cannot be far
behind. At prevailing advertising
space rates, the Taylor Branch Har-'
per's . piece is, by my calculations,
worth $27,280, and, in case anyone
should ask, the space consumed by
this-report would cost about $4,000. ^
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
11
 Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
WASHINGTON STAR
3 MAR 1974
COA 0.
~ 1 F
By John M. Taylor
Perhaps it is no more than coincidence that
Thailand was the setting for the CIA's most
recent debacle - the fabrication of a letter
i last December in which a Thai insurgent
leader purported to offer the government a
cease-fire in return for a degree of regional
autonomy. Because the letter in question was
{ dispatched by registered mail, it was easily
traced back to the CIA officer who had sent
it.
The CIA letter represented.a type of crude
deception which might have been attempted
.anywhere, but somehow the Thai locale
seems appropriate. For Thailand is typical of
a handful of countries around the world in
which the CIA has operated much like a sov-
ereign state. In "friendly" host countries
such as Thailand, the agency is able to,
achieve a freedom of operation to which it
could not aspire in a neutral or hostile envi-
ronment.
What was to have been accomplished by
this bogus letter, which eventually found its
way to the prime minister of Thailand? The
presumed rationale is that receipt of such a
presumptuous offer from an insurgent leader
would awaken the Thais to the insurgent
threat along their borders. No matter that
this was a domestic problem, one with which
the government had been coping more or less
adequately for some 15 years. No matter that,
since October, Thailand had operated under a
government highly sensitive to anything
smacking of interference in its internal af-
fairs. -
BUT SENSITIVITY to changes in political
climate never has been a hallmark of CIA
operations. Much as. soliders are accused of
preparing for the last war, so do intelligence
organizations such as CIA seemingly dwell in
the political milieu of yesteryear. The agen-
cy's vintage years were the 1950s and 1960s,
when containment of communism was a by-
word and, in budgetary terms, CIA was one
of the sacred cows of official Washington. Its
recruiters operated on virtually every cam-
pus in the nation, and this writer was among
those who succumbed to the lure ,of romance
plus public service.
In its operations abroad, the agency's rep-
resentatives often ride roughshod over the
resident American ambassador, who is nomi-
nally the ranking U.S. official in his country
of residence. One may ask why the ambassa-
dor, from his position of supposed authority,
cannot prevent such abuses as the CIA letter.
After all, his primacy within the overseas
4 mission has been underscored by a succes-
sion of White House directives dating from
the Kennedy administration.,
TtiE FACT IS THAT AN ambassador - be
he a career official or a political appointee --
faces real handicaps in his role as mission
chief. If he is a political appointee, he will
probably have little, or no experience in the
bureaucratic infighting required to make
one's views prevail in Washington.. He will
find that both the CIA and Defense compo-
nents of his mission have independent report-
ing channels. And whether lie is a political or
a career appointee, the ambassador can rare-
ly count upon the hard-nosed backing i:i
Washington that his colleagues enjoy. the
State Department has long been a gutsy in
the Washington power structure, and an
ambassador's "support" at home sometimes
consists of two or three senior Foreign Serv-
ice Officers who aspire to his job.
In his country of residence, an ambassador
enjoys certain distinct perks (perquisites).
He rides around town with a flag on his fend-
er and is a member of the best clubs. But
more often than not, by the time he arrives
'his CIA counterpart has been in residence for
several years. The CIA man perhaps has
helped quash legal proceedings when the
prime minister's son was in that traffic acci-
dent at Harvard, and flew in duty-free cham-
par_;rte when the interior minister's daughter
finally got married. When Washington finally
approved those helicopters which the defense
attache had been working on for a year, it
was the CIA man who modestly advised a few
key officials that he was hoping for some
good news on those choppers.
ABOUT THE TIN 1E that the ambassador'
begins to wonder about who is running the
mission his wife comes down with acute ap-
pendicitis. There are no commercial flights
that day, but the CIA man waves his wand
and a plane materializes out of thin air. It
doesn't seem to have any of the usual mark-
ings, but at the airport no questions are
asked.
It is in this context that one should view
Ambassador William Kintner's problems in
Bangkok. As diplomatic incidents go, the af-
fair of the CIA letter is the type of brouhaha
that will blow over in time; already refer-
ences to it are buried in the inside pages of
our papers. But some nagging questions lin-
ger. Does anyone really believe that the spu-
rious letter was the brainchild of a junior offi-
cer who dispatched it without the kno?;:ledge
of his superiors? Those to whom this sounds
plausible should have no trouble at all with
Rose Mary Wood's story about that tape re-
corder.
The New York Times recently editorialized
that "the senior members of Congress have
failed to exercise any real independent
scrutiny of the CIA." The lesson of the CIA
letter is that control of the agency in the field
is no more effective than that which is norni-
nally exercised in Washington.
In'addition to the background to which he
alludes in this article. .John Al. Taylor is a
former Foreign Service officer who writes
frequently on historical, international and
current affairs topics.
MANCHESTER GUARDIAN
1 March 1974
CIA in
cloak and
,a
ball-point
work
From MARTIN SCHRAM
Washington, February 28
The United States Central
Intelligence Agency has about
200 agents planted in American
companies overseas and
engaged in covert activities, it
has been learned.
They are assigned to these
posts with the full knowledge
and permission of the com-
panies involved. The CIA reim-
burses the companies for the
agents' salaries and administra-
tive expenses.
The practice is useful to the
CIA, which is known to feel
that it is often not enough to
? have agents stationed abroad
merely under the cover of
other US Government titles. It
is also of benefit to the com-
panies involved, since they
receive some feedback of infor-
mation the agent gathers
abroad about latest develop-
ments and trends.
The names of all of the com-,
panics and geographic areas
involved could not be learned.
However, it has been confirmed
that two CIA agents were work-
ing abroad under the cover of
Robert R. Mullen and company
- the public relations firm that
also employed the former CIA
man, Howard' Hunt, at the time
he went to work at the White
House and helped to plan the
Watergate burglary.
It has been confirmed by:the
Mullen firm that its one-man
offices in Amsterdam and in
Singapore were staffed by CIA
agents. Both offices were closed
after the firm was thrust into
the public spotlight after
Hunt's arrest in the Watergate
case. Mullen's Singapore office
was closed in September, 1972,
and the Amsterdam one in
June 1973.
Inquiry
Senator Frank Church, chair-
man of the Senate foreign rela-
tions subcommittee on multi-
national corporations, after
being informed of the practice,
said : "The subcommittee will
make an immediate inquiry
into this with the CIA."
It -has long been believed that
the CIA had close ties with US
companies abroad, but the
involvemr'nt has never before
been confirmed to this extent.
The CIA's relationships fall
into three categories.
1. It maintains a domestic
cnlitction division in many
cities with offices listed in tele-
phone hooks tinder the name of
the CIA. When the agency
.learns that an individual has
sonic information concerning
a foreign country it 1'tten asks
the nerson if he .or she will be
willing to come in and pass
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
 Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
along the information.
2. The CIA has a kind of opera-
tional collaboration, involving
people who work for US coin-
panies but occasionally talk
with CIA officials, to exchange
information on a cooperative
basis (this is the kind of coope-
rative relationship that also
,exists between a number of
regular working journalists and
the CIA). .
3. A couple of hundred CIA
agents live abroad and work
tinder cover on the payrolls of'
US companies while engaged in
intelligence gathering (some
journalists have also been in
this category, although the CIA.
position is that it is stopping
the practice of having journa-
lists on its payroll.
That the Mullen agency
served as a cover for two CIA
agents abroad was first
reported by a Columbia Broad-
casting System correspondent,
Dan Rather, and has been
confirmed in detail by News-
day.
Years ago the CIA initially
approached Mullen (now chair-
man of the board), saying that
it had an emergency and
wanted to station an agent in
Europe under the guise of the
public relations agency. It said
it hoped to keen the arrange-
ment going indefinitely.
it con-
h
at
The agency, in w
sidered a patriotic move,
agreed to help out and have the
agent work in a one-man office.
It contends it also had a legi-
timate need for a public rela-
tions office in Europe. For
years the firm has -lone public
relations for the Mormon.
Church and thus handled a
European tour by the Mormon
Tabernacle Choir.
In 1970, the CIA contacted
the Mullen firm with another
emergency - this time in
Singapore. The firm ack-
nowledged It had no legitimate
need for a Singapore operation,
but it nevertheless agreed and
opened a one-man office there.
The CIA reimbursed the firm
for all administrative expenses,
Including the agent's com-
pany " car. - Newsday.
Sho
T aT
EDITOR & PUBLISHER
6 FEB q
1 T'? By Robert 'U... Brown
y
Criticism from within
Whoever said newspapers and newspa-
permen don't criticize themselves or each
other? Nothing impedes a newsman or an
editor from criticizing his peers and we
have reported many such instances. Every
public figure knows that all he hits to do
to get his name in print is to take a round
house swing at "the press" for its alleged
sins, and military men have been corrupted in
Two instances of in-house criticism recent years. The public and Congress
come to hand this week, should demand that the CIA break all
contractual relationships with bona fide
Early in December the Washington newsmen. Beyond that, ? publishers
Star-News reported the CIA employed . maintaining foreign bureaus should' seek
more than 36 A,pierican newsmen as full out and discipline any employes with dual
or part-time operatives. CIA Director' relationships.
William Colby acknowledged the facts and ? "Anything less makes the news business
said he would remove from the payroll the handmaiden of the government and
five of the agents with full time staff that cannot be tolerated. Otherwise, the
positions on American newspapers.. No free flow of news from overseas-so im.-
names were revealed and it was said the portant to public awarehess-will'be seri-
others are free-lancers, stringers, etc. ously jeopardized.". '
None of the newsmen are regular staffers
for U.S. newspapers, it was added. We agree with Loony: Whether the sit-
This situation was deplored by the cation is as bad as.Troelstrup contends or
not
press at large and the newspapers with ~ it should be cleaned up.
overseas staffs said they were taking another article of self-criticism has'
steps to see that their men were not in- ? been written by M. Stanton Evans, colum-
steps volved. Dist for,North American Newspaper Al-
On February 3 the Denver Post carried liance. He is also editor of the Indianapol=
is News. He believes that newsmen's ob-
an. article by sta" member Glenn Troel= session' with Watergate has distorted their
strup who said "the journalist-undercover news coverage." lie's not the first one to
community tieup is old, it is more wide- say it.
spread than has been publicly acknowl-
edged, and when revealed it is usually His piece was based-on "three personal
swept under the rug by the media." Trocl- experiences with the Washington press
strup, who spent 14 years abroad as a corps suggesting Watergate and its effect,
.correspondent for print and broadcast on President Nixon's fortunes have been
media, wrote: converted from a journalistic assignment'
-`Journalists have been quoted recently into species
crowd s alli other issues from by the Washington Star-News and other the national proscenium and to warp po-
media as `quietly suspecting' or' bein
`aware' of colleagues on the CIA payroll lntical debate accordingly."
No other agencies have been mentioned. In mid-January Evans participated in a
"Such things are rarely made public by
a profession priding itself on exposures.
When sonic of it is, there's ridiculous
defensive posturing by news eecutives
who know better. I
"Why? The practice is too self-serving
partti ne as informational vacuum sweep-
ers for the CIA and similar agencies.
-White House correspondent and now a
professor of public affairs reporting at
Ohio State University, dealt with the
original report of CIA-neitsmen involve-
ment and concluded:
"American newsmen must not be com-
promised in the same manner that so
" Diuch of that is understatement, or "`CC'' une cress program featuring iTar-
balderdash. ry Goldwater. "A heavy concentration of
" questions" on Watergate was expected,'
Any overseas correspondent worthy of Evans wrote, but "as the program rolled
the name-and many domestic journalists on it became apparent the other panelists
-can name names, times and places. Some- were interested in the whole Watergate
times they do, cautiously, and in private. and nothing but the Watergate, to the
Often the names involved would take the absolute exclusion of anything else." lie
fingers of both hands to total. didn't keep count but said "I suppose a
"It would require several more hands to total of 14 or 15 questions were asked,
total the non-journalists working full or including follow-ups. Of these, the only
for the parties concerned. ing of conservatives in Washington and
"Also, some who would be expected to was interviewed at a press Conference.
clean up the situation are themselves 'in- -"Again, the Watergate questions flowed.
volved." with particular emphasis on whether Nix-
Troelstrup added: "To hold that jour- on should resign or be impeached. I an-
nnlist-undercover relationships are clean swered these queries as best I could and
observed that conservative disagreements
when no nionev changes hands as is
questions which were not about Watergate
were those I raised myself concerning the
energy crisis and the condition of our
national defenses." Subsequent press cov-
erage played up the Watergate questions
and' answers and ignored other matters,
he said.
Two weeks later he attended a gather-
naive. All favors are remembered. All fa_ ot;ncr tnan Watergate, such as detente
vors onus- eventually be repaid." with communist China, trade with the So-
viets, wage-price controls and so forth.
A footnote disclaimer tq the article said "In the course of this discussion, a
his views "are at odds with the views of rather peculiar pattern developed iii the
many other neiv8papermen, including edi-
tors of the Post. loot}e c activities of a network tv reporter and his
Approved Fc tti+~eMeroT;a(,i2( in1t(Q~hQ,i8& ` , ?rlrf 04was o~I 't 0. OiO the. conversation
was on a ergate, mpeachment; or resig-
13
 Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
nation, the camera would roll. When the
discussion began to wander away from
Watergate to national defense, or busing,
or anything of the sort, the signal would
be given for the camera to be turned off."
]in a panel discussion with another c^ i
nist and a moderator. He reported the
views of the other columnist and the mod-orator-that Nixon should step down-
!received the play in the 11'a.Mington Post
the next morning and his own views-that
Watergate-impeach-resign had become a
jfixation and that other issues urgently
needed talking about-were treated with
"admirable brevity" in paragraph 12.
It is our feeling that the debate within
the ncl?spaper business as to whether:
Watergate has been over-played is going'
to be accentuated in the months ahead. It'
is almost axiomatic that the longer the
controversy the wider the divergence of.,
opinion about the need for a conclusion
BALTIVOP SUN
7 FEB 1?74
.E. _
:-'A:.?
served
with CIA
Washington (Special)' A
memorial service for Edward
Andrews Rose, who formerly
worked for the Central Intelli-
gence Agency, will be held at
11 A.M. Friday at Christ
J Church, at 620 G street, in
.Georgetown.
Mr. Rose, who was 73 and
lived at 1632 32nd street, died
last Friday of heart failuice at
!his home.
Born in Denver, he was'
itaken to England at an early
.
a Elizabeth Hill Hartley, a Balti-
more native, in 1951.
Besides his wife, he is sur-
vived by a son, Edward A.
Rose, Jr., and two grandchil-
dren, all of Washington.
age, and educ-ted at Eton. He
received his bachelor's degree
from Harvard College, in 1924.
Following his graduation he
studied drawing and sculpture
in Paris.
In 1940, Mr. Rose enlisted in
the- Canadian Black Watch. He
later was commissioned in the
United States Army, attaining
the rank of major. After the
war he joined the CIA, where
he served in Washington for 18
years, retiring in. 1964.
Mr. Rose was a member of
the. Chevy Chase Club, the City
Tavern, the Harvard Club of
New York, and the Cercle In-
ter-Allie of Paris. lie wa$ also
the treasurer of the ' George-
town Citizens Association.
-Rose married the 'former
- Mr
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
5 March 1974
Secrecy redefined
`New' CIA--
with Colby's
brand on it
By Benjamin Welles
Special to
The Christian Science Monitor
Washington
After seven months in office the
soft-spoken William Egan "Bill"
Colby has begun to leave his stamp as
director of the Central Intelligence
Agency.
First, Mr. Colby - the only career
intelligence man to reach the top
except for Richard M. Helms - has
done much to restore the loyalty and
morale of the CIA's 15,000 employees.
This development is in sharp con-
trast to the Image of his predecessor,
James R. Schlesinger, who humili-
ated some subordinates and fired
'dozens of others, and whose departure
to become secretary of defense led, as
one source put it, to "dancing in the
halls from joy."
Mr. Colby's principal change so far
has been to restructure sharply the 24-
year-old system of spotting and an-
alyzing potential threats to U.S.
safety and bringing these to the
President's attention.
Prestigious board
Ever since the 1950 Korean war this
has been done by the CIA's Board of
National Estimates: a prestigious -
If shadowy - group of about 12
experienced Intelligence veterans,
ambassadors, admirals, generals,
.scientists, and executives.
The board, backed by an expert
staff, has been producing yearly up to
60 "national intelligence estimates"
ranging from the massive annual
studies of Soviet strength and prob-
able intentions on which the Pentagon
budget and the U.S. strategic posture
are based down to analyses of what
might happen in so small - but
important - a country in terms of
U.S. interests as Panama.
But the board has tended in recent
years to turn out increasingly mas-
sive studies that often obscure sharp
differences between rival intelligence
agencies and portray instead a bland
"lowest common denominator" of
agreement.
During the first Nixon adminis-
tration these wordy "NIEs" often
Irritated Henry A. Kissinger; a busy
man who wants facts, not fudge.
("Tell me the truth," he once insisted,
"if there are differences between
different intelligence agencies I want
to know it.")
Mr. Colby has begun recasting the
system. He has scrapped the Board 4f '-
National Estimates and its backu
staff.- In their place he has begui
napping key aides as "national it -
telligence officers" for specific to q*
priprity topics. He tends to think of
them as "Mr. Russia," "Mr. Sat
talks," "Mr. Middle East," etc. i
Mr. Colby's innovation has been
criticized. Veterans warn that.
whereas the Board of National E$tl,.
mates was like a court, uninfluenced
by policies of the administration in
power, concerned solely with objgte?
tive analysis - the new "one man"' ,
system may make it easier for the
White House to pressure Mr. Coyly
and '.is NIOs to tailor their findings?to
tine administration's policies.
Mr. Colby defends the new system
as faster and more accurate. The
strings, of course, all now run into his
own hands - rather than, as before,
into a group of prestigious, elderly but
often balky, experts.
More, important in Mr. Colby's
view, the new system of individual
NIOs considers the key factor of how
to collect needed intelligence -
whether by spies, by orbiting satel-
lites, or by electronic bases around
the world - plus relative costs.
Rising costs form a pressing part of
Mr. Colby's preoccupations. He gives
no details, but outside experts say the
U.S. intelligence community has been
held to about $3.5 billion a year for
several years; with the CIA spending
$600 million of that yearly. The De,
fense Department alone spends more
than $2 billion yearly on intelligence
- without which the United States
could scarcely enter serious dis-
armament negotiations with the Rus-
sians.
Yet with prices inexorably rising
Mr. Colby has been faced with the
rueful choices of (A) keeping all
programs and personnel going and
asking Congress yearly for more
money; (B) keeping all programs but
cutting Into research and devel-
opment; or (C) trimming less-essen-
tial programs.
Realizing the widespread mistrust
of the CIA, Mr. Colby has started
eliminating time-encrusted shibbo-
leths of secrecy. There are three
types of "secrets" in his view:
e "Bad secrets or government
misbehavior which enterprising jour-
nalists expose for the public good.
e There are secrets which need no
longer be secret: CIA involvement in
analysis of world events or in science,
research, and technology.
? Finally there are "good" secrets
- matters which should be protected
- such as the identity of a key
informant In a hostile government.
Mr. Colby is said to feel strongly
that if everything CIA does is covered
by a blanket of secrecy, "good"
secrets risk being exposed because
the cloak of security must cover so
much.
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
 Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9..
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
13 FEB 1974
fro ~~ ~"rc~~~ f `roc '
By Dann Adams Schmidt
Staff correspondent of
The Christian Science Monitor,
Washington
Federal aviation officials have sug-
gested a plan to protect VIP airplane
passengers such as Secretary of State
Henry A. Kissinger from terrorist
attack by heat-seeking rockets.
The Federal Aviation Agency
(FAA) his passed along Information
obtained from the Central In-
__... telligence Agency Indicating -that op-
erations ? by Palestinian terrorists
have been planned in the United
States.
The FAA scheme would Install
aboard airliners special observers to
watch through a wide-angle periscope
-for terrorist heat-seeking rockets -
and who could fire flares to divert the
rockets.
It has been suggested such oper-
ations presumably would be directed
against Secretary of State Kissinger,
architect of Arab-Israeli negotiations
which some Palestinians adamantly
oppose.
Information reported
It Is reported the CIA had informa-
tion indicating the terrorists were
hoping to carry out in the United
States an attack using Soviet-made
~? SAM-7 "Strella" hand-held missile
launchers. Reported plans for use of
these missiles were foiled recently by,
extensive British military pre-
` three `vehicles loaded with explosives{
--? In New York during a recent visit by
Premier Golds Meir of Israel. The.
assassination of an Israeli military
cautions around Heathrow' Airport
and by the Belgian Army around
Brussels airport. The precautions
were taken at the time Dr; Kissinger
was using the ariports.
The CIA Information and the FAA
caution to International airports and
airlines have been disclosed by Rep.
John At. Murphy (D) of New York in a
rel)ort to the chairman of the House
Comnierce Committee, Rep. Harley
0. Staggers (D) of West Virginia.
Mr. Murphy at the same time
proposed a bill that would create a
federal airport police capable of eft
fecting around American airports the
kind of security taken by the British
and the Belgian Armies. At present,
airport security in the United States is'
in the hands of local police author-
ities.
Problem of approval
State Department officials, con-
cerned with the security of Dr. Kis-
singer and other American officials,
believe the suspicion with which
many Americans regard the Idea of
any kind cf federal police would make
it difficult to get congressional ap-
preval for a federal airport-security
organization. ?
So far, the kind of precautions taken
in the United States has prevented the
P.alestini,n terrorists from hijacking
air craft.
The Federal
vestigation did,
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
21 February 1974
Ld 4 k" 14 ,,, T& "
Howto protect Vai' planes 4
Bureau
however,
attache in Washington also remains
unsolved.
In a letter to Chairman Staggers f
the 'Commerce Committee, Air. Mti-
phy said he had been "briefed by
special agents of the FAA who 10.'
formed me that Intelligence they have
received indicates that terrorists in
the United States have plans to park
an automobile at the end of a runway
of a major U.S. airport and fire one
of these rockets right up the tailpipe
ofa747asittakesoff. " ?
? Diplomatic pouches used?
He said the agents told him that-the
Strella launchers and missiles had
been assembled by Palestinian ter-
,rorists in Belgium and it is suspected
that they had been sent there iii
Libyan diplomatic pouches.
The FAA communication to air-
ports and airlines explained that the
Strella weapon the terrorists are
believed to be using has a maximum
effective range of 2.5 nautical miles
and a maximum altitude of 10,000
feet. Because the missile is of the
heat-seeking variety, an aircraft tak-
ing off and climbing would be espe-
cially vulnerable.
In addition to installing observers
with periscopes and flares it sug-
gested that high-risk aircraft use
alternate runways, airfields, or land-
ing and takeoff patterns and try to
of In, make approaches and takeoffs as
discover short and steep as possible.
U.S. faces danger of. upsurge in hard-drug use
.Turkish farmers again' to grow opium
By John K. Oooley
Staff correspondent of
The Christian Science Monitor
Beirut
Next May, when the white and
purple-blue opium poppies begin
sprouting in Turkey's fields, the hard-
drug problem in the United States and
other Western countries could face
'serious aggravation.
Turkish Prime Minister Bulent
Ecevit's new government has offi-
cially notified the United States, that
reaching the United States has its'
origin In Turkish opium.
Following the, Turkish an-
nouncement last Thursday, aides of
U.S. Ambassador in Ankara William
MacComber began a "review" of the
opium situation with Mr. Ecevit's
government. Turkish newspapers re-
ported - and Turkish officials denied
- that the United States would offer
Turkey about $40 million additional to
the $35.7 million special aid granted in
1971 if It will maintain the ban.
Turkey will resume legal cultivation
of the opium poppy, banned in 1971 Intended as farm aid
under U.S. pressure. The original $35.7 million was in.,
U.S. officials estimate that about 80 - tended to hel
percent of all the he* MM eRel 6efi 14,
wheat, barley, and
among other crops.
Turkish farmers complained last
year, that this aid had not been
reaching them. A report of the Tur-
kish Union of Agricultural Chambers,
Turkey's leading farm organization,
last year claimed a loss of about $8
million in one year by farmers who
had given up poppy cultivation.
,New agricultural and industrial
projects for the Afyon region of
southwestern Anatolia, where most of
the opium poppies are grown, had not
been carried out by a special U.S.-
Turkish committee set up for the
purpose,hereport said.
r, d t04J 1~'ditli3#~l'1~9 political
~qn~ M i= October. -
 Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
1973, Turkish elections that they
would lift the opium ban, which
affects about 100,000 farming fami.
lies.
Many of these farmers had buried
their stocks of raw opium and hidden
their poppyseeds from government
inspectors.
After formation of Turkey's new
coalition government last month, the
two main partners, Mr. Ecevit's Re-
publican People's Party and the Na-
tignal Salvation Party, signed a policy
agreement. On opium production it
says: "Ways will be sought to satisfy
human considerations on the one hand
and to end the damage suffered by the
producers on the other."
The 1971 ban slowed but did not halt
Illicit opium traffic. U.S. and local
narcotics control officials say quan-
tities of raw opium are regularly
smuggled to Syria and Lebanon. Here
it is refined Into morphine base which
is smuggled to Marseilles and other
European points for conversion to
heroin.
Retail value : $113 million
NEW YORK TIMES
22 February 1974
U.S. WARNS TURKS 1
OVER POPPY FARMING
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 (AP).
-The State Department has in-
structed the United States Am-
bassador to Turkey to tell Pre-
mier Bulent Ecevit that lifting
a law that bans cultivation of
opium would have disastrous
consequences on the fight
against drug addiction depart-
ment officials said.
The officials said that Am-
bassador William B. Macomber
Jr. was scheduled to meet with
Mr. Ecevit.
Foreign Minister Turan
Gunes told Mr. Macomber last
week that the new Turkish
Government wanted a review
of the 1971 agreement with
the United States. It permitted
Nihat Prim, then Premier to ban
,the growing of poppy by June,
1972. In exchange, the United
States paid $35.7-million to
Turkey.
The new Turkish Govern-.
ment't move was no surprise
because Mr. Ecevit's Republi-
can Peoples party opposed the
ban in the election campaign,
the officials `said.'
Before the ban; 100,000 Turk-
ish farmers grew opium. United
States experts said that 80 per
cent of the heroin smuggled'-
into the United States came
from poppies grown in Turkish)
Anatolia.
Last August, Turkish police, acting
on an anonymous tip, seized a truck.
load of ovet two tons of raw opium,
the biggest narcotics haul of all time,
hidden under fruit.
Refined, this would have produced
about 474 pounds of heroin worth
about $113 million on the streets of
New York, Boston, or Chicago. Tur-
kish police said the opium had been
buried underground for at least five
years near Gaziantep, a smuggling
center near the Turkish-Syrian bor-
der.
Turkey helped to write and then
signed the United Nations single con-
vention on narcotic drugs in 1966. This
authorized Turkey and six other coun.
tries to grow the opium poppy legally
for export intended for medical de-
rivatives like morphine. A UN narcot-
ics board each year sets the world.
wide quotas for the legal trade.
Between 1959 and 1972, when the
ban took effect, Turkey reduced from
21 to 9 the provinces where the opium
poppy may be grown. If Turkey's ban
is .lifted, Turkish farmers 'will, as
before, sell their legal quotas to the
WASHINGTON POST
19 February 1974
Victor Zorza
Inner . -
les
The Kremlin is worried by the con-
flict between Henry Kissinger and
James Schlesinger reported from
Washington. Pravda discerns an
"intense struggle" over the future of
detente. Moscow Radio finds in Kis-
singer's speeches signs of "the hidden
struggle behind the scenes."
Secretary of State Kissinger, it re-
ports, says that "we should not play
with the danger. of nuclear war" and
make a domestic debate out of it. His
hidden meaning, it concludes, is "quite
obvious." His warning, it says, is ad-
dressed to those Washington
"elements" which demand more money
for arms and obstruct the negotiations
with Moscow on 'SALT.
Moscow papers report that Secre-
tary of Defense Schlesinger had made
the "t.oughest remarks" heard in Wash-
ington since the 1972 summit and SALT
agreement, thus embarrassing "even
some high-ranking figures." Guess
who . .
The Kremlin wonders where Mr.
Nixon stands between Kissinger and
Schlesinger. To judge from the Soviet
press, 'Moscow's "Amerika-watchers"
have t.4rrned Kremlinology inside out'
to practice an even darker art, Wash-
ingtonology.
They read The Washington Post, by
all accounts, the way soon' of its read
Pravda. So they would hater noted,
government.
Despite the government stand on
the opium issue, Turkish courts have
shown great severity in sentencing
American and other' foreign drug
offenders caught smuggling or "push.
ing" drugs from the outside world
inside Turkey.
Last Dec. 28, for example, a crimi-.
nal court in Antakya commuted to life
imprisr;rment capital sentences it
passed on three Americans: Joanne,'
Marie McDaniel of Coos Bay, Oregon;
Catherine Zenz of Lancaster, Wisc.;
and Robert Hubbard, a native of
Washington state.
Consular 'authorities and attorneys
for these and around 50 other foreign
drug offenders imprisoned in Turkey''
are hopeful that a national amnesty.
for this year's 50th anniversary of the
Turkish Republic will reduce sen-
tences and release many priasners.
Under terms of the prospective am-
nesty reported In Ankara, those
serving life sentences would have'.
tl ieir time cut to 24 years.
first, the column by Tom Braden an-
pouncing that Kissinger and Schle-
singer were on a collision course. Next,
they would have read a column by Ste-
phen Rosenfeld concluding from this
that "a journalists friend" of Kissing
er's had made it known, that Kissinger
feels himself threatened by Schle.
singer.
They would gather from this that
Kissinger, by leaking the story, is tell.
ing Schlesinger that if he wants a
fight, he can have one. Digging deeper
for evidence, they would find in The
Washington Post a finely wrought,
brilliantly argued essay by Thomas
H u g It e s, former director of intelli-
gence and research In the State De-
partment, who concluded that Kis-
singer had become de facto President
of the United States for Foreign Pol-
icy.
Kissinger's heated rejection a few
days later of any such notion would'
only have confirmed their suspicions,
as denials usually do. It had lately
been reported that Schlesinger had not
seen Mr. Nixon alone since he became
Secretary of Defense in the summer
,and that he was running the Defense
Department very much In his own
way. And here was Kissinger, letting
everybody know that he was seeing the
President every morning for at least
half an hour, but usually much longer,
and insisting that great departments of
government must not be "the personal
fiefdoms of individual man." Was he
talking about himself or about
Schlesinger?
Nothing could illustrate the pitfalls
of Kremlinology . . . or Washington.
ology-more graphically than the con-
clusions drawn on the basis of such scat-
tered quotations. in Moscow the only
source material for political analysis
is the press, and the only possible-
method is reading between its lines.
In Washington the flood of words,
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
 Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
Written and spoken, Is so vast that few
analysts can find the time to study
lt.They have to rely on the musings of
high officials who are only too often
willing to unburden themselves for
publication-but off the record,
In Washington, the study of docu-
ments must be combined with the less
formal flow of information. to yield in-
sights about the way in which high pol-
icy emerges from a struggle of person-
allties, factions and bureaucracies.
While Kissinger was preoccupied with
the ,Mideast, Schlesinger staked a
claim for a "much larger strategic
force structure" to go with the re-tar-
getfing of missiles. against a greatly in-
creased number of Soviet targets.
But Kissinger made a barbed re-
mark, on his return from the Mideast,
which implied that strategic policy was '
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
6 March 1974
made in the National Security Council
where he, Kissinger, was the Presi.
dent's representtative. Schlesinger now
explains that his re-targeting doctrine
requires no additional forces.'
This much may be read, as in Mos-
cow, between the lines. But it must be
read in conjunction with the fact tint
Kissinger has caused a presidential
"decision memorandum" to be issued
to the bureaucracy announcing ap-
proval of the re-targeting doctrine-
but only under the existing missile
force structure.. As for tihe new- mis-
siles demanded by Schlesinger, Kis-
singer has arranged for a "nissim"-
White House jargon for a national se-
curity study. memorandum-which
calls for an inter-agency study of the
weapons -requirements asserted ? by
Schlesinger.
The Pentagon 'sees it. as a mean, un-.
derhand -trick, designed to dilute Itp
previously unquestioned authority In'
weapons procurement. 'The "nissim"-
-' will allow other parts of the bureauc.
racy, which oppose some of the Penta
gon's demands, to press their object
tions.? Kissinger, the Pentagon suspects,
will then use his position as coordina-
tor to juggle the evidence. in support
of his own views-and against those of
Schlesinger.
These may seem to be only the sor-
did details of an Internal conflict
among power-hungry politicians and
bureaucrats, but,, as a further article 1,
will argue, the Kremlin's belief that!!
the outcome of this struggle will deter4
mine the future of detente is not' far,
off the mark. -
?1974, Victor Zorss
Sch!csiner's choice: cold war or
n0nn9a9
I'' a
Defense Secretary's report to Congress stresses improved missiles
as 'counterforce to Soviet Union, new stage in politics of deterrence
By Dana Adams Schmidt Inferior Navy? 9
Staff correspondent of Soviet population and destroy more
The Christian Science Monitor Seemingly more attuned to cold war than 75 percent of Soviet Industry.
argumenta th t d
an
t
t
Washington
"Where there Is no vision, the
people perish." (Prov. 29:18)
Secretary; of Defense James R.
Schlesinger, who used this biblical
quotation to lead off his 287-page
military posture report to the United
States Congress, obviously has no
doubts that he possesses the vision
that will save the people.
Early this week he shared It with
the members of the Senate Armed
Services Committee and left some
wondering whether his vision is the
same as that of his Harvard class-
mate, Secretary of State Henry A.
Kissinger.
While the two men's objectives may
be the same the Secretary of De-
fense's words and arguments were
more hawkish than would be expected
from the Secretary of State.
Mr. Schlesinger seemed Inspired
more by John Foster Dulles, or
possibly Rudyard Kipling, in the
following passage :
o e
en
e, Mr. But supposing - and this is the new
Schlesinger deplored what he termed ! argument .- the Russians did not
the inadequacy of various U.S. weap- strike at our cities, but instead aimed
ons, the growing inferiority of the U.S. their missiles at military airfields and .
Navy and the effrontery of the Soviet missile-launching sites.
Union during the Middle East war. "A development of more recent
But what concerned him most, as it years," said the Secretary of Defense,
has ever since he replaced Elliot L., "is the accelerated Improvement of
Richardson in this office more than a Soviet missile technology. The Soviet
year ago, was nuclear defense policy. Union now has the capability in its
Mr. Schlesinger has become the missile forces to undertake selective
philosopher of "countetforce," which, attacks against targets other than our
he regards as a new stage in the cities."
politics of deterrence.
"Although several targeting options, have been a part of U.S. strategic ' Vigorous program
doctrine for quite some time," he
said, "the concept that has dominated Mowshould the U.S
w. ntsn respond?
our rhetoric for most of the era since Mr. Schlesinger wants to improve
World War II has been massive U.S. missiles in accuracy and limits-
lion of blast so
retaliation against cities, or what is .
can be flexibl
e.
called assured destruction. ? But there Is another aspect of Soviet
"As I hardly need emphasize, there nuclear policy that concerns the Sec-
is a certain terrifying elegance in the retary. "In recent years, the U.S.S.R.
simplicity of the concept. For all that has been pursuing a vigorous.strate-
,it postulates, in effect, is that deter- gic R&D program. This we had
rence will be adequately
[indeed expected. But its breadth, depth, and
amply) served if at all times
we
momentum as now revealed comes as
The United States today, as op. possess the second-strike capability; This to the. period before 1945, bears to destroy some percentage of the something
his program a surprise to might give the the principal burden of maintaining ' population and industry of a potential hia might give the Rue-
the worldwide military equilibrium enemy." stars a one-sided advantage in strate-
which is the foundation for the secur- He recalled that during the 1960's gic missile warheads, which "is am-
he e from our point of view.
ity and the survival of the free world. "We tended to talk in terms of permissible
'This is not a role we have welcomed; assured destruction of between a fifth This, he explains, is what SALT II is
it is a role that historical necessity and a third of the all about. The U. a having research
population .and in its 1975 budget some research
has thrust upon us. The burden ai between half and three
t
-quar
ers of
programs for weapons that would
responsibility has fallen on the United the industrial capacity." In 1974, he equal or surpass those of the Rus-
?States, and there is nobody else to added, "even after a more brilliantly sians, is offering "to reduce the
pick up the torch if the United States executed and devastating attack than present balance in such a way that
falls to carry It." we believe our potential adversaries strategic equivalence can be achieved
could deliver," the U.S. could prob- at the lowest cost and least destabiliz-
ably kill more than 80 percent of the ing level of forces."
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA--RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
that American policy
 Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
WASHINGTON POST
7 March 1974
Rowland Evans' and .Roliert Novak
;Voice of America
Speechless an
."Gulag Archipelago"
The Voice of America (VOA), this The first congressional target. was
'nation's overseas, propaganda arm, has not USIA's treatment of Gulag but its
been strangely, ute about Alexander apparent playing down in broadcasts
Solzhenitsyn's monumental "Gulag Ar- to the Soviet Union of news about So-
chipelago" 'despite pointed pleas from
the U.S.,.embassy in Moscow to pass'
the dramatic word in detail to the Rus-
sian people.
When excerpts of the great author's
work first appeared in Western news-
papers last December, the embassy ca-
bled the U.S. Information Agency
(USIA) commending VOA's first han-
dling of what was becoming a big in-
ternational story. But the diplomatic
cable also strongly pressed . USIA,
which runs VOA, to be sure and get
into "the, substance" of Gulag-that is,
to beam great gobs of it into the heart
of Russia.
. Yet,, the USIA high 'command ? is so'
timid about seeming to undercut Presi-
dent Nixon's detente with Moscow that
That' telegram was never even an-
swered.
Just how much of this policy has,
been. dictated to USIA director James
Keogh by the White House or the.
State Department is not known. Keogh,
told us VOA policy, is made by him
and his top aides in ?tonformity with
U.S. policy.
Whatever the answer, USIA's refusal
to exploit Gulag is,infuriating not only
'anti-Soviet hardliners but other politi-
clans fearful . that President Nixon's
weakness at home may lead him into
unwarranted concessions' abroad in his
search for foreign successes.
'Thus,, the policy of playing down
news that might affront the, White
House was applied to Gulag: Actually,
aecording to middle-level USIA offi-
cials, former chief ? Nixon speechwriter
Keogh began subtly toning down VOA's
coverage of the Watergate scandal
when he took over USIA from Frank
Shakespeare in early 1973 at, the rec-
ommendation of then White House
staff chief H. R. Haldeman.
:- But political reaction to Keogh's
muted coverage .of Gulag far tran-
scends criticism of his kid-glove treat-
ment. of Watergate. Powerful politi-
cians of both parties are quietly cam-
ppaigning to force Keogh to tell mil-
lions'of radio listeners in the Soviet
Union far more about Solzhenitsyn's
hitter outcry against the Stalin era.
viet dissidents. In a January speech,
Sen., Henry M. Jackson questioned
'whether USIA was trying "to accom-
modate the Soviet demand that we re-
frain from broadcasting about what
Soviet authorities consider to be mat-
ters of an internal nature."
That elicited an overnight response
from Eugene P. Kopp, Keogh's deputy
director. Kopp wrote Jackson that the
new regime at USIA was trying to
"reach a wider Soviet audience with
more news and information about the
United States." In short, spare news-
less Russians the harsher facts of So-
viet life and give them goodies about
America.
In line with this new policy of what
middle-level USIA officials call the.-
Keogh-Kopp clique, the USIA flatly
WASHINGTON POST
19 February 1974
UStA RPIU'tion
James Keogh, director- of
the United States Informa-
tion Agency, oriticired an
Associated Press story sa.v-
ing that the Voice of Amer-
lea curtailed its coverage of
Soviet affairs I.o protrcl de-
tente" since the Soviets
stopped jamming VOA last
Septmmber.
Keogh called the st.ory
"an irresponsible distor-
Lion."
The USIA director did not
deny the authenticity of
the figures cited in the AP
story, based on a U.S. gov-
evrnment computer survey,
but he said they had been
subjected to "misinterpre-
tation."
"There has been no
change in VOA policy re-
garding broadcast's to the,
Soviet Union since the, jam-
ming was slopped," Keogh
said. "'There have been no
'deals'- elandesl inc or nt.tt-
erwise-between file Soviet
and American govern.
ments."
18
ruled out proposals from both Con-'
gress and VOA itself that excerpts of
Gulag he read over VOA. Instead, cove
erage of the shocking study of the Sta-
lin era was limited to a rehash of sto-'
ries, editorials and commentaries,
taken from the U.S. media.
In the past, VOA seldom If ever
broadcast to Communist nations
lengthy excerpts of published material.;
But Gulag is unique: the most power-
ful expose ever published of life under'
Stalin. That's why the Russian service
of the #witish Broadcasting Corp. r
(BBC) has been reading lengthy ex-
cerpts from Gulag. Similarly, the' Ger-
man overseas radio, Deutsche Welle,
has given its Soviet audience a regular
dose of long quotations,
In public, Keogh says Soviet officials
are complaining about present VOA;
coverage of the Russian dissident
movement but boasts "we are holding
to it." In private, he tells associates in-
side USIA that one reason for. playing
down Gulag is fear of renewed Soviet
jamming of VOA, which stopped last
fall as a Soviet concession to detente..
However, neither the German, nor the.
British excerpts have been jammed.
Keogh, biographer and longtime Idol-
ater of Richard M. Nixon, takes the
public position that USIA is commit-..
ted "to support, not oppose, U.S. for-
-eign policies." Responding last week to
his critics, he said: "The principal goal
of American foreign policy is to affect
the foreign policies of other nations to-
ward negotiations and awjiy from con-'
trontation, not to-transform the domes-
tic structures of these societies."
That is a shocking admission that
VOA is being switched from no-holds- ?
barred news. Into a policy arm of the '
U.S. Such a switch could destroy Its'
credibility and lose its audience.
0 1974. FIeId Enterprises The.
Washington Post
18 Feb. 1971x;
VOA Cut Coverage
0/ Soviet; Study Finds;
MOSCOW, Fcrb. 17 (AP)-A.
U.S. government computer
study tends to confirm allega-
tions by Russian dissidents
that the Voice of America cur.
tailed its coverage of Soviet.
affairs to protect detente.
A recent survey of VOA pro.
gramniiiig released by Ameri.
can officials here shows, that
the official U.S. radio station
significantly decreased news
of Soviet affairs immediately
after the Kremlin ' stopped
jamming VOA transmissions
last September.
According to the survc,' fig
tires. total VOA coverage of
the Soviet Union was down (i7
per cent. in a .13-day
post jamming period, com-
pared to a 13-day period he-
fore the jamming halt.
The U.S. officials said the
diminished Soviet coverage
was explained by a lack-of ctis-
sideni news and a paucity of
U.S. news comments and re.
Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
 Approved For Release 2001/08/08 : CIA-RDP77-00432R000100320003-9
NEW YORK TIMES
18 February 1974
ports on Soviet affairs. How-
ever, a survey of major West-
ern' news organizations with,.
offices in Moscow revealed no?~
Fubstantial changes in the,
;amount of political news re
ported during the two ?VOA-
selected periods.
Many dissidents believe the
changes in programming re.'
flc t a - clandestine Moscow-
Washington deal. VOA -offi-
cials in Washington and the
U.S. embassy here strongly
Ideiny any such agreement, i
Jacks(on. Criticizes .
U.S. ,Silence oiH. Exile
Sen. Henry lacksoon (1)-
Wash.) yesterday charged the
,Nixon administration with
`deplorable" silence in the
wake of Alexander Solzhenit.-
syn's expulsion from the So-
viet Union.
In a statement issued here
.Jackson said. "At a time when
men' and women throughout
the free world-ordinary citi-'
tens. government off I C I a i s
land even heads of state-have
voiced their revulsion at the
mistreatment and brutal ex-
pulsion of this great and brave
'man, I cannot allow the silence
of the President In be under-
stood as representing the sen-
timents of the American peo-
ple. It does not."
Jackson said the President's
silence and the "waffling" by
Secretary of State Henry A.
Kissinger served as "a clear
indication that the administra-
tion has narrowed its concep-
tion of detente to exclude it,
sues of human rights." '4
Solzhenitsyn
ri
Without Tears.
'jay William Safire
WASHINGTON-I am the first on
mY1v, ht~4 f.. ?..1 ..,._..,.