COURT UPHOLDS CIA TO REQUIRE REVIEW OF MARCHETTI DATA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 91
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 25, 2000
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: December 21, 1972
• Content Type: NSPR

110ijSTON , TEXAS
POST
ApprovediFor Release 2006/01/03
M - 294,677
- 329,710
C E C 2 197a?
Court upholds CIA
to require review
of Marchetti data
By DONALD Ii. MORRIS
Post News Analyst
. A number of federal
agencies are breathing easier
in the wake of a recent Su-
preme Court decision. The
- 's injunction to prevent
Victor ? larchetti from pub-
lishing material based on his
service with them has been
upheld by the highest court in
the land.
- As usual in such cases, the
Issues are far from clear and
generate considerable 'emo-
Post analysis
tion. Marchetti claimed that
the injunction iaterfered with
his freedom of speech, was
centrary to a 1971 ruling per-
mitting the media to publish
portions of the Pentagon Pa-
pers, and would IParl lo a sys-
teniatie scheme et censorship.
He supported by the Au-
thors ler.s.ague of America. the
Association of American Fh-
lithe's the American Civ-
il Eiberties Union.
Th injunction, issued by a
U.S.: Circuit Court in Septem-
biees lkitarchetti to ad-
here to the secrecy agree-
ment he signed when he went
to work for the CIA in 1956.
The agreement does not pro-
hibit Marchetti from publish-
ire. It only requires him to
submit relevant material to
the agency prior to publi-
ption for review on security
gtrainds.
I) pite the dangers
Frylnine:y present in such an
am/eve:tient, the CIA has an
evflle?1 track record in pre-
\loth eases. Marchetti, in
fact.. IS' the fftst former em-
ploye the agency has taken to
court in a quarter of a centu-
ry.-
The agency's stand, which
the record bears out, is that
it makes no effort to interfere
with attacks on its policies or
operations. It will, however,
take action to prevent dis-
closure of operations, tech-
niques or the identity of per- .
sonnel not already known to
opposition intelligence ser-
vices.
T h e key phrase is not
"classified material" but
"previous disclosure." All pa-
perwork is classified as it is
generated, and the level is
unimportant because "Con-
fidential," "Secret" and "Top
Secret" are simply internal
routine indicators and all boil
down to "internal use only."
Over the years, much of this
material becomes known to
the Soviet services ? the
KGB and the GRU ? and
thus loses its sensitivity. The
K G B discovers techniques
and identifies agents, and op-
erations are terminated. The
material has been "dis-
closed" and is no longer
"sensitive," although it is still
technically "classified" ?
and will remain so until some
one faces the chore of declas-
sifying it. A previous employe
might write a book based en-
tirely on such material with-
out upsettine the agency a
whit. It would only intervene
to delete reference to materi-
als which would aid the clan-
destine activities of the KBG
or th,! cau.
Declassifying dated mated-
...al is a major headache. An
agency official once showed
: CIA-RDP80-01
601R000400030001-7
me a' letter. "Here is a major
newspaper," he said, "asking
for all documents we hold
bearing on Viet, Nam from
1953 through 1953 ? the 47
volumes of the Pentagon Pa-
pers are simply extracts from
the mass he is asking for, in
its entirety. There are over 3
million microfilms for the pe-
riod in question, warehoused.
To review for declassification
would involve making hard
copies of all, screening them,
and having them reviewed by
the officials who drafted them
? several thousand of them
no longer in government ser-
vice and other thousand scat-
tered all over the world. Over
5.030 foreign names would
have to be traced to deter-
mine current status. We have
no Congressional appropria-
tions to hire the task force of
a b ou t fifty people needed
even' to start such a job.
Even if we made hard copies
and just handed them over
without screening, they would
fill a'.:out six trucks, and just
what would the roan who
asked for them do with them
then?
How am I supposed to an-
swer such a letter?"
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
STAT
'cEll; YORK..11,D,
Approved For Release 200,:?;16)F00 101A-RDP80-01601
Watch on the Media -1
?? By Herbert Mitgang
More than five years after the Free-
dom ? of Information Act became
Federal law, it is still difficult for
Journalists, historians and researchers
to obtain information freely. The idea
- behind the law was to take the rubber
stamp marked "Confidential" out :of
the hands of bureaucrats and open up
public records, opinions and policies
of Federal agencies to public scrutiny.
It hasn't worked that way.
When President Johnson signed the
bill, ho declared that it struck a proper
balance between Government con-
fidentiality and the people's right to
know. In actual practice, it has taken
court ,actions to gain access to Gov-
ernment records. An effort is finally
being made to declassify the tons of
documents by the Interagency Classit
fication Review Committee, under the
chairmanship of former 'Ambassador
John 'Eisenhower. This historical sur-
vey will take years.
But more than mere documents
are involved. There is a matter of the
negative tone in Washington.
The White House and its large com-
munications staff have lengthened the
distance between executive branch,
Congress and the public. Of course,
every Administration has instinctively
? applied cosmetics to its public face,
but this is the first one operating for
a full term under the mandate of .the
Freedom of Information Act. The re-
sult is that official information ?
especially if it appears to brush. the
Administration's robes unfavorably ?
is not communicated but excommuni-
cated.
The other day Senator Symington
of Missourira former Air Force Secre-
tary who has been questioning the
wisdom of the President's 11-52 foreign
policy in Southeast Asia, said: "I would
hope that during this session of Con-
gress everything possible is done to
eliminate unnecessary secrecy especi-
ally as in most cases this practice has
nothing to do with the security of the
? United States and, in fact, actually
operates against that security."
This point was Underscored before
? the House Subcommittee on Freedom
of Information by Rear Adm. Gene R.
La Rocque, a former Mediterranean
fleet commander :who since retiring
has headed the independent Center for
Defense Information. Admiral La
Rocque said that Pentagon classifica-
tion was designed to keep facts from
civilians in the State and Defense
Departments and that some Congress-
men were considered "bad security
risks" because they shared informa-
pproved,For Reler4a0datsge: fCr14413kV:01,6011R000400030001-7
tion witfi the?puAle?
Reputable historians trying to un-
earth facts often encounter Catch-22
conditions. The Authors League of
America and its members have resisted
those bureaucrats offering "coopera-
tion" on condition that manuscripts
be checked and approved before book
publication. The Department of Hous-
ing and Urban Development has
denied requests for information about
slum housing appraisals. The Depart-
ment of Agriculture turned down the
consumer-oriented Center for the
Study of Responsive Law in Washing-
ton when it asked for research mate-
rials about pesticide safety.
The unprecedented attempt by the
Administration to -block publication
of the Pentagon Papers, a historical
study of the Vietnam war, took place
despite the Freedom of Information
Act, not to mention the First: Amend-
ment. And the Justice Department is
still diverting its "war on crime"
energies to the hot pursuit of scholars
who had the temerity to share their
knowledge of the real war with the
public. Such Government activities
not only defy the intent of the Free-
dom of Information Act; they serve
as warnings to journalists, professors,
librarians and others whose fortunes
fall within the line of vision ?
budgetary, perhaps punitive? of the.
Federal Government.
The executive branch's battery of
media watchmen are busiest with
-broadcasting because of its franchises
and large audiences. At least ?one
White House aide, eyes glued to the
news programs on the commercial
networks, grades reporters as for or
against the President. In one case that
sent a chill through network news-
rooms, a correspondent received a
personal communication from a highly
placed Administration official ques-
tioning his patriotism after he had
reported from North Vietnam. Good
news (meaning good for the Ad-
ministration) gets .a call or a letter of
praise.
The major pressure on the commer-
cial and public stations originates from
the White. House Office of Telecom-
munications Policy, whose director'
has: made it clear that controversial
subjects in the great documentary
tradition should be avoided. The same
viewpoint has been echoed by the
President's new head of the Corpora-
tion for Public Broadcasting, which
finances major programs on 'educa-
tional stations. This Government cor-
poration is now engaged in a battle
to downgrade the Public Broadcasting
Service, its creative and interconnect-
R000400030001-7
STAT
Long before there was a- Freedom
of InfOrmation Act, Henry David
Thoreau was jailed for speaking out
and defying the Government's role in
the Mexican war, last century's Viet- ?
nam. "A very few men serve the State
with their consciences," he wrote,
"and they are commonly treated as
enemies by it." Grand juries, sub-
poenas and even Government jailers.
will be unable to overpower today's
men of conscience.
Herbert Mitgang is a member of the
editorial board of The Times.
WISHING TON POST
Approved For Release 2o46ogke :laa-RDP80-0160
diet Fai
N.
By Lewis Gulick
. -
Associated Press
presidential order aimed!
at, prying the secrecy wraps,
from old government papers !
has produced only a trickle of
new public information since
it took effect five months ago.
The .White House edict will
show greater impact later on,
Officials say, as declassifiers
delve into a mountain of aging
documents, and controls crimp
the flood of new secret writ-
Ings. .
. But an effort by The Asso-
ciated Press to dislodge some
documents under one portion :
of the order has met with vir-
tually no success so far. Other
inquirers have had similar ex-
periences.
- Under President Nixon's I
June 1 directive, any paper
more than 10 years old is sup-
' Posed to be made available to
a member of the public if he
asks for it unless a review by
officials finds it should be kept
secret.
The order calls also for au-
- tomatic declassification for all
documents when they become
30 years old, unless specifi-
cally exempted by a depart-
ment head in writing, and it
pares sharply the number of
officials allowed to impose se-
crecy stamps.
? Of eight requests made by
the AP since June 1 under the
10-year proviso, seven have yet
to produce any once-secret ma-
terial. '
CIA Refused
The lone exception was a re-
quest for a National Security
Council document from the
Kennedy administration.
Nearly two months after the
request was submitted, the
NSC noted that it had already
been declassified.
All other AP queries have
proven fruitless to date, in-
chiding a request for the rec-
ord of NSC recommendations
made to former President
? Dwight D. Eisenhower during
the 1958 Lebanon crisis.
David Young, an NSC aide
supervising the declassifica-
tion proram for the adminis-
? tration, has acknowledged that
the request for the ? 1958 pa-
pers falls within the guidelines
of .Mr. Nixon's order. But the
papers have yet to be made
available.
R000400030001-7
A to.ultir.Deggs..
? However, the CIA refused to
say what additional informa-
tion was needed and a follow-
up request, couched in more
specific terms, was turned
down. . ?
The ? AP has appealed the
CIA's -rejection to an Inter-
agency Classification Review
Committee set ?up under Nix-
on's order.
Study on-Access
A June 1 request to the De-
lense Department for some
Korean war documents pro-
duced a July 11 response that
the material was not in the
files of the assistant secretary
for international security 'af-
fairS and an Aug. 8 response
that a search for it would re-
quire "an unreasonable
amount of effort."
After a newsman noted that
Eisenhower referred to the
material in his memoirs as
coining from the Joint Chiefs
of 'Staff, the Pentagon search-
ers said they would look some
more. - -
A book-length report on
scholars' access to documents?
covered by the June 1 execu-
tive order says the new review
procedures "will not be of
much assistance to the
scholar:"
The study, published by the
nonprofit Twentieth Century
Fund, notes that the 1966
Freedom of Information Act
already allows citizens to ask
for. declassification of docu-
ments, of whatever age, with
appeal possible in court.
The June 1 order, which
covers, only documents that
are at least 10 years old, pro-
vides for appeal within the ex-
ecutive branch, where the se-
crecy label was applied in the
first place. .
The directive requires also
that the request be specific
enough that a government
search can locate the docu-
ment "with only a reasonable
amount of effort."
Countless Files
However, only insiders
know just what secret docu-
ments exist. An outsider can
guess,- .but serious ? scholars
usually prefer to have access
to an entire file to make'sure
they don't miss something im-
portant. .
Just how many requests
have :been made ? under the
The 'CIA responded to a new ' directive is uncertain.
query fdr docuApprovedfgor Relleatitte52qp(9040Sre oke_ RDP80-01601R000400030001 7
to an incident in the early been more len a tundr s .
1950s by saying that the re- tar, with most still in various I . ?
nuest was not specific enough. ? 'stages of processing. , ?
Thus, k early signs are that
the June 1 executive order
Will not prove of much imme-
diate 'help to scholars or news-
men searching for secret pa-
pers tucked away in countless
government files.- !Index System .which, hope-
Prospects are much bright- fully, will start . giving up-to-I
er, however, for creation of . date accounting on the secret
.an internal-control system Paper flow in 1973.
,stemming the flood of new se- The end of the line for most i
;cret writings and for yanking old government papers, and
away the secrecy of govern- counting duplicate copies and 1
;ment documents by the time minor items which are de- .
*they are 30 years old. stroyed, is the national
Ar-
No one knows exactly how chives.
than government documents Remove Secrecy
are under lock and key, hid- And here, say the.archivists,
den from public view by seen-. the outlook is bright for even-
rity classifications ranging tuallY putting nearly all once-
from "confidential" to" top Sc- secret docUments, into the pub-
cret." - ? lie domain.
STAT
Flow
But, by conservative esti-
mate, there are more than a
billion pages of such material.
That's enough paper to circle
the earth a half-dozen times if
placed end to end along the
equator.
NSC Directive
?
.And, with the help of mod-
ern photocopying gear, federal
officials were spewing an esti-
mated 200,000 pages of newly
classified documents into their
files daily as of June 1.
All that secrecy is expen-
sive.
A General Accounting Office
study covering just four ag,en-
eies?the' State Department,
Defense Department, NASA
and the Atomic Energy
Commission?rated their an-
nual outlay for administering
the security-classification sys-
tem at $60 million.
Since June 1, the White
House says, the number of
persons authorized to wield se-
crecy stamps has been slashed
49 per cent or from 32,586 to
16,238. Those figures do not in-
clude the Central Intelligence
Agency, which keeps the num-
ber of its classifiers secret.
By NSC directive, each
agency IS supposed to report
by July 1,.1973, all major clas-
sified documents on file after
the end of this year, giving
their subject headings and
when they should become
available to the public.
. This information is to be fed
into ?a computerized Data
Approved For Release 2006/pEMMARKT430-01601R0
- 22 NOV 1372
Nixon Order Fails to Easegre
riskr because of a tendency
Conssmen as "bad security
to "tell all to the public."
Access to Classified ata Other former high Govern-
ment officials acknowledged
? the existence among some
Bureaucratic Obsta
bureaucrats of the extreme
cies and High Costs view that "public business is no
business of the public.
On the other hand, one of the
most eloquent statements of the
public's "right to know" was
given by President Nixon in
promulgating the June 1 order.
BELAIR JR. "Fundamental to our way of
life," he said, "is the belief
New York TIrnes ?
Are Impeding.. Efforts, to .Obtain
Older Government Documents
By FELIX
Special to The
WASHINGTON, Nov. 21?
President Nixon's pledge "to
lift the veil of secrecy" from
needlessly classified official pa-
pers is being throttled by bu-
reaucratic confusion timidity
? and prohibitive costs, in the
opinion of historians, other
t scholars and newsmen.
Five months after the Presi-
dent's order on June I, direct-
agencies in the five months information more .difficult re-
:. ing a freer flow of information through October, 83 were grant- tiler than the reverse,
to the public from secret and ed in full and four in part; 521 The order provides that, after
confidential, papers more than were denied in full and 38 are
10 years old, the output is still pending, the White House
Mill no more than a trickle. figures show. ?
The breakdown, however,
More requests for documents does not take into account that
that ? when information which
wraps and by whom." A House properly belongs to the public
watchdog committee has is systematically withheld by
charged that the President's those in power, the people soon
June 1 order was issued to become ignorant of their own
head off such a bill, on which affairs, distrustful of those who
it was then holding hearings, manage them, and?eventually
Figures compiled by the ?incapable of determining
White House staff suggest that their own destinies."
results under the new order? Despite this endorsement of
the first "reform" since 1953 a better-informed public, the
?.have not been too had. Of language of the President's or-
177 requests made to various der makes access to classified
have been denied or labeled
Mending" than have' been
granted.
Those seeking access to the
some of the information grante
was not responsive to a re-
quest. One of the features of the
10 years, secret material on .na-
tional security and foreign pol-
isy mat be reviewed for de-
classification on request, pro-
vided that the information is
described "with sufficient par-
ticularity that it can be ob-
tained with only a reasonable
system is that the person re-amount of effort."
'documents are searching for in-
t'ormation ? that might throw questing declassification must
i ? Drawback Cited
;
new light on the origins of the agree n advance to buy the
The drawback in this require-
material. He must agree in ad-
United States involvement in ment, those who have made the
vance to pay the cost of lo-
the Korean and Vietnam wars effort say, is that only the of-
andg,identifying and review-
the Cuban Bay of Pigs invasion'. ficial.s. know what is in the
; other matters relating to ing the material even though
classified files and how it is
the nation's military and for-
eign policies.
i In an interview on results
11 of the Presidential edict, Prof. the process the outsider must
1 Lloyd C. Gardiner, chairman of ued classification, hinder ac- agree in writing to assume any
the history department at Rut_ cess to old papers on defense costs entailed in identification
gers University, said that "for and foreign policy, it has been and location of the material and
misdirection, subterfuge and charged. Some of these offi-
. security review.
circumlocution there lias been
it may not answer his question.
? Balked by Officials
Officials' attitudes, as much
as the rules permitting contin-
identified. Outsiders can guess
at what is there and provide
approximate dates. But to start
caals relax prestige and the ire- .
: nothing like this bureaucratic portance of their jobs to the The average citizen and most
?performance since the old-fash. volume of secret information news media consider this cost
limed shell game." coming across their desks, ac- prohibitive. . .
Professor Gardner, who has cording to testimony before the The ? Washington bureau .of
been trying for nearly 10 years,HouseSubcommittee on Free...,
Th
. . e New York Times, within a
to obtain State Department pa-
pers on the origins of the Ko-
rean war, has also been a lead-
ing critic before Congressional
. committees of efforts to devise
a secrecy classification sys-
tem by Executive order.
Future Effect Seen
Those in charge of carrying
out the President's order say it
will have a greater effect in
years to conic as more papers
are brought under review and
new restrictions inhibit the use
of secrecy labels.
To Professor Gardner, how-
ever, "the brightest pros civilians in their own service; pect is
in o n -n
o ation. week of the effective date of
Rear Adm. Gene R. La the President's order, submitted
Rocque, who retired from the 31 foreign policy questions to
Navy after 31 years and who the State Department and re-
received the Legion of Merit for quested declassification of the
his work on strategic planning material presumably containing
for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the 'answers. All together, 55
told the House panel that:
Pentagon elssification was or, requests went to five Federal
agencies.
dered for a variety of reasons . Three weeks later the State
other than the legitimate one of Department responded that "we
preventing information from, have concluded that your re-
tailing into the hands of a po- quest does not describe the
tential enemy. records you seek with sufficient
He listed among the other particularity to enable the de-
reasons: "To keep it from the
other
partment to identify them, and
military services: from
that as described, they cannot
that Congress will put an end from civilians in e Defense amount of effort,.
the he obtained with a reasonablei
to secret classification by ad- Department; from the State
ministrative orriefTemadllpRate
,Refleaseu2006101403sv,q14WOKOVAPakOW:ii)
Reference in. Memoirs.
Among the June .1 requests
by The Associated Press was
one to the Defense Department
for certain material on the Ko-
rean war, The Pentagon replied
on July 11 that the material
was not in the files of the As-
sistant Secretary. for Interna-
tional Security Affairs. Another
reply on Aug. 8 said that the
material could not be located
"with a reasonable amount of
effort."
When. it was pointed out that
the material had been referred
to in the memoirs of former
:President Eisenhower as corn-
ing from the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, Pentagon searchers said
they would go on looking.
Before its rejection of the re-
quest by The Times, the State
Department advised that the
cost of identifying, locating and
reviewing the material could be
"as much as $7,000 or more"
but that this was not to he
taken as an estimate of any
validity and none could be at-
tempted.
In any case, The Times was
told it would have to state in
writing in advance that it would
assume whatever cost ? was as-
signed, to producing the ma-
terial, even though the review
process determined that it could
net be declassified and re-
leased.
Pending the outcome of a
written protest to David Young,
head of declassification opera-
tions at the White House, The
Times on June 21 withdrew its
requests to the State Depart-
ment and four other Federal
agencies.
In a letter to Mr. Young, Max
Frankel, the Washington corre-
spondent of The Times said that
, "we will not ' buy a pig in a
' poke, nor should the Govern-
ment ask us to play research
roulette,. even if we acknowl-
edged some responsibility for
sharing the costs involved." -
Mr.- Frankel's chief complaint
was that "the bureaucrats mis-
understand virtually every issue
involved. in this whole proceed;
ing." He said, "We have, first,
the admission (and in the case
of the Pentagon papers, the
demonstration) that vast
amounts of information have
been either misclassified or
wrongly held classified for too
long."
Mr.. Frankel, who is also chief
of the Washington bureau of;
The Times, said that the ob-
vious intent of the President's
order had been to correct both
categories of error and said:
"If the Government intends
to honor the intent and the
spirit of the President's order,
then it should facilitate access,
not raise one barrier after an-
other. In short, if the Govern-
ment means what it Says and
G.301001114rate credit for so say-
- - ? ?
out in legislation w material from the Congress." He said -
Seven have yet to-be answered.
C 0 'sit
ran be nut under securitylth-at many officers regarded with a ?yea or no,
Approved For Release 2090/941/#11FE80-01601R000
19 NOV 1372 ?
By Toni Wicker
The Supreme Court ruled .last .week
, that despite the Government's wire-
tapping of a member of the Daniel
EllSberg defense team, the trial of Mr.
Ellsberg and his friend, Anthony Russo,
Could continue. But it does not seem
to be widely recognized that the
charge's against these two men, if sus-
tained, will provide the Government
'with far more sweeping powers of
secrecy and censorship than it has
ever had.
? In that case, John Kincaid has writ-
ten in.the magazine of the War Resist-
ers League, ? "The executive branch
will have succeeded in using the judi-
'Cial branch to produce a new, repres-
sive information control law which the
legislative branch has always refused
to enact!! :The little-known truth is
?, ,that there is now no statute?none?
? which gives the President the explicit
right to establish a, system of classi-
/ fying 'information. The classification
system ("top secret," etc.) rests in-
stead on Executive orders, and those
who have violated it in the past have
suffered , only administrative repri-
mands or the loss of their jobs?not
criminal prosecution.
:It is.a crime, declared so by statute,
to make public certain information
dealing with codes and atomic energy;
-neither Mr. Ellsberg nor Mr. Rusk. did
- that, nor are they so charged. It is
also a crime, under the Internal Secu-
rity Act, to hand classified informa-
tion to a Communist country; neither
defendant did that either, nor are they
charged with it, Among other things,
Mr. ElIsbell; and Mr. Russo are charged
with conspiring :to "defraud" the Fed-
eral Government of its "lawful func-
tion" of withholding 'classified . infor-
mation from the public.. But Congress
has never by statute declared that to
be a 'lawful function" nor made re-
leasing classified information a crime.
In this case, the Government is 'con-
tending that setting up a classification
system is an inherent or implied power
of the executive function?which it
may be; but to prosecute Mr. Ellsberg
and Mr. Russo 'for a crime in violating
an Executive order rather than a. stat-
ute, the Government also hat to claim'
that it has inherent or implied power
to declare certain behavior criminal,
when Congress has never done so.
The Ellsberg-Russo Indictments also
charge them with violation of the
Espionage Act. In every other ease
brought under that act, the Govern-
ment has had to show that the de-
fendants acted, as the statute requires,
"with intent or reason to believe that
the information to be obtained is to
be used tq the injury of the 'United
States or , to the advantage of .any
THE NATION
foreign natiort.". Bitt the Government,
despite this plain requirement, does
not so charge . Mr.. Ellsberg and Mr;?
Russo; instead,? the indictment charges
them with .communicating the ? Penta-??
.gon Papers "to persons not entitled to
receive them," a very 'different thing:.
The "theft"- part of the indictment?
moreover, charges Mr. Ellsberg with
stealing, converting and communicat-
ing information, and ideas?not docu-
ments the ,actual documents were
Xeroxed, and the Government retains
possession of the originals). The Ells-
berg defense maintains that the Gov-
ernment has 'never been construed by
the courts or Congress to have propri-
etary rights over information; it has,
for instance, no right to obtain a copy-
right, on the theory that no govern- .
ment should have the 'power to ? own
or control information, and that a
government's information is a collec-'
tive possession of its people.
These are the remarkable issues that
now must go to trial. If the Govern--
.
ment gets a conviction on these issues,,
and the conviction is sustained all the
waY through the Supreme Court, it ,
will mean that making public classi-
fied information will have been tie-
.,dared a crime, although no statute
..,ma/ces it a crinie. It will mean, fur- '
ater, 'that the Government will not
even have been required to show that
such an act was intended to injure
,.,.the country or to aid a foreign power.,
? ?only that information was passed to.
_persons "not entitled" to have it. And,
the Government's proprietary
L. right to Control information?not just
physical documents, plans, films, etc.
_have been established. ,
Honest men may debate the wisdom
and motives of Daniel Ellsberg and
::Anthony Rut's? in releasing the Pen-
%,tagon. Papers; but the implications of
the '..case the Government seeks to
s Make against them transcend such .
questions. For if that case is sustained,
the Government will be enabled to
, make. .it a ilrime? to make public any.--
; thing on Which it chooses to place a '
? classification stamp. Then, anyone
whodiscloses such information?say,
"Air.'anForge colonel "leaking" .infor-
'Illation about a faulty weapon or a
wasteful:. program?and anyone who '
receives it?for instance, Joseph Alsop? ?
, or...,Rowland Evans being clued in by
the.C.I.A7?will be committing a crime
1:4014t*P3MOrrosecuted.? .i
limit on the Government's capacity
Approved Fpr Release 2006/01/03 .: CIA-RDP8070160
t tappens, here will be almost
V no :,to act in ? secret?which is to say its
Approved For Release 2006119005:71:51A-RDP80-01601R0004
NOV 1972
00030001-7
A
STA
Immolsw"Tes"naly2213"'"!rt-11. Although Judge Byrne and various fully, that a jtiry could be. seiectea in
lawyers on both sides would insist perhaps three days.
- THE PENTAGON from time to time, when it was useful That estimate dropped the jaws .of
for the point they were trying to even the three prosecutors, led by
make, that the case must be treated David R. Nissen. A slight, dapper
just like any other one in every re- man, he achieved his reputation for
- "When a juror says he's going to be spect, jury selection for the Ellsberg- toughness while handling racket-
fair, he doesn't really know if he is," Russo trial posed some very special eering cases for Byrne when the judge
observes Marie Goldstein with a long problems. Inevitably political, the was United States Attorney in Los
. sigh. She is something of a newly self-- Pentagon Papers case is a decisive Angeles. As the federal courts have
? 'discovered expert on the subject. Af- test of the federal government's. ca- increasingly become a -forum for po-
ter sitting for several days as a tenta- pacitv to control the disclosure of in- litical issues over the past several
- tive juror in the Pentagon papers trial formation stamped "secret," of an in- years, and have been used for crimi-
in Los Angeles, she became the first dividual's right to ;defy the security nal cases testing the limits and styles
person excused for cause by U.S. Dis- classification system, and at least pe- of dissent and protest against na-
trict Court Judge W. Matt Byrne, Jr.. ripherally, of the press's ability to rely tional policy, jury selection hasdevel-
What did her in was the frank admis- on "leaks" in government circles: oped into a complex and sophis-
sion-that if she were not a juror in the Neither the prosecution nor the de- ticated process.
case, she would have "definite sym- fense was about to let onto the jury Prosecution and defense attorneys
path)," for the defendants, Daniel anyone who seemed to share idea- generally find out in advance far
Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. logical bonds with the other side. The more about the individuals sum-
Mrs. Goldstein was disappointed to problems were complicated, doubt- moned for jury duty in such cases
be dismissed so quickly. "I think I less, by the fact that the case looked -
than they tell about themselves from
. ought to be able to be a good juror,"
? to the public like a controversial, no.- the jury box during voir dire. For ex-
she says with a trace of good-citizen torious, even exciting one. To many ample, federal prosecutors have the
indignation. So willing, indeed enthu- prospective jurors it would seem the increasingly computerized resources
siastie, was she to serve that she had opportunity for a brush with fame of the Flii at their command. In Cali-
decided to give up a scheduled vaca- and publicity. This was the kind of fornia it is a simple matter for the de-
tion trip to Japan if she were chosen jury on which all but the most timid fense to learn each juror's party regis-
for the final. panel. She would have or nervous among those who were tration, when he voted, and whether
preferred to be the object of a called seemed eager to serve, he ever signed referendum petitions .
,
'peremptory challenge by the govern- on such issues as the death penalty,
'tient prosecutors (peremptories re- Musical chairs pollution control, and open housing.
quire no statement of reasons and are. Sometimes both sides case the pro-
merely an - indication of each side's The defense. attorneys, so numer- spective jurors' neighborhoods and
preferences and prejudices) rather .ous that they had to take care not to find out how and with whom they
than a declaration by the judge, in ef- stumble over each other while play- spend their spare time. During jury
feet, that she.was unfit to serve. Re- ing musical chairs at the defense selection in the Pentagon Papers case,
fleeting on the experience, she ac- table, insisted that the only way to se- Ellsberg's and Russo's attorneys dis-
knowledged that "I did it to myself lect a fair jury would be to allow de- covered that one man, eliminated
by what 1 said. . . . But then my hus- fcnse and prosecuting attorneys to from the panel, was "probably gay."
band [a doctor in Pomona, thirty- participate personally in the voir dire, Another was peremptorily excused by
three miles east .of Los Angeles] said the process by which each venireman the defense, despite his avid corn-
maybe this was just My subconscious is questioned to elicit information Plaint during voir dire that while in
way of telling them I could not be a about his background and attitudes. the service he saw many documents
good juror." They repeatedly pressed Judge Byrne classified which should not have
There was, in fact, no chance that to permit them to interrogate the pro- been, because a background investi-
Mrs. Goldstein might have had to spective jurors. gation portrayed him as a "Gold-
forgo ,her trip to Japan for jury duty. Standard practice in the federal water type."
Had she not been the first potential courts is for the judge to conduct the As each new group of veniremen
juror eliminated for cause, she would voir dire himself. l'ut, as Ellsberg's was called to the jury box, staff from
surely have been the government's chief counsel, Leonard B. Boudin, of- each side?FBI agents and members
first peremptory choice. What she ten reminded Byrne, Judge R. Dixon of the defense "law commune"?
"did to herself" was to reveal that her ?Herman had only recently departed nearly collided with each other as
daughter demonstrated at the 1968 from that procedure in the Harris- they scurried in and out of the court-
Democratic National Convention in burg conspiracy case. As a result, five room to assemble information for the
Chicago, that she herself had a col- weeks were spent in picking the liar- lawyers. Aware that the jury which
lege degree in economics, that she risburg jury. , acquitted Angela Davis in a Califor-
supports George McGovern for Presi- Herman's indulgence was exactly ala state court had been selected with
dent, and that she has a draft-age son w Byrne, .ATIle, a brand-new judge Nvith the help of a panel of black psy-
i
ligiiiikl FOIFReciki4s20016109Y0dxVIIF46101101t16gliMogists sitting in the courtroom,
(with- Selective SerAcop
- her 10, although that fact never sur- ciency, intended not to emulate. Vit 1 YI-VAPP4POIMI &cense brought
' 0
faced): For a murder, rape, burglary, a characteristic glance at the clock, he in psychiatrists to watch from the au-
' ' -'--? ----- -" ???^?" 1-sg --.:---,-1 t?c, ,i,,, ci,,,i ,-,r ,,,,? dicnce and sort out the people they
----PAPERS TRIAL
Approved For Release 2006/01/03: CIA-RDP80-0160
3311Vfilii'i3HAIA., ALA.
POST-HERALD
'OCT
- 81,277 ?
I
rAr?
IL tZl t 1,01
By Richard Hollander
seripps.newarr( Newspapers
Along with a myriad of other matters,
the Department of Defense is presently
engaged in trying to digest the contents
of a weighty tome which lays down
regulations "governing the classifica-
tion, downgrading, declassification and
safeguarding of classified information,"
sten-lining, no doubt, from the dust-up
over the leaking of the "Pentagon
Papers" some months ago.
? Like so many examples of military
and civilian gobbledegook produced by
all .governments at all levels, this
particular effort could only have been
written by recent honor students in the
graduate school of obfuscation at in
waters state teachers college.
However, and fortunately, military
and civilian bureaucrats seem to he
able to understand aach other, even
though few of the rest of us do, and it's
to be hoped that the new regulations
covering security of documents and
equipment will make more sense than
sometimes has been true in the past.
National security controls as they
were learned, perforce, long ago by
older, more sophisticated nations, are
?relatively new to us. Even as recently
as in the months belnre Pearl Harbor
we were naive by corn parson,
It was then. for instance, in that hot:
summer of 1911, when Hitler's forces
were sprawled fatly across most or
Europe, and Britain stood alone, trying
to fashion a continuing military miracle
out of the escape front Dunkirk, that a
small, new American agency was set up
- in Washington by order of President
Roosevelt.
Its responsibilities were somewhat.
masked by its innocuous title: Office of
the Co-ortIMator. of Information (C.01).
Mostly, though, it Was called "the
Donovan Office" after its chief, Col.
(later major general) William ,11. (Wild
nipers get
Bill) Donovan. From it eventually
stemmed two yvar-time agencies, the
Office of' Strategic Services (OSS) and
the Office of War Information (OWL).
And from these einer;:,7ed two post-war
agencies, the Central Intelligence Agen-
cy (CIA) and the United States Informa-
tion Agency (USIA).
Well, the COI had a security officer,
in addition to seeing to it that all
black-gloved young ladies who wanted
In become secret agents, a in Mata Hari
of' World War I. signed their names.
before entering the offices, he ordered
that each document, paper, etc., deliver-
ed to the agency be stamped with a
classification.
corne
"Secret" meant that the material, if it
were to fall into the wrong hands, might
endanger the life of the nation. "Confi-
dential" meant that the material might
endanger U. S. interests. "Restricted"
meant that the information should not
be given to the generai public.
The security officer's order was
followed to the letter. One of my
proudest possessions dating From that
time ?? since thrown out with other
memorabilia of by-gone days --- was a
copy of the Washington Evening Star
newspaper red-stamped "restricted."
Thus, even so long ago, lunation had
hit the classification business. "Restrict-
ed" lost whatever value it might have
had, and it no longer appears in the
Pentagon lexicon.
As World War 11 progressed, "confi-
dential" became pretty thin gruel and
even "secret" wasn't anythmg to lose
much sleep over. It was superseded,
first by "very secret," then "top
secret," and, later, "most secret."
Later still come "eyes only" which
meant that. the message should be
STAT
R000400030001-7
new rues
shown only to the high-ranking person
to whom it was addressed, apparently
overlooking the fact that the person who
showed it to him had already seen its
Finally, in the months before Nor-
mandy D-Day, there was a special
classification working on invasion plans.
For reasons that are shrouded in the
mists of the past. this was called
'bigot." Before sitting down to a
meeting on, say, the. projected distribu-
tion of toilet paper to liberated French-
men in the neighborhood of Cherbourg,
people- asked each other the somewhat
incriminating quest ion:
"Are you bigoted'?"
In those simpler times, it was a proud
thing to be able to say yes. You proved
it by showing a card that had been run
off a mimeograph machine.
As history will attest, 1)-Da' was an
eminently successful operation, and our
side won the war in spite of everything.
The new Pentagon regulations recog-
nize only "confidential," "secrete" and
"top secret." Fortunately, the literal-
mindedness of the ('()l 't security of
in 1041 is sternly interdicted in the new
Chapter IV, Section I, Paragraph R-102,
titled "Exception," winch states cate-
gorically:
"No article which, in whole or in part,
has appeared in newspapers, magazines
or elsewhere in the public domain, nor
any copy thereof, which is being
reviewed and evaluated by any compo-
nent of the Department of Defense to
compare its content with official infor-
mation which is being safeguarded in
the Deprtment of Defense by- security
classification, may be marked on its
face with any security classification,
control or other kind of restrictive
marking. The results of the review and
evaluation shall be separate from the
article in question."
At 'last the comic
;free.
Approved For Release 2006/01/03: CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
pages are home
Approved For Release 20NR1113?5.0919P80-01601R0004000
18 OCT 1972
By ALAN HORTON
Scripps-Howard News Service
The Pentagon is in the proc-
ess of distributing throughout
the massive Defense bureauc-
racy a 106-page book which
may vastly reduce the number
of secret documents.
Classifiers throughout the
federal government have been
using their Top Secret, Secret
and Confidential stamps 30
million times a year.
The blue -b ound volume
being passed out is a new reg-
ulation called "Information
Security Program Regula-
tion." Its Nixon administration
authors say it will reduce the
of classified material
and increase the declassified.
The number of classifiers
has been chopped significant-
ly already. Under tile old rules
there were 52,114 federal
workers with the power to
classify. Now there are 20,695,
a 60 percent reduction.
In the Defense Department
alone the number has been cut
from 30,542 to 3,809. The State
Department total is down
from 5,435 to 2,233. Those with
top secret stamps govern-
ment-wide is down 77 percent,
from 7,134 to 1,671. About half
are in the Defense Depart-
ment:
? But reducing the nurriber of
classifiers is no guarantee the
number of 'documents classi-
fied will drop, hence the new
regulation.
Classifiers now must idea-
? thy themselves by title when
they stamp documents. Gov-
ernment monitors call this an
"Audit trail" so auditors can
later track down those guilty
of over" or under-classifying.
The regulation also is full of
reminders to set a declassifi-
cation date that will arrive
sooner than the automatic de-
classification date. Classifcrs
are, in effect, asked to balance
the values of non-classification
against the benefits of classifi-
cation. The automatic declas-
sification date now is a maxi-
mum of 10 years, instead of
the old 12, from the classifica-
tion date.
Nothing may he classified
for more than 30 years under
the new rule, and anyone may
ask that a document by de-
classified after 10 years. The
declassification request must
be decided quickly. Only clas-
sifiers with "top secret"
stamps may grant exemptions
to the 10-year rule.
The old regulation allowed
classification if information
"could" damage the interests
of national defense. Now infor-
mation "must reasonably be
expected to damage the inter-
ests of national defense or for-
eign relations."
Behind the new concepts are
potential teeth.
An Interagency Classifica-
tion Review C om mi tt ee
(ICRC), headed by former
ambassador John S. D. Eisen-
hower, is responsible for
seeing that the regulation is
followed. ICRC already has
asked the National Archieves
to set up a quarterly reporting
system by Jan. 1 to see how
well the regulation is working.
Computers keep track of clas-
sified documents.
Department inspectors are
checking up on classifiers, and
the General Accounting Office,
the federal watchdog, may be
asked to make and annual ran-
dom audit.
The top secret stamp may
be used only when information
would "reasonably be expect-
ed to cause exceptionally
grave damage:" secret, "seri-,
ous" damage, and confiden-
tial, "Damage."
The Pentagon already has
received 60 or 70 requests for
declassification, but Declassi-
fication request forms haven't
been devised yet.
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
SAN DIZGO, CAL.
!'
UNION J
Approved For Release 2001/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R
`1
1- 2
M - 139,739
S ? 246,007
AUG 1. 51972.
Author Reveals
Secret Papers'
Open To Public
By KIP COOPER
? Military Affairs Editor
The San Diego Union
Top secret government pa-
pers are available to -anyene
.who wants to read them in the
libraries of major universities,.
_a former .CIA.,.?employe said
here yestenay in an inter-
?view.'
? R. Harris Stnitb, author of
the newly published book "OSS
The Secret History of Amer.
First: Central intelligence
Agency," said there are "hun-
dreds of boxes of the stuff" at
,Stanford University where he
did some of his research.
He said he saw some docu-
ments he considered so sensi-
tive he suggested they be taken
out of the public files and.prop-
erly guarded.
"An enormous amount of top
secret and secret information
has been deposited in univer-
sity 'libraries by former em.
ployes of the 'government," he
said.
:"You can walk in and read it,
anybody can," he said. ? ? .
RECENT REPORTS
Smith said much of the mate-
rial was ? taken, by 'people. after,
World War II, but that some of
it is less- than 20 years old and:
"some of it is very recent.",
Some Of it includes recent CIA
reports on the Chiang-Kai-shek
government, he said. . ? -;
? "They (government employ.]
es) just stuffed .the material in:
their cars and took it home
with them," he said. "Later,
they left it with their papers in.
bequests. to . various univer--
Sities. There's a lot of it float-!
lug around.. And it still has. top',
.scret and secret stamps on:
it." ? .
Smith said he used classified
papers from "five very large
bor." from collections ofi pa
e. s in the Stanford- Univeitsity
library:
? Sonic of the collections Smith
A inetiVeil ilib041kerea4c2
Information are .Charles
Thayer, Preston Goodfcllow,
Letand Rounds and ? Milton
LEAVES CIA
Now a 'lecturer in' political
science at the - University of
California, Smith resigned from
the Central Intelligence Agency
in May, 1968 after serving a
year as an analyst.
.116 said the freewheeling ac-
tivities of the OSS, in which in-
subordination was a way of life.
undoubtedly contributed to
French resistance to .the U.S.
role in Vietnam today...
"The OSS team in Hanoi in
1945 were anti-colonialists' who?
felt that Ho Clii deserved
U.S. support," he said. "Some
of the French intelligence
agents there who were snubbed
by the OSS then became high
officials in the De Gaulle goy- ,
ernment .?and they have never
forgotten the OSS. role there:"
Smith said said there is a "very
; common belief" in Washington
j that French intelligence agents
1"arc supporting the North Viet-
namese" in the eUrretit con-
flict. -
10400030001-7
STAT
/01/1/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
VIAD11.1-k -1-11.E0b
? 1.5 August 1972.
Approved For Release 2006/01103 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
Top secret papers found
SAN, MEG 0, Calif. (AP) ?
? An "enormous amount" of top
:secret and' sceret government
papers is available to the
? general public in libraries of
major universities, says an
.? author and former employe
':of the Central Intelligence
Agency. ?
. R. Harris Smitl,?, author of
? the recently published "OSS:
The Seeret ? History . . of
America's First Central
Intelligence Agency," said his
research for the book included
reading classified papers he
found at Stanford University.
There are 'hundreds of box-
es of the stuff" at Stanford,
including some documents so
sensitive that Smith suggested
to university officials they be
removed from the public files
and properly guarded, he said
in an interview Monday. .
STAT
on public library shelves
"An enormous amount of
top secret and secret in-
formation has been deposited
in university libraries by
former employes of the
gov.ernment," said Smith,. a
former analyst for the CIA.
"You can walk in and read
it?anybody can."
Government employes "just
stuffed the material in their
cars and took it home with
them,'! he ' said. "Later they
left it with their papers in
b e qu es t s to various
universities. There's a lot of
it floating around. And it still
has top secret and secret
stamps on it."
Smith said much of the
material he saw dealt with
pre-World War II topics but
that some of it was less than
20 years old and "some of
it is very.reeent."
'Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001j7
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 CIA-RDP80-01601
SALEM, ORE.
JOURNAL
E 24,360
AUG 71972
000400030001-7
Gains in war on secrecy
.:` The 25-year struggle to gain control of
the secrecy machine finally is pay-
ing off.
The. White House has announced that
the program to reduce the amount of
classification of papers is on the move.
Already the number of people empow-
ered to stamp a document secret (or top
secret _or confidential) has been more
than cut in half.
Theoretically, if you reduce the num-
ber of people with such authorization you
reduce the number of papers so stamped.
.LAnd everybody agrees tat far too much
of the millions of tons of paper turned
out by federal agencies has been hidden
,from the public.
? Two months ago, according to White
,51-Louse figures, 43,586 people in the federal
- government had classification powers. In
,Q0 days that number has been reduced to
46,238. And the beat goes on. Presumably
when the program is done there will be
.Zonly 10,000 or so.
But the White House doesn't say
? whether these figures include military
people in the field. We doubt it. And we
Thren't too concerned, anyway. If there's
'Iany excuse for secrecy, that's where it
? is, and it would be a bit ridiculous to
? .reduce the numbers too greatly there.
But the whole struggle to make public
information public is likely to be a sham
the end. For example, the above fig-
ures definitely do not include thecgatial
Intelligence Agency. The White House
will ?ay....kinly that the number of CIA
people allowed to stamp documents has
been reduce.d by 84 per cent.
The reason is that all personnel files
in the CIA are stamped top secret. We
can't find out if the committee which is
overhauling the classification system has
access to them even in statistical form.
We applaud the effort, however. It
can'tbut have helped.
But we still are cynical. We recently
tried to find out if some specific World
War II documents had been declassified
at least. We learned that .the index to
these documents ? which would tell us
which ones we could read ? was classi-
fied.
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
STAT
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-0160
NEW YORK TIMES
5 AUG 1972
?
STAT
Senator- Proposes ings that would adversely of
feet an individual's reputation.
Rill tO End' Secrecy "Sin I came to the United
States Senate last year," he
in the Government said, "I have become very dis-
turbed by the great amount of
public bUsiness I have -found
By mAroomE Hunter being conducted behind closed?
Speelal to The New York Timer doors and by the attitude of
secrecy I'v.e seen in our Fed-
WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 cral agencies."
Senator Lawton Chiles,. criti- His stand against GVern-
cizing Government decision- ment secrecy reflected the feel-
made in secret, proposed today logs of a number of younger
`"`
"governm?,,,. members of the Senate and the
what he called a licaisc, but the outlook for pas-
in the sunshine" law. saga of his bill is believed to
The Florida Democrat said be slim at this time.
that his bill would virtually However, with a number of
eliminate secret .ineotings in elderly members retiring from
Congress and the
Congress at the end of this
executive'
year, some reformers view the
branch of Government. Chiles bill as the possible basis
? The bill would require open; for change in the years ahead.
meetings if all Congressional! The bill was patterned along
committees and Governmentithe lines of the "government
agencies except in matters re-lin the sunshine" law passed in
lating. to national security and Florida in' 1967 when Mr.Chiles
defense, matters required by, was a member of the ? State
other law to be kept- confiden- Senatc..' .
tial, matters relating solely to
an agency's internal manage-
ment and disciplinary proceed-
.
Approved' For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
:
11/1 INK .T.IMES'
Approved For Release zuu6/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R0004
4 AUG 1972
.9
Washington:.
For the Record
?
Aug. 3, 1972
' THE PRESIDENT
Intelligence. President Nix-
on announced the appoint-
ment of John B. Connally as
a member of his Foreign In-
telligence Advisory Board.
? Mr. Connally, former Secre-
tary of the Treasury, previ-
ously served on the board.
U.N. The President an-
'llounced the appointment of
Philip E. Hoffman of South .?
Orange, N.J., to be the rep-
" resentative of the United -
States on the Human Rights
Commission of the United ?
Nations. Mr. Hoffman, 63
years old, succeeds Rita E.
Hauser, who has resigned..
Activities. The President
saw John S. D. Eisenhower,
chairman of the Interagency
Classification Review Com-
mittee, and received a prog-
ress report. He also met
with the former professional
football player 011ie Matson
and his family.
? MAJOR POSITIONS
Education. The President
nominated Dr. Sidney P. Mar-
land Jr. of New York to be
Assistant Secretary for Edu-
cation. Dr. Marland, 59 years
old, has served as Commis-
sioner of Education since De-
cember, 1970.
STAT
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
Approved For ReleasriellkiBiP643 r&-RDP.804
4 AUG 1S77
Rencri
ir
FlITI
n nose
1601R000400030001-7
lows 3% Doerease
.dlowec -to1'
laSSlly
? By Elsie Carper ducal 53 per cent, from 2,275 process. of making classified ?
Wfishinton Post Sift(' Writer to 1,076. The number allowed documents public. The corn.
The number of federal em- to classify "secret" was cut 39 mittee was established to im-!
ployes authorized to stamP per cent, from 14,316 to 8,671, plement the order.
'papers "top secret," ."secret" and the number that could For the first time, depart-
or
"confidential" has been cut classify "confidential" was re- ments were required to desig-
:subgtantially, President Nixon dueed 76 per cent, from 26,995 nate in writing persons haviiii.
was told yesterday. \ to 6,491, according 10 the re- authority to classify liocu.
John Eisenhower, chairman port. ments. The White lloust. said
of the interagency Classifica- The figures do not include that this, along with. the new
'lion Review Committee, deliv- the Central Intelligence requirement that the classifier ,
cred .A report to the President Agency which has made an be identified. on each duct!.
?showing that the number of overall reduction.. of 26, per ment, was expected to sub,
'persons authorized to classify cent and a reduction in. "101) stantially reduce the amount
national security information
has been reduced 63 per cent, secret" of 84 per cent, the of information classified.
from 43,586 to 16,238 in the White House said. The White. House said that
past 60 days. The biggest reduction was an effort, is now being made to
Eisenhower; son of Dwight at the Pentagon, where 30,542 determine . how many papers
D. Eisenhower and father of employees had been author- have been declassified under
Mr., Nixon's son-in-law David ized to classify .papers. That the order. The job is sizable
Eisenhower, was named chair- numberhas been refluced to since some 760 millions pages
man of the committee last '8,809. of documents were classified
May following his resignation President Signed a in the 20-year period from 1842
as ambassador to Belgium. directive last March designed to 1962. The President's order
The number of employees to restrict the amount of mate- established timetables- of 6 to
authorized to classify a deco- rial classified by the govern- , 10 years for automatic declas-
iment "top secret" has been re-. ment and to speed up the sification of most documents?
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
STAT
Approved For Release 2006/%1403+CFAWDP80-0160
\'?k\ 1
rt_._.--.--;;--, CM
.,,?..,
.."-
.?..__-, ----7:...,,--- ..... ,
.'
--vck, ( \ ; ? 0 . ? \ t.o. i i \I v \ 4
\,1
- ` ?L 1
r\?0?"\?\ \I '\..4 Cid
? . ?__.....----f;_;,,,,...---'
_ __.,..r-,---------,---"-1-"---
,----;
,,,--f?.--- .,;--
A ratepovt on Ccholars' Access to Oovernment Documents
By CarorM. Barker and Matthew H. Fox
,,071
,
) 0
????
?
?
? ? ? ,?
?: Iv
I ?;':
. ? .
The Twentieth Century Fund/New York/1972
,
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
`.
A.
Approved For ReleasgNOWASMXRDP80-01601
August 1
THE PAPERS & THE PAPERS : AN
ACCOUNT 01, THE LEGAL AND POLITI-
CAL BATTLE OVER THE PENTAGON
PAPERS, by Sanford J. Ungar. E. P.
Dutton. 319 pp. $7.95.
'reviewed by Arthur S. Miller
If anyone still believes the Su-
preme Court's decision in the Pentagon
PaPcrs Case w-3`S a r?6?-`11(iing victory
for the press, he had better think again.
Even better, he should read Sanford
Ungitr's The Papers & .The Papers.
'Ungar, a reporter for The Washington
Post; has written the first complete ac-
count of the struggle to p,ubiLli the
-study, commissioned by Robert McNa-
mara, of that dismal swamp of ill-
conceived and misbegotten American
policy, the Vietna.m "war."
True., The New You; Times and
The .Post did win?surely better than
losing. But the victory came at the
highest price yet paid in defense of the
First Amendment. For the first time in
American history, a prior restraint on
publication was laid upon newspapers
by court injunctions. That, as Ungar
says, is a "rather .hollow victory," a
judgment concurred in by a high Jus-
tice Department official who is quoted
as saying, "We proved one thing em-
phatically, that there can be prior re-
straint of publication while a case is
being reviewed in the courts." So the
hosannas should be muted, partictslarly
with the addition of Lewis Powell and
William Rehnquist to the Supreme
Court.
Were that all to the Case of. the
Pentagon Papers, it would hardly de-
000400030001-7
a C c ncr LIAO; ,
!notes William Florens:.e, forme:
Force security expert, as sayir.g ....-
uore. than ninety-nine ann
ent of documents elassif.en
troani security reasons could he cis-
closed without. being "prejudicial to t:;c
defense interests of the nation." Surely
it would be difficult to prove that pub-
lication of the Papers has in fact
harmed the nation.
THE POSTURE OF THE 1.Awvillts. After
the dust had settled from the case,
both The Times and The Post fired
their lawyers. And well they should
have. Both firms seemed to act more
/ike counsel for the Government than
for the newspapers. At eleven Inc nrght
before the first appearance in court,
The Times' lawyers quit the case,
necessitating frantic efforts .to recruit
replacements (who had to appear in
court with little preparation), That is
odd legal behavior, to say the least. As
for The Post, one Roger Clarl,z, a rnern
ber of the firm formerly headed by
Secretary . of State Rogers,
seemed. to be more .interested in sup-
pressing publication than in finding
ways to justify it. Further, according to
Ungar, The Times paid out $1.50,030
in legal fees?a sobering lesson in the
cost of litigation. Defense of the First
Amendment is -expensive.
Trc StnEmE: Court-i'. Each of the jus-
tices found it cicsirabk: to write an
opinion. Some, particularly Chief Jus-
tice Warren BUrL.-,,or and justice I-Tarry
Blackmun, went out of their way to
discuss matters not relevant to the de-
cision. They, with Justice Byron White,
all but invited the justice Department
to file criminal charges, Burger (and
others) were bitter about the haste. in
Nvhich the decision was rendered
(something that didn't trouble them
at. other times?for example, the Am-
chitka bomb-test case), But then, seri-
ous students of the Court know that
the justices view consistency as a con-
venience rather than a necessity.
THE RESPONSMI.LITY OF THE rat:ss.
The analogue to selective enforcement
of the law is selective printing of news
matter. Ungar relates how The Post
failed to publish clearly newsworthy
material, once when Burger met two
Post reporters at his home (at about
serve book-length treatment. But this
well written and es,ential/y fair-
minded account of. the imbroglio
points up other deeply important and,
at times, disturbing -,-,*ters There is
much fodder f oz? reflective thought
here; to me, the real ?,alue of the book
lies in what it su,ir-rests rather than in
what it details. An illustrative listing
will have to suffice:
SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW.
Was it merely fortuitous that the Gov-
ernment sued only those four news-
papers that had been critical of the
Administration? That would strain
credn;ity so the brealdng point... Other
news)apers, inch:ding. The Los Angeles
Times (essentially a pro-Nixon organ),
printed the Pa.,)ers. Add the strict
hands-off attitude toward Jack Ander-
son's revelations and it is difficult not
to conclude that the Justice Depart-
ment used law for political ends. If
that is at least partially accurate, as I
th;',': it is, it presents a nasty picture
of a "law-and-order" Administration.
THE SECURITY P:-.1.-0.1TIA OF GOVERNMENT.
Without doubt, much of the material
in the Papers was absurdly over-classi-
fied. Classification helm to insulate the
bureaucracy from revealing mountains
of data to which the people are clearly
entitled. Without access to informa-
tion, there can be little or no public
accountability for decisions taken. .(For
that matter, it is noteworthy that rath-
er than being held strictly to account
for errors of omission and commission,
those Who immersed the United States.
into Vietnam have ? usnally been re-
warded by "the system" with lucrative
or prestigious jobs out of government
?an interesting commentary on tile
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
THE NEW REPUBLIC
Approved For Release 20;41 Qiiia:r97/42RDP80-01601R00
What You Don't Know.
When the Pentagon Papers became an open book
last,summer, followed by a flurry of inquiries about
the stacks of still secret information, most everyone.
who bothered his head about the security classifica-
tion system agreed it overclassified and then too often
failed to declassify, hiding too much from the public,
press, Congress, historians. Its costs were estimated at
. a minimum of $126 million a year; it was manipulated
for political aggrandizement, making it too easy and
tempting for those with access to publicize half-truths
that made them look good, while burying the half-
truths that didn't. ?
Then last March President Nixon issued Executive
Order 11652, speeding up declassification, cutting
back the number of agencies and individuals with the
authority to classify, and reducing the number of your-
eyes-only documents. The order .also established an
Interagency Classification Review Committee to ad-
minister the order and threatened disciplinary action
for "repeated abuse of the process through. excessive
classification:"
But Rep. William Moorhead (D, Pa.), chairman of
the House Foreign Operations and Government Infor-
mation Committee, and ,Senator Muskie,. chairman of
the Senate Intergovernmental Relations Committee,
were not satisfied. Moorhead said the order is "a doc-
ument written by classifiers for classifiers." He has
held 30 days of hearings on the subject and introduced
his own bill to further accelerate declassification, limit
the power to conceal, and establish an independent
commission to administer the classification system.
Muskie's Truth in Government Act is similar.
The issue is this: who will have final authority over
the classification system?those who have the infor-
mation or an independent commission? Nixon's ad-'
mini stra tive committee consists of members of
agencies which stamp the documents: State, Defense,
Justice, the CIA, the Atomic Energy Commission and
the National Security Council. Moorhead wants a re-
view commission of three members appointed by the
speaker of the House, three by the president pro tem
of the Senate, and three by the President. It would
? settle disputes between members of Congress, the
public or the press and the executive branch over
what's to be made public and what's not and would
hear requests from classifying agencies that want to
keep information classified longer than usual. Mus-
kie's proposed board would include representatives
from the White House, the Congress and the press,
but would give the President ultimate power to re-
View any board decision. The real difference provided
by an independent board would be apparent when a.
congressman or reporter asked that certain information
be declassified: the decision would come not from the
individual in the State or Defense bureaucracy Who
has the inform AMMO &ft igg aptiO
400030001-7
es 'I' A -r
mission conducting a hearing.
Speed is also at issue. Nixon's order allows "top
secret" material to be declassified after 10 years, "se-
cret" after eight and "confidential" after six. Moor-
head's scale runs three, two and one, and Muskie's
starts at two years for the "least sensitive" information
and ranges up to 12 for the "most sensitive." All in-
clude a "savings clause." Under the Moorhead and
Muskie proposals the executive branch, with: the ap-
proval of the commission, could keep documents
'secret for longer periods of time. Under the Nixon
order, agencies can hide documents longer than 10
years, but must review their decision if specific classi-
fied information is requested from them. The cat-
egories which can be kept secret forever include
information "the continuing protection of Which is
essential to the national seCurity." Moorhead has
questioned the broad wording of this clause.
In dispute also is whether, when and how an indi-
vidual can challenge classification of a document.
Under the Nixon order one must ask for a document
(it must be over 10 years old) "with sufficient particu-
larity to enable the department to identify it,." and
then hope that "the record can be obtained with only
a reasonable amount of effort." At that point one may
or may not be allowed to see the document, depending
on the department's interpretation of "national se-
curity." Members of Congress have complained that
it's hard to know enough about what is classified to
identify exactly what one wants to see, let alone know
that such a document exists. Under the Moorhead and-
Muskie plans the independent commission could help
individuals locate what they want and would ensure
that a denial of access was justified. Anyone success-
fully appealing declassification of an item could have
his court costs and attorney's fees paid out of public
funds.
Declassification is not the final hurdle however. The.
executive branch may (and does) still hold information
from Congress and the public under the cover of
executive privilege. The IVIuskie bill states that de-
classified documents cannot be held under this privi-
lege, and that even "top secret" documents could be
. ordered sent to Congress by the courts, though only
for closed meetings. This "protective order" -practice
has been relatively common in Congress.
. Senator Fulbright has a separate bill requiring any-
one invoking executive privilege to bring a written
letter from the 'President, thus making the President
hirnself directly responsible for withholding informa-
tion. No -presidential letter, no funds for the agency
in question.
? None of these bills has yet been reported out of
committee,.but if the Democrats choose to stand firm
on their platform pledge to "make information public,
except when real national defense interests arc in-
cipt_patitth_otilm Robiy.40,6163,56tip_iwcir k for action next
year.
STAT
4
Approved For Release 2006/N/EI:Iiar;Cn1RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
27 JUN 1972
The Was iugton MerrynGc-Rovind
T e Qovernnwnt
? By jack Anderson
The custodians of govern-
ment secrets are gnashing
their teeth again over our ac-
cess to the still-Secret portions
of the Pentagon Papers, These
show how Lyndon Johnson
tried to bring pressure upon
Hanoi to negotiate a Vietnam
settlement by orchestrating
the air raids -against the
North. - ? ? .
He would withhold the
bombs for awhile, hoping this
would encourage the North Vi-
etnamese to negotiate. Then
he would let the bombs fly
again when he thought they
needed Some prodding.
Sometimes, he stepped up
the bombing at crucial stages
of the secret negotiations. Re-
peatedly, Hanoi would halt the
talks because of the military
pressure.
After his retirement,. Presi-
dent Johnson published selec-
tive excerpts from the secret
papers to demonstrate how
right and reasonable he had
been.- He Omitted the por-
tions that made him look
Wrong and unreasonable.
President Nixon also re-
leased sensitive information,
'strictly for political reasons,
about Henry Kissinger's se-
cret Vietnam negotiations.
The President used the infor-
mation to reply to his critics.
The power to classify infer-
Mation must be recognized for
-what it is. It is nothing less
sse
state secret of whatever it
wishes. This divine right to
classify documents has been
abused to a degree, beyond tol-
eration.
Not only does. the govern-
ment sweep its bungles and
blunders, its errors and em-
barrassments Under the se-
crecy , labels. But- our entire
foreign policy and defense
posture remains secret except
for what the federal establish-
ment thinks is in its own inter-
est to make public.
The tragic, bitter lessons of
Vietnam have shown the fate-
ful consequences of allowing
any president to exercise
power in spendld isolation be-
hind the double walls of exec-
utive privilege and official se-
crecy.
We will continue, therefore,
to publish 'information that
the government seeks to hide
from the public by classifying,
SOsiet Role "
The unpublished Pent agon
Papers, for example, shed new
light on the Soviet role in the
Vietnam negotiations. The
Kremlin, after showing no in-
terest in settling the war, sud-
denly adopted a different atti-
tude in 1967. -Soviet Premier
Alexei Kosygin made the new
attitude known during a Lon-
don visit,. ?
"The British were Tisk star-
tled, then delighted to find
Rosygin eager to play an ac-
tive, role as intermediary be-
than the absolute authority of tween the U.S. and Hanoi
the government to make a . state the papers.. 'There
ecrecy
.1.? ?
rtv-r-r, e
"
was definitely a sharp change
from previous Soviet reluc-
tance to ? play the .iniddle-
man. . ?
"What produced this change
in Soviet attitudes? Were they
acting on DRV (North Vi-
etnamese) behest? Or were
they now willing to put pres-
sure on Hanoi in ?? pursuit of
their own?
"Only a little light Is shed
on these questions by the ma-
terials relating to Kosygin's
stay in London. Ile was appar-
ently wilLng to transmit pro-
posals for DRV consideration
more or less uncritically.
While he argited the general
merits of , the DRV's. side of
the war, he did not try to bar-
gain or alter specifics of .the
proposals transmitted to
him. . . .
"What is more striking is
that he did not react adversely
to the.substance of the princi-
pal de-escalatory proposal
under discussion---the termi-
nation of all DR); infiltration
and supply into SVN in ex-
change for a .U.S. hair m at,
tacks' on the North and in
troop level augmentation,
Intercepted Call
"Entirely apart from the se-
quence in which these steps
would be taken, their long-
term result for the Commu-
nists would be extremely ad-
verse ?militarily. Yet on Feb.
13, he was overheard (by tele-
phone intercept) to tell Brezh-
nes, (the Communist Party
chief) of 'a great possibility of
achieving the aim, if the Viet-
namese will understand the
present situation-that we have
passed to them; arid they will
have to decide ..
"In a retrospective discus-
sion with Thompson (then (lie.
U.S.- Ambassador) in Sao-scow,
Kosygin expressed a jaun-
diced view of the rule of me-
diators, saying they either
complicated the problem or.
pretended they. .were doing
something when in fact they
were not.
"He had stepped into this
uncomfortable spot in London
because "the Vietnamese had
for the first time stated they
were ready to negotiate if the
bombings were stopped uncon- ?
ditionally; ? this was the first
time they had done so. ? ..'
"How much the Russians
had hoped in fact to accom-
plish during Kosygin's Lon-
don trip is impossible to
know. They apparently har-
bored few expectations after
his return. Kosygin complain-
ed to Thompson about the
'ultimatum' implied in the
final proposal he transmitted
to Hanoi from London, saying
that he knew it was hopeless
the minute he read it. . ."
This incident illustrates how
little influence the Kremlin
had over the North Vietnam-
ese. It was the beginning, how-
ever, of an increased Soviet in-
terest in ending the Vietnam
War.
? 1972, United Feature Syndicate
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
71,1.
ibb
WEEFITI1C=T01; POST .
Approved For Release 200g/41/4N dit42RDP80-01601R0 0400030001-7
- By Sanford J. Ungar
Washington Post Staff Writer
LOS ANGELES, June 23
US. District Court Judge W.
Matt Byrne Jr. today rejected
the Justice Department's ef-
fort to ban discussion of free-
dom of the press during the
trial of .Daniel Ellsberg - and
.Anthony Russo on charges
'growing out of disclosure of
the top secret Pentagon pap-
ers.
During a long day of court-
room debate over ground
rules for the upcoming trial of
Ellsberg and Russo on conspir-
acy, theft and - espionage
charges, Judge Byrne refused
:the prosecution's request. that
strict controls be put on de-
fense counsel in the case.
The prosecution had asked
that all defense attorneys be
forbidden from mentioning in
front of jury such subjects
as "any so-called public right-
to-know," any views of "the
morality or desirability" of
Pit C)7r7 C-
r--e? 6
fiLy
1,IIJ
? Nissen, when his position
was ruled against, snapped
back at the, judge and warned
about the "detrimental" effect
his rulings might have.
Among Judge Byrne's other
rulings in the case today: ,
0 He rejected Russo's re-
quest to be declared a "pau-
per" so that the government
would Pay the cost of bringing
his witnesses to Los Angeles
and of providing him with
daily transcripts in the case.
0' He granted a defense re-
quest that. the jury, once em-
paneled, be permitted to take
notes on the testimony of wit- to make an affirmative show-
nesses and the legal argu- ing of why it needs a secret
ments. . CIA document concerning al-
At the same time, howcvv, ieged violations of the Espio.,
Judge Byrne turned down the
defense suggestion that the ju- nage Act which were never
?
rors also be permitted to pose prosecuted, before the prose-
theircu own questions to wit-
on will be ordered to pro-
?
nesses. Attorney Leonard duce it in court..
Weinglas s, representing ?
O Over Nissen's strenuous
Russo, had argued that the objections, he required the
Fors have a right to "partici- prosecution to give the de-
pate" actively in the trial. fense all fingerprints found on
U.S. involvement in Vietnam The judge.. also said he the copy of the Pentagon pap-
'or the leaking of government would personally conduct the? ers Photocopied by the defend-
documents by others, preliminary questioning of ants, rather than only the ones
Leonard B. Boudin, repre- prospective.jurors, rather than, the government, intends to use
senting Ellsberg, complained permitting the lawyers to do in the trial.
in court that the prosecution's it, as requested by the de-
Byrne also rejected a do-
"unusual proposal" amounted lease. tense effort to keep out of evi-
Ito a l-equest for "prior re- dence a 600-page government
He refused to split the log of public statements made
straint" on the lawyers. case into two separate trials, by Ellsberg and Russo since
The judge agreed, but left one on the conspiracy charge they were indicted.
open the possibility that he and one of the charges of He said he did not agree
might later restrict the topics theft of government property with Boudin's argument that it
which defense lawyers' are and violations of the Esplo- is an "illegal" violation of the
permitted to discuss in the nage Act, as sought by the de- First Amendment for. EDI or
presence of the jury.
Byrne and chief prosecutor fense? other governthent agents to at-
David R. Nissen have clashed He rejected a defense tend public speeches with the
"convertecr the history of
American involvement in
Southeast Asia.
Thus far, the prosecution
has said only that the "conver-
sion" occurred in Los Angeles
during an eight-month time
period when Ellsherg and
Russo photocopied the Papers.
* He said the prosecution
must produce, any existing in-
side-government memoranda
assessing the effect that dis-
closure of the papers by news-
papers last summer had on na-
tional security.
* He required the .defense
previously on the question of claim that the government intent,sole of taking notes on
whether freedom of the press had prejudiced the case by what alleged violators of the
is an , issue in the Ellsberg- shifting back and forth be- law say.
Russo trial. tween different theories of
Although the prosecution in- whether it was "documents"
sists that freedom of the press or "information" that Ellsberg
and the war in Vietnam are ir- a:nd Russo allegedly stole from
relevant to the caserit has de- the government.
mantled the right to ask all po- The defense argues that in
order to convict. the defend-,
tential jurors what, newspa-
pers they read and how they ants of theft, the prosecution
feel about the war, should be. required to show
During today's court session that the government suffered
one of a series in which "substantial deprivation" of
final pretrial issues are being the contents of the ,Pentagon
thrashed out ? Byrne lost pa- ,paPers-
tience on several occasions-. ? He ruled that the govern-
with lawyers on both sides ment must specify more pre-
and addressed them harshly. ?cisely what it means by charg-
ing that Ellsberg illegally
Approved For Release 2006101/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
NET jOB
Approved For Releas82M/M/0-3 : CIA-RDP80-01601R0
00400030001-7
STAT
.Ellsbeig Defense to Call 18 to Stand t6;015-lo-C76-Le.aki
or-Secrets Are Common
4
7 ?By ROBERT A. WRIGHT plaint against the.
'Special to The New York Times affidavit asserts.
?LOS ANGELES, June 7?The The defense said a former.
defense in the Pentagon Papers
case said today that it would
call 18 witnesses; including
former special special assistants to
'Presidents, staff men from the
/White House, Department of
Defense and the Central Intelli-
gence Agency as well as Wash-
ington newspaper correspond-
ents, to prove that the leaking
of classified Government docu-
ments was a common practice.
? The potential witnesses were
- described but not named in
an affidavit requested by Judge
William Matt Byrne Jr. to sup-
port a defense motion for a
'pretrial 'hearing. The defense
seeks the hearing on its motion
to dismiss the indictment on the
ground that it constitutes dis-
criminatory -.prosecution.
? The indictment charges the
defendants, Dr. Daniel Ellsberg
and Anthony J. Russo Jr., both
former employes of the Rand
Corporation, which did research
for the Department of Defense,
with stealing and releasing
classified Government docu-
ments.
The defense lawyers, Charles
E. Goodell, the former Sena-
tor from New York; and Charles
?Nesson, charged in the affidavit
that "defendants" were singled
out for prosecution according
to ' a principle of selection
which is invidiefus, discrimina-
tory, and constitutionally im-
permissible."
: Assertion in Affidavit
While the defendants are
charged with having commit-
ted the alleged crimes between
.March, ,1969, and September,
1970, it was not until after
,the publication of the Penta-
gon Papers by The New York
Times on June 13, 1971, that
the Government issued a corn-
Government official.who is ex-
pert in security matters would
testify that the classified ma-
terials involved in this case
were less sensitive in terms of
national_ defense relationship
than the bulk of classified ma-
terial regularly leaked. The so-
called Pentagon Papers are a
.record of intra-government de-
bate on the United States's in-
volvement in the Vietnam. war.
The defense affidavit de-
scribes five witnesses as jour-
nalists, one as a former C.I.A.
employe with high responsibul
ity related to' the Far East andl
.Vietnam, and one as a close.'
confidante to a former Presi- ?
dent. . .
Other prospective witnesses'
were described as follows: Oc-
cupied a high, position in Wash-
ington within the last 10
years, a former member of the
White House staff, a former
official of '.and a former legal
adviser to the Department of.
Defense, ..a former special as-
sistant in the State Department
and Far Eastern adviser to the,
National Security Council, a
diplomatic historian, a member
3f Congress "who is chairmanl
if. an important committee that
has dealt over the years with
the classification system and
had direct responsibility and
jurisdiction over significant as-
pects of our involvement in
Vietnam," a former high Gov-
ernment official and a retired
archivist.
In an attached affidavit, Wil-
liam G. Florence, former Dep-
uty Assistant for Security and
Trade Affairs for the Air: Forcel
and a formulator of security'
regulations, indicates that he
will testify to specific instances
of leaks.
STAT
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
(Th
gr.W, IORK
Approved For %Riser fin6/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
contended that'Es-- Special
Assistant Attorney General, he
was not authorized under law
to do so. Mr. Uelman argued
that Robert L. Meyer, former.
United States Attorney in Los
Angeles, had refused to sign
His Lawyers Seek to Shov, the Federal indictment and that
? That Leaks Are Routine Mr.' Nissen had no authority
to do so.
Mr. Nissen replied that his
By ROBERT A. WRIGHT appointment as a Special ?
special to The New York Times - Assistant Attorney General
. LOS ANGELES, June 5? authorized him to carry out all
functions that are properly
Lawyers for Dr. Daniel Ellsberg delegated by the Attorney Gen-
and Anthony J. Russo, who are eral, including the signing of
'accused of stealing the Penta-
an indictment.
gon papers, argued in a Federal
court today that the court Told to Work It Out
should permit a pretrial hearing Judge Byrne asked that the
of witnesses that would show prosecution and .defense work
that leaks of classified Govern- out procedures under which an
/ ment documents were a routine affidavit from Mr. Meyer might
practice of Washington of fi- be submitted to the court.
cals. In arguments for the pretrial
? Charles Nesson, one of Dr. hearing, Mr. Nesson said the
? Ellsberg's five lawyers, argued defense would produce wit-
that the evidence would show nesses who would showthatthe
that the prosecution of De. Ells- use of classified Government
berg and Mr. Russo was dis- documents for personal use and
criminatory. the leaking of them 'to the
Both Dr. ? Ellsberg and Mr. press was a common practice
Russo had access to classified among Government officials.
Government documents when Mr. Nesson said, "we will
they were employes or the Rand present a picture of a system
?? Corporation, which did research which had extremely elaborate
for the Department of Defense. technical specifications which,
Dr. Ellsberg .has admitted giv- .if followed, would bring. our
? ing copies of the Pentagon pa- government to a halt." ?
pers?a?recapitulation of inter- Judge Byrne said he was in-
governmental debate on .the dined to agree with the defense
United States involvement in
brief,, but called on Mr. Nes-
the Vietnam war?to the press. son to be more specific on the
David R. Nissen, the Depart-. points of proof a hearing might
ment of .Justice prosecutor, op-
provide.
posed the hearing on the
Mr. Nesson said he was pre-
ground that discriminatory pared to offer an affidavit
prosecution' had never been from Max Frankel, Washington
held a proper defense in Fed-
Bureau chief of The New York
eral courts.
Times, that would document
Federal District -Judge Wil- routine leaks of classified M-
D= ham Matt Byrne Jr. took formation to the press.
Mr. Nessen countered that
. the arguments tinder submis-
sion, calling for affidavits from there were no cases in preced-
the defense attorneys by ent permitting discriminatory
p
Thursday that would specify prosecution as a defense in
elements of proof that they Federal cases.
'A person guilty of a crime
thought would be provided by
a pretrial hearing.-cannot be excused simply be-
cause others who are guilty ?
? May Take Several Days ' are ot prosecuted,' he said.
The arguments came on the "The answer is not to let every-
first day of oral arguments on body go, but to let the prosecu-
? pretrial motions before Federal: tor go."
District Judge William Matthew
Byrne Jr. The defense has en-
tered seven motions for dis-
missal. Although both sides
have submitted voluminous
briefs, the pretrial arguments
are expected to take several
days and Judge Byrne is not
expected to rule until Wednes-
?day on whether a pretrial hear-
ing is proper.
'In the first argument today,
Gerald Uelman, a lawyer for
Dr. Ellsberg, attempted to con-
vince the court that the charges
-should be dismissed because
the indictment had not been
'properly. sinAillrflyssl 4NRelease 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
The indiEfffirrir
by Mr. Nissen. and the defense
HEARING IS ASKED
IN ELLSBERG CASE
STAT
sat PROGRESSIVE
Approved For Release Zeta(015rile: CIA-RDP80-01601R
10400030001-7
The Government's obsession with se-
crecy is not confined to current or re-
/cent military operations. A- former.
/ CIA official named Victor L. Mar-
chetti, NV110 left the agency in 1969,
is under court -order not to speak or
write about, his past experiences. The
search goes on for those who may have
aided or abetted Daniel Ellsberg in
disclosure of the Pentagon Papers.
. The latest secrecy flap centers on
the series of Vietnam status reports
prepared for the Nixon Administra-
? tion early in 1969," known officially as.
? ;National Security Study Memoran-
? dum Number One, and unofficially as
Ithe Kissinger Tapers. (The' where-
!abouts at any given rmoment of the
?'-? widely traveled Henry M. Kissinger
? is now officially classified as a State
Secret.) Even.the Senate of the United
States, which ''presumably has a mod-
icum of interest in the circumstances
',surrounding the war, cannot bring? it:
-self to place the' Kissinger Papers on
? the public record, though their con.'
tents have long' since been' printed in
the press..
When Senator Mike Gravel, Dem-
ocrat' of Alaska, proposed to put the
Papers into the Congressiorkal Record,
the Senate 1.vent into secret session to
discuss the question of secrecy.. Gravel
observed that when he was a twenty-
three-year-old .first lieutenant in the
U.S. Army, he had the power to- clas-
sify documents "Top. Secret," . and
therefore keep -their contents from the
Senate and from the people of the
United States. "In fact," he added,
"We have over 200,000 people in this',
country who classify and declassify in-
formation which we in this body do
not see. . . . How: can we fulfill our
role as policymakers if we are not in-
formed as well as the President?" In a.
democracy, Gravel suggested, the risks
of an informed legislature and an in-
formed citizenry must be endured,
"because we develop an autocracy
from the very fact that some people
can classify documents and some peo-
ple can make determinations of what
is right and wrong."
But most of Gravel's colleagues dis-
played no interest in debating such
fine points of philosophy. Senator
Barry M. Goldwater, Arizona Repub-
lican, spoke for many of them when he
declared: "Each one?of us has'an ob-
ligation to respect classification. I do
not know that there is a law that re-
quires us to do it, but I know the FBI
goes into us very carefully before we
are given the right to receive or .be
briefed on or read anything classified.
I thought it was a disgrace this morn-
ing ivhcn I read that Jack Anderson
and The New York Times had re-
ceived a Pulitzer Prize. If they can get
away with that and if, with all due
spect, the Senator from Alaska can get
away with this, there is not going to
be anything left in the U.S. Govern-
ment. that is secret." horrors!
As it turned out, the .Senate spent
the. better part of five hOurs debating
not the issue of publishing the Kissin-
ger Papers, or the broader, problem of
Government secrecy?both were left
unresolved?bUt the urgent question
of whether the transcript of ' its own
secret session ought to be made pub-
lic. It finally was, though Senator
Charles Percy, Illinois Republican,
warned: "If this whole record were
published, I think we would have a
hard time explaining how we spent
four hours, with many, many prob-
lems this nation faces. . . . I would be
ashamed, having been a member of
this body, for going through this pro-
cedure." He had a point there.
Since it is* obviously incapable of
dealing with . such big issues as war
and secrecy, perhaps the World's
Greatest Deliberative Body ought to
stick to the little things it does so well
?revising the national motto, for in-
stance, so that it more accurately re-
flects the spirit. of the Republic. "None
of Your Damned Business" might be
an appropriate slogan to inscribe on
the coinage and currency of these
United States. Or, simply, "Shhh!"
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
t cr r " 1-
-
Approved For Release 2006/01/tf:M-147/060-01601R00
Ian Would
Declassify
U.S. Papers
Byllichard L. Lyons .
Washington Post Staff Writer
?
Rep. William Moorhead (D-
Pa.) proposed legislation yes-
terday creating new machin-
ery to classify defense and
diplomatic secrets and? make
public most other government
documents.
The present classification
program, which has placed se,-,
cret,or _confidential stamps on
millions of documents, oper-
ates under executive orders is-
sued by the President rather
than by act of Congress. A
new order which the adminis-
tration said will mean fewer
classified documents ? but
which critics say will mean
more ? takes effect June 1,
Moorhead is chairman of
the House Subcommittee on
Government Information,
which has been fighting offi-
ial secrecy for 16 years.
A key feature of his bill
ivould be an independent Clas-
sification Review Commission
? two-thirds appointed by
Congress and one-third by the
President ? which would
have great power to decide
what documents were entitled
to be kept from public or con-
? gressional view.
The commission, subject to
review by the federal courts,
would decide (1) whether Con-
gress was entitled to see a
? classified document it re-
quested, and (2) whether the
President could invoke execu-
tive privilege and refuse to
furnish Congress with unclas-
sified but confidential docu-
ments.
The bill provides for auto-
matic declassification of docu-
ments over a maximum period
of three years unless the clas-
sifying agency can persuade
the review commission that
? they should continue to be se-,
cret.
Classified documents would
be downgraded one level each
year. It would take three years
for a "top secret" document to
move through "secret," and
'confidential" and then into
the public domain. ?
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
400030001-7
Approved For Release 2006/011V:II8TIVIVE01601ROOOLnnnfinnni -7
? 2S MAY
?
- Court Bars'
Writings by
Ex-CIA Man
By NED SCHARFF
Star Staff Writer
A federal judge in Alexan-
dria has issued a permanent
injunction forbidding former
Central Intelligence Agency /
member Victor L. Marchetti
- to write or talk about his expe-
riences with the CIA.
U.S. District Judge Albert V.
Bryan Jr. ruled that Marchet-
ti's attempts to write analyti-
cal articles about the agency
were in violation of secrecy
contracts he signed before
going to work there in 1955 and
before his resignation in 1969.
The CIA asked the court to
restrain Marchetti's publish-
ing activities last month after
It. confiscated an outline fbr a
factual article, "Twilight of
the Spooks," which Marchetti
was writing for Esquire Maga-
zine. ? .
The restraining order will
prevent Marchetti, 42., of Vien-
? na, Va., from writing anything
? about what he learned at the
CIA while employed there. It
? also covers three television in-
terviews. Marchetti already
taped. .
' Attorneys for Marchetti's
defense had argued that si-
lencing him would be an
abridgement of First Amend-
ment rights. But Bryan ruled
that the secrecy contract
signed by Marchetti "consti-
tutes a waiver of the defend-
ant's right . . . and renders
(the case) no more than a
usual dispute between an em-
ployer . . . and employe."
During the month-long trial,
most of which was closed to
public and press because of
the classified material being
discussed, Marchetti's lawyers
said, they argued that the /
CIA's ? methods of classifying
-material are arbitrary and ca-
pricious. Bryan ruled those ar-
gun-lents irrevelant. ?
Is -not the role of the
court to determine whether
material should be classified
. . . by contract the defendant
has relegated that decision to
the CIA," Bryan said. ?
Marchetti said he resigned
two years ago because of per-
sonal feelings about his work
STAT
Approved For Release 6166k11/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
J
XLEAIDR IA GAZETTE
Approved For Releast22;pq#Ar/ign CIA-RDP80-01601R00
-"ew Bryan denied Wulf's argu-
ment ud ge Puts ,ment stating that "it is. not the
1 role of the court to .atermine.
! whether material should be
classified or whether, even if
Stop Order
classified, its revelation is ma-
terial."
On CIA Data"In the opinion of the court,"
, said Bryan, "the contract takes
? the case out of the scope of the
? By Douglas L. Pardtte , First Amendment and, to the
Staff Writer .
extent the First Amendment is
Ruling - that the defendant !involved, the contract consti-
? signed away his constitutional tined a waiver of the defen-
? right to freedom of speech when dant's. rights thereunder." Con-
he took employment with the sequently, noted Bryan, the case
Central Intelligence Agency,
is merely one of. a dispute be-
U.S. District Court Judge Albert tween an employer and employe
V. Bryan Jr., has ordered a
and is not similar to the Pen-
taig,ilanrcPhaFters case.
permanent injunction on all
whincoomreecefrivoesm the
writings
er agent who has authored ma-
writings and lectures of a form-
bulk of Marchetti,
s
'writings, said this morning that
terial critical of the security he will definitely appeal the de-
agency.
cision. Anticipating Bryan's ac-
In his nine-page decision, Lion, Marchetti said, "My law-
which was ? handed dowel late Y
Friday, Judge Bryan noted that necessary arrangements."
the defendant, Victor L. Mar-
Marchetti said he plans to
appeal on the grounds that his
theta of Vienna, who quit the writings, although based on ex-
CIA in 109 after 14 years as a periences, a r e fictional and
CIA agent, signed two secrecy should not be subject to the
agreements which contractually secrecy oath. The CIA counter-
prohibit him from discussing ed that argument during the.
anything, based on his experi- trial saying that Marchetti's
.ences in the CIA. fictional writings approximate
Marchetti's attorney, Melvin reality to such an extent that
they jeopardize U.S. security.
Wulf, an Atherican Civil Liber-
ties lawyer, argued during the'
ease, heard in closed court be-
:ause of classified material dis-
:ussed, that Marchetti's First
Anfendrnent right to freedom of
speech supersedes any con-
tractual agreements. Conse-
quently, he argued, Marchetti
has the .right to write or give ?
Lectures based on his experi-
ences in the CIA.
, Marchetti, who admitted his
writings are based on his ex-
periences in the CIA, said dur-
ing the trial that he exercises
? restraint and has not revealed
anything which in his opinion
could harm H.S. security. He
said his writings are intended to
point out what he feels are
transgressions by the CIA of its
function.
The case, said Wulf, is similar /
to the Pentagon Papers case ,id
that the CIA is trying to exer-
cise prior restraint and because
Marchetti is trying to expose
actions ? by the spy agency,
*which have nothing to do with
U.S. security and which are po-
tentially harmful to the rights
of US. citizens.
400030001-7
Approved For Release 2006/01/03: CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
NEW YORK IUES
1 8. MAY. 1972
Approved For Release 21:106/01/03 : CIA-RDP8.0-0
Notes on People
STAT
601R000400030001-7
.Sccrecy Watchdo,4_
To head a newly created
Government watchdog com-;'
mittee to prevent bureaucrats
from overzealously using se-
crecy stamps, President Nixon
named John S. D. Eisenhower.,
Mr. Eisenhower, son of the -
late Dwight D. Eisenhower
and the father of Mr. Nixon's
son-in-law, David Eisenhower,
will be chairman of a corn-.
,rnittee that will include senior
officials of the Justice, De-
fense and State Departments,
the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion und the Central Intelli-
gence Agency. The committee
will hear. appeals- from the
public for speedier declassifi-
cation of specific documents,
as well as implement an
'Executive Order of March 8
that Mr. Nixon said would
make more Government docu-
ments available to the public.
-The Executive Order estab-
lished an automatic declassi-
fication schedule ' for docu-:
ments stamped after July 1,
calling ? for declassification
within 6, 8 or 10 years for
almost all documents.
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
cs1:-
,TpIT1,jjUj3H, PA.
POST?GANTIi/
M ? 243,938 -
,
Fikeg Son in Charge
. Seeuri,ty Change,
For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
ffectiveJurie
By. MILTON JAQUES
?
Post-Gazette Wpshinoton Correspondent %. ? ?
WASHINGTON ? President Nixon's executive order for a
new security classification system will become effective June 1,'
? a White House spokesman said yesterday, as the Administra- '
tion brushed aside Rep. William S. Moorhead's request for_ a, ?
elay--pending congreSsional st
- Moorhead indicated he was'
'unhappy with the White
r The President appointed. House's move ahead with 'the
Jonh S. D. Eisenhower, for- . revamped system, espeCially
mer ambassador to Belgium, on short notice.
as chairman of an interagency
.1 classification review commit- ? THE nuls ISSUED yes- .
'! tee to oversee the new system. terday over the signature of !
rEisentower's sop David is Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, head
.r ma rried to the President's of the National Security Coun- ?
daughter Julie. cif, take effect on June 1. ;
t' ...._
?. OTHER MEMBERS of the
:-.review committee will be
( i. ' named by the Departments of
Defense, State and Justice, the
Centritcili_ggnse.,..,Ageacy ,
i, and the(Erite hergy
mission. . 1
: The President ordered sev-
eral changes in the system.
-Key provisions call for a
! computerized data index sys-
? ?tem for information classified.
? :A list of persons with authori-
ty to classify documents will ,
be kept on file by the depart-
. ments.
i "This application of comput-
er technology across the board
should lead to a much more ,
manageable classification sys-
tem and greatly enhance the
flow of Information to the pub-
' lie," the President said in a
? statement issued by the White
, I House.
"Overseeing our new ap-
proach to government docu-
ments will not be ? an easy
task, for a delicate balance
must be struck between the
?
.? public's right to know and the
, government's obligation t
protect the national security,"
"It's bad practice," Moor-.
head, ?a member of the House i
Government Operations Com- .
mittee said.
"I don't think they will be
ready to operate under the
new ?order by June. 1. They're.
pushing it too fast."
Moorhead's subcommittee
on government information
has already received testimo-
ny that the government is too
eager to put its secret stamp
on documents. Some experts
estimate that 95 per cent of,
such documents could be.
made public without damage '
to the national security.
The President indicated he '
had no quarrel with some
estimates of over-classifica-
tion of documents. His 'March
8 statement which announced
forthcoming changes in the
system said the present- regu-
lations had failed to meet the
problem.
?
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
FASHEIGT011 POST ?
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : cliterP80-01601R
1.8 Mi
'Eisenhower
ill Head .
,0. mereey Unit
. . United Press I.nternetional
? President Nixon appointed
JOhn Eisenhower yesterday to;
head a newly created govern- I
ment watchdog committee to .
prevent overzealous use of se-
crecy stamps,
-Eisenhower, son of Dwight
D. Eisenhower and father of
Mr. Nixon's son-in-law David .
Eisenhower, will head a com-
mittee that will include senior
officials of the Defense, State
and Justice departments, the
Central Intelligence Agency J
.and the Atomic Energy Com-
mission.
-Mr. Nixon on March 8 ?is-
sued an executive order that
he said was intended to makq
more government documents
available to the public. At that
time, he announced he would
create the interagency com-
mittee Eisenhower will head.
? In a related development,
the National Security Council
Issued 12 pages of regulations
Intended to. spell out to gov-
ernment ?bureaucrats what
they must do to comply with
Mr. Nixon's directive restrict-
ing of docu-
ments.
The regulations require es:
,tablishment of a computerized
Index .of classified material to
fissure Periodic review of doe-
vments to determine if the na-
tional. security. continues to
alemand their .Secrecy.
Eisenhower is a graduate of
',West Point and served more
than 20 years in the Army,
reaching the rank of lieuten-
ant colonel. Following his re-
tirement, he served for two
;pars as Ambassador to Bel-
.
glum.
The President's order in
March established an auto-
naatic declassification schedule
for documents stamped after
next July 1. The schedule calls
for declassification within six,
eight, or ten years except for
matters considered especially
sensitive, which could be sup-
pressed for, as ,tnany ..,cts 30
,
EisenhOwerV CominittWe
hear appeals from the public.
for speedier declassification of -
specific documents as- well as
overseeing the entire declassi-
STAT
Approved For Re leasekeetiekifins. CIALRDP80701601R000400030001 -7.
LOS 41.7.:4-2,1?11:11., 1.1.1.44S
Approved For Release A1111)(
git, itu3 :19 A-RDP80-01601R0004
a
Thew hiie House
?.
? BY Till
?
WASHINGTON?Secrecy Jowls to
.self-deception. If you want proof of
that _overlooked politicab,axiom,?look.
at the WaY we have gotten involved
with secret Mercenary army in
Lao's. ? ?
It:a.n Started. not 'So innocently
decade ago when .the. Central Intel-
ligence Agency recruited, directed
and , supported .an army of . Meo
tribesmen to'keep Laos from going
Communist It was like having a
'Gurkha' army of 'oin? 'own; only no
One knew we had?it...and thus nobody
cared that we. were getting ever
more involved in a \ va r in Laos, It
STAT
00030001-7
Classifies and ConoTess Ossifies
partment and CIA won't 'fess up to
what they arc'doing with the Thai
mercenaries. The reason is that Con-:
gress last year passed a law prohib-
iting?-the use, of defense funds to.
help third-country forces fight in
support of the Laotian or Cambodi-
an governments. If all the facts were
made- public, it would be evident
that the executive,branch was vio-
lating the law. ? ? .
It's easy enough to blame the ex-
ecutive branch for its secrecy: 'Ev???
erybody :knows including Pres-
ident NiXon, who isSued a new exec-
utive order on classification recently
?that the government busirress is
weighted down w it h.. excessive Se-
crecy.,,
was all going splendidly .until the ? ? . - ?
CIA sent Gen. :Vang. Pao and .his . For all its criticism of the execu-
army on an ill-fated ?offensive, last
spring. The Meo'irregulars" got
thewed ktp.they had about 1.0r,;-- ca-
sualties. That might not have been
too. had except .there were no more
tribesmen to recruit in Laos. So the
CIA started recruiting mercenaries
? in Thailand, 'only it called them
nvolynteers."-
ow the Senate Poreign:Itelations
? Committee has discovered. that we
have a? s100 miilion annual commit-
ment. to finance an army of 10,000
Thai i'.Volunte.ers"-figbtibg in Laos.
The-Thais like it because thev. are
getting .good 'pay as well as extra
military assfstance from the' United
States; -Presumably the Laotians
like it.beeause the 'Moo and Thai Can
do the fighting. But what about Cod-;
gress ?and the. poor ?American ? tax-
payer who never knew they were
running up a $100 million annual.
bill in Laos? And . what about . the
present moral character of a nation
that .200 years ago won. its indepen-
?denee fighting. hessian mercena-
ries'? - . House Armed Services ?Committee,
Put aside all the moral, geopoliti- you would have thought ? Ms. Abzug
cal and financial considerations. It's ? wanted to reveal the secrets of the
also a disturbing case of the evils of A-bomb. But really his consterna-
tion was over the, fact that she wa;
challenging the power of the: Armed
Services Committee, which wants to
keep such information locked up in
?
I- Oh sure, the CIA informed a few its own safes: ?
4 members of the Appropriations' Maybe Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alas-
? Committee. But then it intimidated k")? with his maverick ways, is
fi-
them by exphiining it was so hush- nally- forcing Congress to face up to
hush they couldn't talk about it to the problem. Ile tried the other day
the rest of Congress.. After thz-it the- to place in the Congressional Record
privileged few didn't even bother to a copy of a still secret national se-
raise questions?that was until Sen ('urity memorandum that .Henry
Stuait Symington (1)-Mo.) and his Kissinger had prepared back in loGo
foreign relations subcommittee on the Vietnam options open to the
tive'branch, Congress really likes se-
crecy. At least those in power do be-
cause seerecy_means power. 'If you
.only knew what- I krick),VD. makes a..
senator very important in ,his own
eyes and in the eyes of his col-
leagues. .
If you want a bewildering exam-
ple, take the, case of Symington. One
day he is deploring the executiva
branch's secrecy on the Thai merce-
naries. The next day he is on the
Senate floor qUestioning whether se-.
crets should be given to members of
Congress except those on the Armed
Services, Foreign . Relations, , and
Atomic. Energy committees: Sv-
mington,, it should be. pointed out, is
the only. member of all three coin-
;mitLees. ?
Or take the case of Rep. Bella Ab-
zug, who had the temerity to intro-
duce a resolution demanding infor-
mation on how many bombs we are?
dropping.- in Indochina. -From the
horrified look on the face of Rep. P.
Edward Hebert, the chairman of the
secrecy in our government and Con-
gress. Secrecy proVides a way to
subvert the . c.onStitutional cheeks
and 'balances 'on the war powers.
ing into two (lays of secret sessions.
The basic objection was that Gravel
would 'be violating the law by mak-
ing public a documenS classified se=
cret. Then to the amazement of the
senators, it turned out that there
was no law specifically authorizing
the executive branch to classify in-
formation. The whole secrecy sys-
tem, it turns out, just rests on im-
plied powers assumed by the execu-
tive branch, .
The whole security System ob-
viously .is not. going to come tum-
bling down. Nor should it. But once
Congress starts questioning it,
maybe it will kegin to realize that
Gravel has a point when he argues
that Congress also an determine
what. information should be made
public. Right now its reached the.
Point Of absurdity: the Senate sends
its debates in secret session down to
the executive branch to. be declassi-
fied. . ?
Congress ought tounderStand that
it need not be sucb a- Willing, -ac-
quiescent partner in a- secrecy -sys-
tem that leads not onlyto deception
but to the impotence- of Congress.:
STAT
N ? - 01R0004000300014
war in 11.,axo)isd.1111(4:Nzelinit#1.4Red4, eFtat6eicire ki%Xl )11110 f-i'AP14?1-11kDa re1348spPiNtilelir-
started
? ALEXANDRIA GALti2E
15 MAY 1972 ?
Approved For Release 2.006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000
UA Agent's
Trial Closed
For Security
A hearing on a federal injunc-
tion placed on writings and lec-
tures of a former CIA agent who
has been critical of the security
agency was ordered closed this
morning in Alexandria by U.S.
Court Judge Albert V. Bryan Jr.
? The hearing was ordered
closed, said U.S. District Attor-
ney Brian P. Gettings, because
of "certain classified security
material that they aro 'going
Into." Gettings noted that he ex-
pects the hearing will remain
closed the rest of the day.
The former agent, Victor L.
Marchetti, who quit the CIA in
1969 after 15 years service, was
charged in early April in a CIA
affidavit with preparing a book
and other writing's based on his?
experiences in the CIA which
might endanger U.S. security.
In response to the affidavit,
Judge Bryan?imposed a tempor-
ary restraining order on Mar-
chetti. That order prohibits Mar-
chetti from distributing writ-
ings or giVing lectures concern-
ing the CIA pending the outcome
of today's hearing. -
The case- has been described
by American Civil Liberties at-
torney Melvin Wulf, ? who is di-
recting Marchetti's case, as
"strikingly similar to the Penta-
gon Papers case." Wulf has
argued that the restraining or-
der violated Marchetti's First
Amendment right by imposing
prior re:straint.
Justice Department attorney
Irwin Goldbloom has countered
Vulf's argument stating that
any writings or lectures by Mar-
chetti based on his experiences
In the CIA violate a secrecy
oath required of 611 CIA employ-
es.
,/
? 00030001-7
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
faf
Approved For Release LU00/U 1/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R
The Federal Diary '
Federal minions authorized
to. stamp "TOP SECRET" la-
bels on documents use their
powers more to bury bureau-
cratic and political goofs than
to protect national security.
At least that is the assessment
of Rep. William S. Moorhead
(D-Pa.).
Moorhead, who heads the
aovernment Information Sub-
committee, rays there is less
straight government informa-
tion these days because of
White House news manage-
ment and a nonpartisan afflic-
tion similar to St. Vitus Dance
that afflicts the hands of indi-
viduals who hold secret
stamps. ? ? ?
The congressman told a Fed-
eral Editors Association lunch-
eon yesterday- that noninfor-
mation policies will get worse
unless government officials
start paying attention to the
freedom of information law,
and until federal public rela-
tions personnel are told what
their agencies are really
doing.
Moorhead, whose group has
been probing the federal dis-
semination of data policy, says
"we have found that?contrary
to general opinion?much in-
formation hidden from the
public does not have anything
to do with hydrogen bombs,
weapons systems, state secrets
or other sensitive classified in-
formation that we all agree
does require rafeguarding to
protect our national defense
and foreign policy."
The chairman said Congress
must replace the present secu-
rity claasification system that
operates under an executive
order with a "workable, man-
ageable" law that will limit
Cassification to documents
that really deserve it.
Denying information to Con-
gress, or the press, Moorhead
says, makes it easier for
crooks, political hacks or hon-
est civil servants who make
honest mistakes to hide them
"under a secrecy stamp and
lock them securely in 1,000-
pound file cabinets." Guests at
the luncheon swear Moorhead-
looked in the direction of the
Pentagon when he made the
latter statement.
Last month Robert 0.
Beatty, HEW's assistant secre-
tary for public affairs, made al
pitch for An end to the 18131
0400030001-7
? 1,
law that prohibits funds to
pay "publicity experts," . al-
though the government has
thousands of them anyhow.. .
Beatty argued, and Moorhead
agreed, that the law has done
nothing but damage the career
Image of the federal informa-
tion man or woman "and has
not prevented the abuses it
was supposed to prevent." ,
Many government informa-
tion specialists privately com-
plain that they are mistrusted
by the press and their own
agencies. By the press, be-
cause they are considered pri-
marily engaged in covering up
stories, and management be-
cause they are considered
"alien" to the spirit of team
cooperation, and ..tainted by
contacts'with media people.
"We must give up this idi-
otic notion that' we can com-
pete in the secrecy game with
those who invented it," he told
the editors. "Secrecy subverts
any representative system,
Just as it is essential to main-
tain a totalitarian dictator-
ship." .
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
LOS EIGETZS ITZS
Approved For Relen i00(?11f51732: CIA-RDP80-01601R
PLUGGING LEAKS time the State Department
had more to do with our
foreign affairs. Now we
?
r
? ? are down to 12 and you
don't have too much to do.
Is this good?"
80 or 90 Copies
Macomber: "It is good,
Mr. Chairman, to have a
capability of limiting dis-
tribution when you want
to. It is not very reassur-
ing if you are an ambassa-
dor in the field and send
back a message that you
want to have very. limited
distribution and finding 80
or 90 copies going auto-
matically around the
government."
Rooney: "That is the
way it was for years,
wasn't it? That is, until we
pooh - poohed the whole
thing up here."
Macomber: "I know It
was that way for much too
long, There is .a greater
ability now to limit the
distribution. This pr e-
eludes the possibility of
leaks contrary to certain
p r.o m i n ent newspaper
talk."
With only 12 copies
available, Rooney asked
how many might be going
to Henry A. Kissinger,
President Nixon's aide for
-national security affairs.
"One copy goes to the
White House. I am not
sure who would get that,
Mr. Chairman," Goodman
replied.
ouis iiore
Secret Than
'Eyes Only?'
. WASHINGTN 01?In
the *diplomatic cr ecy
world, ''Eyes Only" is out
but "Nod is" is in. And
"contrary to certain prom-
inent newspapar talk,"
this shuts a lot of leak
holes.
? So said Dept. Undersec-
retary of State William B.
Macomber Jr. In congres-
sional testimony released
recently.
During hearings Feb. 24
on $15.4 . million in the
State Department's com-
munications oper ations
budget proposal, Rep.
John J. Rooney (D-.N.Y,),
chairman of a House Ap-
propriations Com mit tee
subcommittee reviewing
departmental spen cli n g
plans, asked how. many
copies of an "Eyes Only"
communication are made
for.Secretary of State Wil-
liam P. Rogers.
No 'Eyes -Only'
The "Eyes Only" caption
Is no longer in use, said
STAT
000400030001-7
Dep. Asst. Secretary of
State William H. Good-
man. "We use 'Nodis,'
no distribution outside the
secretariat," and just 12
copies are inade.
Rooney wondered
whether this is the highest
classification, .
"Highest limitation, Mr.
Chairman," Macomber
said.
"It is not a security clas-
sification', it is a most lim-
ited distribution because
they all go to the secretary
and there is no distribu-
tion until he approves Of
the distribution. Literally
limited to one until he ap-
proves further distribu-
tion."
Rooney: "I don't know
what to make out of tis
whole business. You used
to make 80 copies of the ?
'Eyes oftpraviedtForaRelease 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R00
STAT
3400030001-7
May 8, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
tions without judge or defending ?counsel.
Television would, of course, occupy half the
hearing room; the press the other half. The
employee's duties, relations with the Presi-
dent, with other employees in the White
? House, the State Department, and represent-
? atives of foreign governments, his qualifies_
tions for his duties, past experience, social
life, and friends would all receive attention.
? He would he asked about matters he had
worked on, although not the substance of
them, aside from the one on which he was
summoned, and long arguments would be
provoked about whether the PreSident's letter
provided exemption from answering extra-
neous questions irrelevant to its principal
subject.
As summons might follow summons as
Last as committee clerks could get them out
with the aid of the Congresional Directory
and these witnesses followed one another
? with letters asserting privilege, what a pic-
ture could be created of a President in the
center of a web of secret machination. What
a picture presented to the world of a govern-
ment as bizarre, absurd, and divided by
tragic vendettas as the King of Morocco's
birthday party.
In short, what a hell of a way to run a
? Mr. IIRUSKA-. Mr. President, I wish.
to say at the conclusion of my remarks
? what I said at the outset. It would be my
? hope that Senate Resolution 299 would be
.placed on the calendar, there to await an
occasion when the Senate can properly
address itself to this matter, at which
? time it would be my present intention to
make a motion either to lay it on the table
or to refer it to the Committee on the
? Judiciary where it properly belongs. At
that time hopefully we would have the
presence and the advice and counsel of
others on the Committee on the Judi-
ciary. They are not present now through
no fault of their own, but are engaged
in other activities of the Senate.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of
? a quorum.
Mr. JAVTS. Mr. President, will the
Senator withhold his request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
HARRY P. BYRD, JR,). Does the Senator
withhold his request?
Mr. HRUSKA. I withhold my request.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I wish to
be recognized. The Senator really has
only to 2 o'clock today to occupy the time
of the Senate. I do not intend to let the
matter go that long because people have
other things to do and obviously any
Member can carry us up to 2 o'clock with-
? out aquorum, and there is no need to put
the Senate to that trouble.
I would like to speak briefly in re-
sponse so that the RECORD which Sena-
tors read may be available on both sides
of the issue, the Senator from Nebraska
having spoken to the merits of adopting
the resolution at length. But before I do
that, I ask unanimous consent that a
? committee print be prepared of the reso-
lution as I have modified it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
1----objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JAvrrs. Mr. President, when I am
? through, unless other Senators wish rec-
? ognition, I shall ask unanimous consent
that the resolution go to the calendar;
? but I wish to point out the following
factors: One, I hope very much the
- leadership will call this resolution up
promptly, precisely because we are now
almost compelled to act on this matter.
It is interesting that the record of. the
Senator from Nebraska (Mr. 11RusxA) of
the committee action on bills which may
have been introduced to deal with the
Penal Code provisions for violations of
the classification of documents goes back
to the late 1950's-. We had two secret ses-
sions last week and a tremendous flap
over the fact that one Member of this
body used his constitutional immunity
to disclose the so-called Pentagon pa-
pers, which interested the whole country
enormously.
Obviously, the subject is not going to
wait for another period of years, whether
the Senator from Nebraska wishes that
or not.
Second, aside from that, we will prob-
ably be faced with an amendment by the
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Cnuacn) ?he
has already announced it?to the State
Department authorization bill on the
question of classified documents, and the
Senate will again be in the position which
it was in the other day, not really having
the benefit of as much information and
the pros and cons as it should.
Finally, we are in a very critical period
In our national life and the life of this
country in terms of our foreign relations.
We are in a very serious phase of Viet-
nam?extremely serious. No one knows
how that will go. The documents which
may be available on that subject, which
were the immediate, inciting cause of the
secret sessions of last week, become of
supreme importance; and I doubt very
much that the questions are simply going
to sit around and wait. They are going to
demand an answer. We can only have the
heat and exacerbation of tempers which
result from issues of this kind, where a
Member of this body may be wishing to
seek his constitutional immunity end
saying, "You give me no other course,"
or we can get the light of reason and au-
thority of the leadership in terms of try-
ing to deal in some way with these vex-
ing problems on. the part of the Senate.
Finally, there is no question that it is
a deeply agitating question in the coun-
try where the people are being denied in-
formation,- either on classification or
through the exercise of the doctrine of
executive privilege. At a time of such
crisis as this, when one of the great
charges is that people are not being ade-
quately informed, the matter could
hardly remain in limbo very long.
Finally, the Executive order itself
which is referred to indicates the broad
scope of the substantive part of this ques-
tion, quite apart from what should be
put in the Penal Code. Obviously, the
Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction
over what goes in the Penal Code, but it
hardly has jurisdiction?certainly not
exclusive jurisdiction?over what the
Senate does about a document which
may be denied or which may be classified
or of which one Member of this body may
come into possession in such a way that
It places an inhibition on him by reason
of classification by the State Department.
To argue that the Senate cannot strike
those manacles from its wrists without
the Penal Code is an inconceivable doc-
trine that cannot and will not stand up.
The matter we are dealing with is a
wide-ranging one. Those with authority
to impose a classification of "top se-
cret" are not only the Office of the Presi-
dent, but the Central Intelligence
Agency, the Atomic Energy Commission,
the Department of State, the Department
of the Treasury, the Department of De-
fense, the Department of the- Army, the
Department of the Navy, tile Department
of the Air Force, the U.S. Arms Control
and Disarmament Agency, the Depart-
ment of Justice, the National Aeronau-
tics and Space Administration, and the
Agency of International Development.
So the Agency for International De-
velopment, for example, has a surerior
standing to the Senate of the United
States, and that is what we are asked to
perpetuate.
When it comes to the classification of
"secret," which stands in the same light,
let us see who can stamp the classifica-
tion of "Secret" on documents; The De-
partment of Tiansportation, the Federal
Communications Commission, the Ex-
port-Import Bank of the United States,
the Department of Commerce,. the U.S.
Civil Service Commission, the U.S.
Information Agency, a subordinate
agency of the Department of State,
the General Services Administration, the
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the
Federal Maritime Commission, the Fed-
eral Power Commission, the National Sci-
ence Foundation, and the Overseas Pri7
vate Investment Corporation.
All of those agencies, if they classify
a document, make a Senator use his con-
stitutional immunity if he is going to use
it, and it puts the whole Senate in a twi-
light zone if it is going to do anything
about it, with respect to its procedures.
The situation is simply intolerable under
present conditiens, and the Senate, in
my judgment, cannot, and I hope will
not, wait.
But the Senator has exercised his
Privilege very properly. The debate, if
continued until 2 o'clock, would result in
this matter going to the calendar any-
way. So unless the Senator from Nd-
braska (Mr. HausicA) wishes to speak
again?obviously he does?I will, at the
moment when the debate is finished, ask
unanimous consent that the resolution
go to the calendar.
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, just a
observation or two so that they will be
in context with the observations made
by the Senator from New York.
Among other things, it has been sug-
gested that we are in a critical period.
Certainly now, with these international
conferences at the highest level in pros-
pect, and some already having been had,
the questions that arise should be an-
swered.
But, Mr. President, they have been an-
swered again and again in similar critical
periods of our history. There is not any-
thing in the passage of Senate Resolution
299 that will assist in that regard what-
soever. There is not any questien?I know
of no authority that would say that there
is any question?about the President's
right to classify documents. That is so
well grounded that it does not require the
citation of authority beyond the Con-
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
S 00
THE NATIONAL OBSERVER
Approved For Release 2006/01/636: eff-Rilfg0-01601R00
urns VVHriter
But Hi's- Old Boss, the CIA, Goes to Court,
Says His New Book Would Spill Some Secrets
By Michael T. Malloy
Ballplayers leave baseball and write
"hooks about what's wrong with it. Soldiers
leave the Army and write books about
what's wrong with that. Victor Marchetti
quit his job and sent an outline of a book
about his old business to a New York pub-
lisher.
"Then last Tuesday the roof fell in," he
said between court appearances last week.
"Marshal Dillon and Chester came to the
door and" presented me with some legal
paper. Being just an ordinary guy with
three kids living in suburbia, I didn't know
where to go for advice. I called my agent.
and hollered, 'Help!' "
Marchetti's publishing problem is that
he used to work for the Central Intelli-
gence Agency (CIA). The legal papers
constituted a court order requiring him to
clear anything he writes about intelligence
matters; even fiction, with his old em-
ployer. If the order holds up in fliether
court tests, it could give the Government a
new way to plug "leaks" of classified in-
formation. Looked at another way, how-
ever, it could give the Government a pow-
erful new tool for 'suppressing informed
debate of its military and foreign policies.
ACLU Answers Call
/ "Ws DO less important than the Penta-
v .gon Papers' case," says Melvin Wulf, legal
director of the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU), which immediately re-
sponded to Marchetti's call for legal
help. "If they establish this precedent,"
Marchetti contends, "it means no Govern-
ment employe who had access to classi-
fied information will be able to criticize
the actions of the Government."
The Government's action grows out of
a manuscript that Marchetti submitted to
Esquire Magazine and a book outline he
sent to Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., a publishing
house. A CIA agent obtained copies of
both, and the agency went to court con-
tending the works contained classified in-
formation whose publication would do "ir-
reparable damage" to national security.
To knowingly transmit such informa-
tion to 'anyone else, including a publisher,
would seem to leave Marchetti open to
prosecution under laws that prescribe a
30-year prison sentence for violators. But
the 'Government made a different case. It
oted that Marchetti had signed a secrecy
agreement while with the CIA, promising
to not reveal any classified information
without written permission from the
agency.
STAT
From CIA: No Comment
The Government said this amounted to
a legal contract. It contended that Mar-
chetti violated the contract by sending his
'writings to a publisher. On this ground it
obtained an injunction requiring him to
clear his writings with the CIA 30 days be-
fore showing them to anyone else. If Mar-
chetti violates the injunction, he can go to
jail for contempt of court.
The Government's use of this circuitous
route to head off a possible breach of secu-
rity is unprecedented, lawyers say, with
the possible exception of an obscure case
during World War I. But it offers the Gov-
ernment a method to silence Marchetti
without a difficult and time-consuming ef-
fort to prove that the information in his ar-
ticles was damaging to 'national security.
' If the CIA's case holds up, it needs to
prove only that he violated an agreement
that he readily admits signing. "
The CIA has a policy of taking its
lumps in silence, so no Spokesman was
available to defend its position. But others
familiar with the security laws said the
laws paradoxically could require ' the
agenty to bring its secrets into open court
in order to protect them, and that a prose-
cution could leave Marchetti free to write
and speak for months on end as courts and
juries made up their minds.
400030001-7
posite position, they'd go to jail."
Marchetti didn't start out to be a cru-
sader, and he still doesn't want-to go to
'jail for the sake of civil liberties. He left
the CIA after 14 years in 1069, at least
partly because of the here-I-am-going-on-
40-and-what-have-I-accomplished blues. He
did believe the intelligence apparatus
had become too big, too expensive, and too
frozen in Cold War attitudes, but mostly,
he says, he wanted to be a novelist.
Security vs. Image
He has.since published one spy neve],
The Rope Dancer, which he first showed(
to the CIA. ("Pretty trashy," says Admiral
Taylor.) And he wrote one highly critical
magazine article, which he didn't clear
with the agency.
"In my opinion, this and other things
Victor Marchetti says are damaging to the.
image of constituted authority, and it does
no good to do things of this sort," Admiral
Taylor says of the article. "But I person-
ally perceived no outright security
breach."
Marchetti suspects that the intelligence
agency is more concerned about its image
than any security breach in his new manu-
scripts, which Admiral Taylor hasn't seen.
"The CIA have been the golden boys of
the Federal Government, the 'American
James Bonds," Marchetti says. "Very few
people have ever spoken out against them.
This is a new experience for them and I
A Matter of Security guess they didn't like it.
"Ex post facto action against unautho- "Look, I'm very reluctant to use the
rized? disclosure is always difficult," says Anitials of the agency where I used to
retired Adm. Rufus L. Taylor, for whomelwork," Marchetti frets, as he tri eS to de-
Marchetti was executive ' assistant when scribe his criticisms of the CIA without
Taylor was deputy director of the CIA. violating the court order.
"You've always got to prove damage to
the national security and sometimes even
intent to damage national security."
To Marchetti and his? ACLU lawyers,
that is just the point. They say the
breach-of-contract argument makes it pos-
sible for the Government to silence its
critics without proving that they had en-
dangered national security. They say the
information in Marchetti's manuscripts
did not present such a danger, and that
the secrecy "contract" is legally unen-
forceable because it compels an employe
to sign away his freedom of speech. ?
"A Government agency can still use
classified information to support its poli-
cies and build its image," Marchetti
argues. "When the military budget comes
up, all this stuff about Russian missile
capabilities comes out to support its posi
Whipping the KGB
But in abstract terms, and trying to
avoid any concrete examples that could
put him in jail, he argues that the agency
has succumbed to the mental inertia that
afflicts any bureaucracy when it faces no
outside pressure to change. "It's very
hard for a bureaucracy to reform itself,"
he says.
Marchetti would like to see an intelli-
gence system that was smaller, Cheaper,
more subject to congressional control, and
less influenced by the military. He be-
lieves the CIA should stick to intelligence
gathering and abandon political missions
like those that helped overthrow govern-
ments in Iran and Guatemala, and in-
volved the United States in a secret war in
Laos.
"The CIA can take pride that they'
tion. It's leaked and nothing ever happens. whipped the (Soviet] KGB's tail in many
ma_ places" with cloak-and-dagger operations
But if somebody took the ame infor
ii . .. ...-
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-R P80-01601R000400030001-7
rearectireeee.
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601ROOQ
May 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
the distinguished majority whip has
400030001-7
completed his most eloquent and force-
ful statement, which he is of course en-
titled to make, I will observe that when
the roll is called on the Tunney amend-
ment, I think the number of Senators
on this side of the aisle will look pretty
good in comparison with the absentees
on the other side of the aisle.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
that may be true. However, no absent
Senator on this side of the aisle has
lodged a request for an objection to be
made to a unanimous-consent request to
set aside an amendment and to take up
some noncontroversial amendment which
may be offered. The objection is coming
from the other side of the aisle. I say
most respectfully that I honor the assist-
ant minority leader for doing his job.
But I have a job to do also.
Mr. GEJE.FIN. Mr. President, I respect
and honor the able majority whip for
doing his job. He does it very well and
very effectively. ?
Perhaps a mistake was made in agree-
ing that any other amendment could be
taken up to displace the Stennis
amendment. Of course, the pending busi-
ness before the Senate is the amendment
of the distinguished Senator from Mis-
sissippi. And We have been ready and
willing to vote on the Stennis amend-
ment for these past several days. We are
ready and willing to vote today.
The delay has not come from this side
of the aisle; or at least, it has not come
from this side of the issue. I say it that
way because I realize that the issue in-
volved is not a partisan matter. Obvi-
ously there are Senators on both sides
of the political aisle with differences
about the merits of the Stennis amend-
ment. .
? I am inclined to say that perhaps we
should keep the Stennis amendment as
the pending business and agree to no
unanimous-consent requests at all. Per-
haps that is the way we should have dealt
with the issue. 'We were merely trying to
provide some accommodation.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. Without objection, the unanimous-
consent request of the Senator from West
Virginia is agreed to.
\----- SENATE RESOLUTION 299?SUBMIS-
SION OF A RESOLUTION ESTAB-
LISHING -A SELECT COMMITTEE
TO STUDY QUESTIONS RELATING
TO SECRET AND CONFIDENTIAL
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I send a
resolution to the desk and ask unanimous
consent for its immediate considera-
tion.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore.. The clerk will state the resolution.
The second assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
Resolved, that there is hereby established
a special, ad hoc Select Committee of the
Senate to be composed of ten members, Eve
from the majority and five from the minori-
ty. The Majority Leader shall be the Chair-
man and the Minority Leader the Co-Chair-
man. Of the remaining eight members, four
will be appointed by the Majority Leader and
four by the Minority Leader. Any member
appointed under the provisions of this res-
olution shall be exempt from the provisions.
of the Reorganization Act relating to limita-
tions on Committee service.
The Committee shall conduct a: study and
report its findings and recommendations to
the Senate, within sixty days of its establish-
ment, on all questions relating to the se-
crecy, confidentiality and classification of
government documents committed to the
Senate, or any member thereof, and propose
guidelines with respect thereof; and, the
laws and rules. relating to clatsification, de-
classification or reclassification of govern-
ment documents, and the authority there-
for.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. Is there objection to the request of
the Senator from New York?
Mr. GRIFFIN, Mr. President, reserv-
ing the right to object, it is mi under-
standing, if I may make an inquiry of
the disinguished Senator from New York,
the sponsor of this resolution, as to the
pariamentary situation which he is pur-
suing, the way for him to get this on the
calendar is to ask for unanimous con-
sent that it be considered immediately.
I do not think he really expected that it
would be considered immediately today,
and it is within the framework of his
plans that it be put on the calendar and
held over until next week.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, may I say
to the Senator that I would -have been
disappointed if this had not happened. It
would not be my plan that we consider
it today. I intend to make no comment
of any kind on the resolution today ex-
cept to ask that the clerk read the names
? of the cosponsors. I expect that it will be
held on the calendar until Monday. We
will then have both leaders here, and, at
their disposition, it can either be dis-
cussed and considered if they wish then,
or it can go on the calendar and be dis-
cussed and considered at an appropriate
time.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I have
not had any opportunity to consider the
merits of the resolution. From listening
to the wording of it for the first time, I
think that the idea of the Senator to do
something in the area of providing a
more orderly procedure for declassifying
or considering the subject of classifica-
tion of documents is needed. However,
in order to accommodate the situation,
and because someone has to make an
objection and I happen to be the leader
on the floor, I object.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, if I may
be recognized, I appreciate that very
much. That is exactly what I wanted to
see occur. I run grateful to the Senator
for his accommodating us in this way. I
wish to make it clear myself that I in no
way consider this an indication of the
Senator's opinion as to what ought to be
done on this or any other similar legisla-
tion.'
1'. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the clerk read the names of
the cosponsors on the resolution.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Without objection, it Ls so ordered.
The clerk will state the names of the co-
sponsors.
The second assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
. The Senator from New York (Mr. JAvrrs)
submits a resolution for himself, the Senator
? from Massachusetts (Mr. BROOKE), the Zen-
? STAT
7317
ator from West Virginia (Mr. ROBERT C.
BYRD), the Senator from Florida (Mr.
CRILEs), the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
CHUBCH), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
COOPER), the Senator from California (Mr.
GRAN-swig), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
FULBRIGHT) , the Senator from Oregon (Mr.
HATFIELD), the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
troorms) , the Senator from Maryland (Mr.
MATHIAS) , the Senator from West Virginia
(Mr. RANDOLPH), and the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. STEVENSON).
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that an analysis of
the law relating to the confidentiality of
documents prepared under the auspices
of the Foreign Relations Committee may
be made part of my remarks together
with a compilation of basic documents
on security classification of information
from the Library of Congress.
There being no objection, the analysis
and compilation were ordered to be
printed in the RECORD, as follows:
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AS A PROBLEM IN
THE CONGRESSIONAL ROLE IN FOREIGN
POLICY
PREFACE
The controversy generated by the Penta-
gon Papers is the most recent manifesta-
tion of the subterfuge which has under-
mined popular confidence in our leaders and
in our institutions. The U-2 incident of
1060, the Bay of Pigs affair, the Dominican
Intervention, and the Executive branch's
misrepresentations concerning the war in
Southeast Asia have all contributed to the
skepticism of the general public towards the
actions and, policies of our Government. Ex-
ecs:Ave secrecy tends to perpetuate mistaken
policies, and undermines the democratic
principles upon which this country was
founded. For this reason, I requested a
study by the Congressional Research Service
of the Library of Congress of the security
classification procedure and the problem it
presents to Congress ?in the performance of
its Constitutional role. I believe that this
memorandum will be of interest to both my
colleagues and to the general public.
The memorandum was prepared by the
Foreign Affairs Division of the Congressional
Research Service, to which I express my
appreciation.
3. W. FULBRIGHT,
I. INTRODUCTION
Security classification in this paper means
the formal process in the Executive Branch of
limiting access to or restricting distribution
of information on the grounds of national
security. The purpose of this paper is to
survey the security classification process to
determine how it affects the work of Con-
gress on foreign policy and to explore pro-
posals for changing the process. It does not
deal with the related problems of loyalty or
censorship, and it attempts to differentiate
She problem of security classification from
the problem of executive privilege, that is
She withholding of either classified or un-
classified information from Congress by the
Executice Branch on the grounds that it is
She right of the President to do so?
First, as background for considering pro-
posed changes, the study outlines the origin
of the system, the legislation and regulations
on which the Executive Branch bases its
process of classification, and present practice.
Eecond, it discusses the access of Congress
So classified information and the relation-
ship of classified information to the role of
Congress in making foreign policy. Finally,
St explores proposals for changing the pres-
ent classification system.
Secrecy has been a factor in making foreign
policy since the first days of the nation's
Footnotes at end of article.
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R00 4000300017
? ENID, OKLA.
NEWS
MAY 5227
18,254
24,891
. . . A Binding Contract
? Stealing and-or publishing government
secrets for fun and profit has become
something of a fad in recent times. But
. a federal judge in Virginia ariparently be-
lieves there ought to be some limitations
on the practice.
U.S. Dist. Judge Albert V. Bryan Jr.
ruled tentatively last week that..Victor
L. Marchetti, former .agent for the Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency, signed away his
constitutional right to write and talk
. about cl.k. activities and policies. In his
tentative ruling the judge held that Mar-
chetti's dispute with the government
agency is a question of an agreement
? between employer and employe and
raised no questions under the First
Amendment's free speech guarantee.
mother words, Marchetti would have
presumably been perfectly free to talk
STAT
and write about the CIA until he accepted
a job under the agreement that he would
keep the agency's private matters pri-
vate.
That's fair enough, we believe. There ,
should be some protection of important
government secrets, the revelation of ,
which would threaten security.'
It should be added that one reason the
"Top Secret" classification is taken so
lightly and violated so frequently with
impunity is that it is so often used on
frivolous and: unimportant matters that
have nothing, to do with military security-,
In . Marchetti's case, if he is in,deed
privy to important security information
about CIA, there should be some lawful
way to hold him to his agreement to
?
keep silent.?Tulsa World
'
Approved For Release 2006/01103: CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
LMay 1, 197pproved For 300Q1 300Q1 7
passed the Congress on January 25, 19'72
and which was signed by the President
on February 7. Now, less-than 3 months
after the signing of this bill, we find our-
selves faced with the same problem
which the Committee and the Congress
had labored long and hard to correct.
In view of the executive's challenge to
these efforts, the issue before us?posed
by the McGee amendment?is whether
-we are up to the challenge, whether we
meant what we wrote into the law just
-a few short months ago.
Will the Senate assert its right to in-
formation so that it can properly clis-
-charge its responsibilities or will it bow
to the will of the executive?
Will the.Senate demand a voice in the
policymaleing, decisionmaking processes
? of our Government or will it permit but
one voice, the voice of the executive to
speak for the Government and the peo-
' ple? -
The issues raised by the McGee amend-
ment are just this fundamental.
? Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, will the
Senator'yield at that point?
Mr. PUL13RIGHT. I yield for a ques-
tion.
Mr. CHURCH. I wonder if the Senator
would yield for an observation concern-
? ing the need to utilize the power of the
-purse. There is an excellent example, the
Mansfield amendment, -and the way it
,was subsequently disregarded by the
Ilesident. I think the ekample illus-
trates in a classic way the need for Con-
- gress to enforce the policy. positions it
takes by utilizing the power ,of the purse.
If the Senator will yield for that purpose,
I would appreciate it.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield to the Sena-
' tor. How much time does he wish?
Mr. CHURCH. I think it will take 5
minutes.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield the Senator
from Idaho 5 minutes.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, three
times last year the Senate of the United
States passed the Mansfield amendment,
and it was enacted .into law. The first
time the Senate approved the Mansfield
amendment was June. 22, 1971, by a vote
? of 57 to 42. It was then attached to
5.9718.
On September 30, 1971, the Senate
again approved the Mansfield amend-
ment by a vote of 57 td 38. This time it
was attached to H.R. 15382, the military
procurement authorization bill.
Finally, on November 11, 1971, without
a record vote, the Senate approved the
?? Mansfield amendment for a third time.
As I say, Mr. President, it became the
law of the land, and as such it clearly
enunciated a congressional policy for
bringing an orderly termination to our
participation in the war in Vietnam:
Listen to the words of the Mansfield
amendment as it was enacted into law.
It speaks for itself:
It is hereby declared to be the policy of
the United States to terminate at the earliest
practicable data all military operations of
the United States in Indochina, and to pro-
vide for the prompt and orderly withdrawal
Of all United States military forces at a date
certain, subject to the release of all Ameri-
can prisoners of war held by the Government
of North Vietnam and forces allied with such
Government and an accounting for all Amer-
icans missing in action who have been held
by or known to such :Government or such
forces. The Congress hereby urges and re-
quests the President to implement the above-
- expressed policy by initiating immediately
the following actions:
(1) Establishing a final date for the with-
drawal from Indochina of all military forces
of the United States contingent upon the
release of all American prisoners of war held
by the Government of North Vietnam and
forces allied with such Government and an
account for all Americans missing in action
who have been held by or known to such
Government or such forces.
(2) Negotiate With the Government of
North Vietnam for an immediate cease-fire
by all parties to the hostilities in Indochina.
(3) Negotiate with the. Government of
North Vietnam for an agreement which
would provide for a series of phased and
rapid withdrawals of United States military
forces from Indochina in exchange for a cor-
responding series of phased releases of Amer-
ican prisoners of war, and for the release of
any remaining American prisoners of war
concurrently with the withdrawal of all re-
maining military forces of the United States
by not later than the date established by
the President pursuant to paragraph (1)
hereof or by such earlier date as may be
agreed upon by the negotiating parties.
Without any ? question, Congress laid
down an orderly policy for terminating
our participation in the war. How did
the President treat the policy of. Con-
gress? One can hardly imagine a more
cavalier treatment than the President
gave to it. When he signed the law con-
taining the Mansfield amendment, this
is what the President said: ?
To avoid any possible misconceptions, I
wish to emphasize that Section 601 -of this
Act?the so-called Mansfield amendMent?
does not represent the policies of this Ad-
ministration. Section 601 urges that the
STAT
Mr. anissuwmURCH. So, Mr. President, it is
clear that if Congress is going to give
force and effect to the policy provisions
it' enacts, it must use the power of the
purse. It is all we have left. Of course,
we, may continue to lay down and permit
Congress to be walked over in this way,
but history will not deal generously with
us for our weakness.
For this reason, the Foreign Relations
Committee adopted an amendment to the
pending bill, offered by the distinguished
Senator from New Jersey (Mr. CASE) and
myself, to give teeth to the Mansfield
amendment by backing it up-with the
power of the purse; and the real test
of how we stand in this body, will come
when the Senate votes, perhaps within
the coming week, on whether it is willing
to stand behind its own declared policy
or whether it prefers to acquiesce in the
disavowal of that policy that the Presi-
dent has expressed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have the text of the Case-Church-
amendment printed at this point in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the amend-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
TITLE VH?TERMINATION OF HOSTILI-
TIES IN INDOCHINA
' SEC. 701. Notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of law, none of the funds authorized or
appropriated in this or any other Act may
be expended or obligated afte)' December 31,
1972. for the purpose of engaging United
States forces, land, sea, or aid, in hostilities
in Indochina, subject to an agreement for
the release of all prisoners of war held by the
Government of North Vietnam and forces
allied with such Government and an ac-
counting for all Americans missing in action
who have been held by or known to such
Government or such forces.
President establish a "final date" for the ''"Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield myself 5
withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Indochina, ! minutes.
subject only to the release of U.S. prisoners Mr. President, I am reminded by the
of war and an accounting for the missing in
Senator's reference to the President of
action. Section 601 expresses a judgment
about the manner in which the American another aspect of this matter.
Involvement in the war should be ended. The President made a statement on
However, it is without binding force or March 8, 1972, a very short time ago.
ffect and it does not reflect my judgment He signed a new executive order on clas-
about the way in which the war should be sification procedures which he described
brought to a conclusion. My signing of the as "establishing a new, more progressive
bill that contains this section, therefore, will system of classification and declassifica-
not change the policies I have pursued and tion of government documents relating to
that -I shall continue to pursue toward this national security."
end. I ask unanimous consent that the ex-
The President simply said, "I choose ecutive order and accompanying state-
to disregard the policy of Congress. It inent be printed in the RECORD.
has no binding effect. I disagree with it, THE WHITE HOUSE?STATEMENT BY THE
and I will continue to follow my own PRESIDENT
policy." I have today signed an Executive order es-
It is inconceivable that an American tablishing a new, more progressive system of
chief executive would have disregarded classification and declassification of Govern-
congressional policy in such a peremp- mentTdhoctrineifenrts relattiig from
o national thatse
seen-
tory manner a century ago; it reflects I h tiated o almost r itYli is mst springs 14 s l ago review
o and repre-
upon the lowered stature of Congress sents the first -major overhaul of our ciassi-
that the President deals with- us in this fication procedures since 1953,
high-handed and cavalier way, dismiss- ? By a separate action, I have also directed
ing a statutory provision because it does the Secretary of State to accelerate publica-
not accord with his view of how Amen- tion of the official documentary series, "For-
can involvement in the war in Vietnam alga Relations of the United States," so that
should be concluded. historians and others will have more rapid
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time access-to papers created after World War IL
of the Senator has expired. Both of these actions are designed to lift
the veil of secrecy which now enshrouds al-
Mr. CHURCH. I ask for 1. additional together too many papers written by employ
-
minute. - ees of the Federal establishment?and to do
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield 1 additional so without jeopardizing any of our legitimate
minute to the Senator. defense or foreign policy interests.
? Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
Approved For Release
Anderson urges
press to resist
gov't pressures
By Luther Huston
? ? The First Amendment to the Constitu-
tion gives newsmen "the right and the
duty" to pry into government secrets and
Inform the people what bureaucrats are
doing and how they do it, Jack Anderson,
the columnist, tpld the 1972 convention of
the American Society of ?Newspaper edi-
tors this week in Washington.
The editors of the country have demon-
strated their patriotism and responsibili-
ty, Anderson said, and should not be in-
timidated by threats of censorship or
threats of prosecution.
Anderson has disturbed the Administra-
tion and some editors by publishing secret
statements of Henry Kissinger, presiden-
.tial national security advisor, on policy?
relating to the Pakistan-India war and,
mdre recently, memos allegedly written by
Mrs. Dita Beard, lobbyist for the Interna-
tional Telephone" and Telegraph Company,
linking an ITT contribution to the Repub-
lican National Convention in San Diego to
settlement of an antitrust case. ?
Although he did not mention these in-
stances or any others, Anderson obviously
defended his use of secret documents to
disclose alleged blunders and machina-
tions of government officials in their
efforts to control the flow of information
to the public. ?
In adVising editors not to be intimidated
by 'government pressures or threats, And-
erson apparently was responding to an
'implied threat in an address by Kevin T.
Maroney, Deputy Assistant Attorney Gen-
eral, Internal Security Division, Depart-
ment of Justice, who told the editors that:
"If you, come into possession of informa-
tion which has been and remains clas-
sified, and you publish it, you run the risk
of violating a criminal statute." Roger
Fisher, Harvard Professor of Law, gave a
similar warning when he told the editors
that "freedom of the press doesn't mean
you can, steal papers" and that newsmen
should not be exempt from criminal prose-
cution. ?
Anderson began his remarks by saying
that it was "nice to speak in front of
microphones you can'. see." He asserted
that governments in Power will do many
things in their efforts to retain power, and
that whenever the government tries to
control information for political advan-
tage it was up to the news media to ex-
pose their actions and their motives. News-
men must be the watchdogs.
hit3
400030001-7
STAT
STAT
-t
,
Government officials wont to control what the
public should know
?
?4-44,
AN3,
There is fLagrant overc/assificafion in the name
? of national security.
Bureaucrats themselves often pull out data from
sensitive documents.
national security and asserted the right of
the press in the exercise of its responsi-
bilities to the people to override the judg-
ment of the officials and declassify
documents which might have been stamped
secret only to cover up blunders of bu-
reaucrats.
In response to a question from I.
William Hill of the Washington Star, An-
derson said he had often checked with
officials?the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
Central Intelligence Agency, or others?
before making his own decision to- publish
or not to publish classified material that
came into his possession.
Government officials want to control Bureaucrats themselves, Anderson de-
what part of their aetivities the public dared, often pull out certain data from
should know, Anderson said, "Kissinger sensitive documents and leak the informa-
decides what to tell you." tion th the press for self'-serving reasons,
tORtrleas61120 bifiSn'!b6fAs-ilbkiVioiC61#0004000t0,001_?Fonsummation not to ? be de-
while not denying the right to classify in newsmen would be criticized for publish-
somp rirollmcfn none A nrinverm olinro'Pri ine? if they uncovered it by competent in- should "return to First Amendment prin-
When the press criticizes government they turn
Spiro the Terrible /oose on us.
When the press criticizes. the govern-
ment for its efforts to keep secret informa-
tion the public should have, Anderson said,
"they turn to Spiro the Terrible loose on
us."
Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee which
has held hearings on constitutional protec-
tions to press 'freedom, spoke on the same
par.el with Anderson. He said that the
attempt of the Administration to prevent
publication of the Pentagon papers. and
the investigation of Daniel Schorr, CBS
newsman on the pretext that he was being
considered for a government job, raised
questions as to the "administration's devo-
tion to freedom of the press."
First amendment freedoms were often
abused, Senator Ervin said, but the only
The device by wAiplortived0F way to prevent abuse would be to abolish
t`e
practices censorship is classification, arid, not ot erwise availab e w tic sired.
Government officials and newsmen
STAT
Approvod For Release 2096/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
CHICAGO, ILL.
SUN?TIMES
? ? 536,108
S ? 709,123
APR 2 2 1972 -
?
Another try at censorship
Not quite a year after it took a shel-
lacking on the Pentagon papers, the
Nixon administration is again trying
- in the courts to prevent publication of
'a book ? this one about the Central
Intelligence Agency. The government
.has already been successful in sup-
,pressing publication or a magazine ar-
/tide by the book's author, Victor L.
Marchetti, a former CIA employe.
The thrust of the government's case
Is. that Marchetti signed pledges that
he would not publish anything during
or after his term of employment about
? the CIA and that there may be secrets
in Prel.Zok. This doctrine of "publish
and perish" is a matter for a civil suit
? between Marchetti and the Justice De-
partment for breach of contract; it has
nothing to do with the actions of the
publisher, Alfred A. Knopf Inc., which
says it will resist the government's
.action.
The .CIA says it wants the right to
? censor the book before publiCation,
and . Marchetti has agreed ? without
making any promises ? to listen to
what "The Firm" has to say. He adds
that he has no classified documents
? and has no intention of telling any se-
crets.
The question before the house is the
same one raised by the government's
. attempts to suppress the Pentagon pa-
pers: who shall decide what is a se-
cret? We maintain, as we did during
last .year's caper, that the burden of
proof is on the government to show .
that national security is in d:
The government is perfectly free to
? argue that publication will harm the
nation for this or that reason, but the
ultimate decision belongs in other
hands ? editors, publishers, the courts.
: The government can seek judicial re-
lief after publication, but, as the Sup- ;
reme Court decision said last year, '1
the government has no automatic right !
to impose prior restraint.
Those who have read Marchetti's
manuscript say that it does in spots
make the CIA look silly, but that no
national security is involved. It will be
recalled, however, that at the height
of the Pentagon papers dispute last
spring, Herbert Klein, President Nix-.
on's communications czar, sad that
the President's main concern in en-
joining the New York Times and the
Washington Post was not because of
secrets, but-to serve as a warning to
employes of this administration that
they could not leak secrets with im-
punity.
This seems to be putting the cp.rt.
before the horse. If government po-
licies are well debated and well dis-
cussed, few will feel they have to take
their case to the public. That is the
way things? should happen in a free
society ? not by intimidation and half-
baked, unconstitutional attempts at:,
censorship; .
- _
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
WASHINGTON 11/4.161
2 APR 197
Approved For Release 21306/01/03 : A-RDP80-01601R00
':Gewrnme.ill Se-00th 01.0 Ali
By William L. Claiborne
, A high-level Justice De-
partmnnt official warned
the nation's newspaper edi-
tors yesterday that if they
publish classified govern-
Vent documents or files sto-
.
'len from government agen-
cies they run the rick of
criminal prosecution.
A high-level syndicated
newspaper columnist
warned the same editors
that if they don't publish
such documents, they run the
risk of assuring the political
security of "governmental
blunderers."
If the admonitions left the
editors confused, they could
always fall back on the ad-
vice of a Harvard University
law professor, who advised
them to publish secret doc-
uments only after long and
serious deliberations, and
After they were certain that
ihe national interest would
not be comproniised.
The Justice Department
`official was Kevin T. Maro-
ney, deputy assistant attor-
ney general for the Internal ?
Security Division, who was
one of four panelists who
`addressed the convention of
the American Society of
Newspaper Editors at the
'Shoreham.
Maroney said that "inter-
minable mischief" would re-
sult if the editors were to
have substantial access to
classified material and were
"entirely free to determine
for themselves what was
proper to publish."
He urged the editors to
exercise "the greatest cau-
tion" in publishing informa-
tion which they have deter-
mined, without consultation
with government officials,
:to be necessary to the public?
Interest.
In case anyone missed the
point, he alluded to the Es-
pionage Act and specifically
cited state and federal laws
relating to the receipt of sto-
len property.
The syndicated newspaper
.columnist was Jack Ander- ?
son, who followed Maroney
at the podium and declared,
? "I hope no one will be in-
timidated- by the thr eats
, .
400030001-7
made here today, that you
may be put in jail, that you
may be prosecuted."
"That is the kind of au- -
thority that is exercised in
the Kremlin," Anderson
said.
Saying that "selected"
classification of routine doc-
uments is "flagrant" in the
Nixon administration, An-
derson said, "This isn't na.7
tional security, this is politi-
cal security."
In case anybody missed
his point, Anderson intoned
"They use secret documents
'if these facts make them
look good . . . do your duty
to the American people ...
the press is to represent the
governed, not the gover-
nors."
The Harvard professor
was Roger Fisher, a former
consultant to the Defense
Department, who said that
if he were an editor, he
would have ublished the.
Pentagon Papers but would
not have claimed afterward
that "ewsmen would be ex4
empt fr no*.the ' criminal
law."
"What is beSt for newspa-
pers is not necessarily best
for the country,' said
Fisher. "We all want some
secrets kept. Don't ever for-
get it ... Don't say, 'The
more disclosure the better',".
advised Fisher.
Warning that a "cat and
mouse" tradition between
the news media and the goy-7
ernment could evolve into
the "law of the jungle,',
Fisheib declared "the free
press might serve us bettd
if it devoted a little less ef,
fort to publishing purloined
letters."
?
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
11.1 NC; T ON STAR
Approved For Release22806PO4/67?CIA-RDP80-0'
STAT
601R000400030001-7
Ignore Secy Labels,
Anderson Tells Editors
Syndicated columnist Jack
Anderson told U.S. newspap-
, per editors yesterday that gov-
ertunent secrecy labels are
nothing more than attempts at
press censorship and should be
ignored, even at the risk of
legal prosecution.
Speaking at the annual
, meeting of the American So-
ciety of Newspaper Editors,
And on said, "The 1st
I Amendment gives us of the
wrtT;
press not only the right but the
duty to dig into government's
secrets and inform the peo-
ple."
Anderson followed Deputy
Asst. Atty. Gen. Kevin T. Ma-
roney as speaker in a four-
man panel on press rights and
press responsibilities. The oth-
er panelists were Sen. Sam J.
Ervin Jr., D-N.C., and Far-
yard University professor
Roger Fisher.
Anderson attacked Maro-
ney's call for a "presumption
of good faith" by newsmen in
cases where the government
has classified information.
The columnist called classi-
fication . of. government infor-
mation "not national security
? this is political security.
He said 95 percent of classi-
fed information is not con-
nected with national security.
"After the course is charted
and the decisions made, they
look over the material and
they say, 'All right, what will
we tell 'em?' "Anderson add-
ed.
But Prof. Fisher, who was a
Pentagon consultant whose
name is mentioned in the Pen-
tagon Pappers, accused the
press of speaking out of both
sides of its mouth in what he
called a "cat and mouse" ap-
proach to classified informa-
tion: seeking full disclosure
from the government on one
"hand and protection of report-
ers' sources on the other.
'"Jargony phrases will not
solve the problem of resolving
conflicting interests," Fisher
said. "We all want some se-
cretes kept."
Sen. Erwin said he sees no
need for new legislation to pro-
tect the press in its mission, -
but warned:
"The 1st Amendment be-
stows freedom on all people
within our land, whether they
are wise or foolish."
He recommended that 1st
Amendment rights now taken
for granted by newspapers
should also apply to broadcast-
ing. ,
A straw vote of delegates to
the ASNE showed four out of
five. editors approving the pub-
Approved For Release 200 s.
Wo?lf. a 01R000400030001-7
showed half of them against
publication.
WilliGT011 2.081
Approved For Release 2014f014145 197LA-RDP80-01601R000400
ore Secrecy Under New ules?
By Walter Pincus
A LITTLE NOTICED broadening of the
.definition of "Top Secret" in the President's
Executive Order on secrecy last month may
well lead to more rather than less classifica-
tion of information in the very areas of pub-
lic interest that were illuminated by release
of The Pentagon Papers. For while the
White House ? and the news media fo-
cussed their attention on such secrecy frills
as reducing the number of "Top Secret"
classifiers and agencies and departments
with authority to classify along with "speed-
ier" declassification, the most important
change for the long term received almost no
public attention.
' Prior to the March 8 Executive Order, the
official definition for "Top Secret" related
to "that information or material which the
defense aspect of which is paramount, and
the unauthorized disclosure of which could
? result in exceptionally grave damage to the
nation such as leading to a definite break in
diplomatic relations affecting the defense of
the United States, an armed attack against
the United States or its allies, a war, or the
compromise of military or defense plans, or
Intelligence operations, or scientific or tech-
nological developments vital to the national
defense." ?
The emphasis clearly was on 'military ,se-
crets though there was recognition that the
C\ highest classification should go to foreign
?I policy information if its public release
would lead not just to a break in diplomatic
re/ations but a diplomatic break "affecting
the defense of the United States."
. Under that definition, foreign policy mate-
rial in the Pentagon Papers which was clas-
sified ',Top Secret"?
and in some cases still
is?would appear to
have been overclassi-
lied. 'Although there
clearly was some un-
ease in Canada, 'Aus-
tralia, Thailand, Laos,
'South Vietnam and
elsewhere when the
documents were pub-
lished, there has been
nothing close to a
break in , relations
since the disclosures
nor for 'that matter
any. aparent harm to
the defense of the
United States.
. This, of course, is
not to argue that all
foreign policy infor-
mation not rated "Top
Secret" should be
entirely unclassified.
What the pre-March 3
? Executive Order recognized was that "Top
Secret" was a special, .limited category. The
definition for the next lower grade, "Secret,"
contained an arbitrary,. catch-"all phrase to
take in material that regularly flows in dipl-
matic traffic. Its disclosure, the ? old order
? said, "could re5ult ApPr-tr6rdi R01.ttfeln'ORN/613P:-CIALRDP80-01601R000400030001-7 1
aefidtion_fit. I don't want to was raised on an admittedly sensitive b
Nation. such as by eVar in/11111'ff tn e
30001-7
tional relations of the Unite d States . .." Un- say that the practice outweighed what v
der that definition almost ahy bureaucrat or wanted to do, but it was far more realistic
high official could rationalize a "Secret" recognize that foreign relations was part 1
stamp for foreign policy information coming the material to be classified. You can't lim
to the State Department from posts abroad.
In the new revision, however, the "Secret"
stamp apparently was not considered ade-
quate. So new definitions were devised: first
of all, defense information and that involving
foreign relations were joined together in a
new category called "national security"; then
the "Top Secret" definition was expanded to
state that its "unauthorized disclosure could
reasonably be expected to cause exception-
ally grave damage to the national security.
Examples of 'exceptionally grave damage'
include armed hostilities against the United
States or its allies; disruption of foreign re-
lations vitally affecting the national
security . ."
THUS THE threshold lest for classifying
. ? .-
c4..a
foreign policy."Top Secret" information has
been substantially lowered, from that which
would lead to a break ? in relations with a partments to classify
specific country to that which.would disrupt less."
"foreign relations"?a phrase so general that So the White House
it could mean something as vague as embar- concedes the area for"Top Secret" informa-
rassment of a foreign leader over a policy tion has been made
statement such as the Nixon Doctrine. Going' broader?and hopes
.back to our example of the Pentagon Pa-
pers, it would be rather simple to qualify the departments will
some of the released information as "Top classify less rather than more. The questioi
Secret" under this new definition since the
is raised, therefore, why were the definition
unease felt and complaints voiced over its enlarged? I suggest one answer can b
disclosure by the Thais and Vietnamese found in the recent public and private fight
could be considered "disruptive" particu-
in the secrecy area waged not so much bi
tween the media and the administration a
larly by our ambassadors in those countries
between Congress and the administration.
who strive ? daily to keep relations on a ?
is far easier to keep from the Congress
steady, calm plane. ? document classified "Top Secret" than it
To see how low the threshold of "Top Se-
cret" has fallen in the foreign policy area ing a paper to The Hill, administration off
one has just to note that the definition for cials have never had qualms about raising
"Secret" now includes information unau-
thorized disclosure of which would cause classification to fit their needs. Now the
"disruptin of foreign relations significantly have Executive that.Order authority to do ju
affecting the national security. Thus the dif-
ference between "Top Secret" and "Secret" In 1969, when the Senate Foreign Rel
has been narrowed to the difference in mean-
tions Committee's Symington subcommittE
on
ing between the two adverbs "vitally" and security agreements and commitmen
"significantly." Webster's Collegiate Diction-
abroad (where I served as chief eonsultan
ry defines "vital" as "of the utmost impor-
first sought information on nuclear" wean())
'a
tance: essential"; "significant" it says is "im-
stored in a European country, the facts wei
portant, weighty, .. essential to the determi- promptly supplied classified "Secret."
year later, when the same type of inform
nation of some larger element ... tion was sought, the administration refuse
6-#.9 on the ground it was "Top Secret" and ti
ADMINISTRATION officials who super-
sensitive to be held in the committee's sal
vised the revision of the secrecy order were The difference, however, was not in the cla
well aware of what they were doing. At the sification of the information but rather
White House briefing for newsmen the day the foreign policy context that had emergi
It was released, David Young of the National from the subcommittee's inquiry. The high
Security Council staff who headed up the in- classification was ,used ? to delay and event
teragency declassification Committee, con- ally prevent a serious review of political a
ceded that the new definitions were broader. rangements that surround placement
But he then went on to obfuscate by saying: American nuclear weapons abroad.
"The reason for this is that we had to some-
the State Department to classifying on
such things as relate to the national d
fense."
What this ignores is that the State Dew'
ment was fully coy- ,
ered up to "Secret"?
that the limit to na-
tional defense applied
solely to "Top Secret."
Young went on to say:
"In that sense it is
broader, but I think
by cutting down ?the
number of people who
can exerfipt it, and re-
ducing the number of
departments, and also,
I think, just by the
sheer weight of the
whole undertaking,
that we are going to
be able to get the de-
The ease with which that classificatii
continued
USTI '''i'
4.4 tt1M 1972
Approved For Release 2b0o/01J03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R
STAT
? The Federal Diary
000400030001-7
Upgrading of P blicigy Aides Aske
By
Mike
Causey
' Government information of-
fices could do more than
crank out 'homogenized press
releases if federal officials
*would sometimes tell them
what is going on, and if the
Republican and Democratic
national committees would
stop treating the offices like
retirement havens for over-
the-hill ward-heelers. .
- The above statement (jazzed
'up a bit so you would read this
far) comes not from a wild-
eyed radical, but from Robert
0. Beatty, an assistant sccre-
- tory at Health, Education and
Welfare.
. Beatty's' comment on the sad
state of federal information-
dispensing rocked a .lot of bu-
reaucratic boats, especially
since he ;triode it at a hearing
of the House Government In-
formation Subcommittee.
_HEW is one of only three
agencies ? Defense and State
are the others ? that give sta-
tus to public affairs activites
by putting them under an as-
sistant secretary. Beatty told
the subcommittee, headed by
Rep. William Moorhead (D
Pa.) that each Cabinet depart-
ment should upgrade its infor-
mation activities, and give the
top person a say in policy deci-
sions the information office
usually has to explain or de-
fend later.
Beatty blamed the low es-
teem of the public affairs pro-
fession on a 1913 law that says
the government can't spend
money to pay "publicity ex-
perts," which it does, by the
millions, of dollars, in other
ways. -
"That well-intentioned con-
straint on flackery," Beatty
said, "has done inestimable
psychological harm to profes-
sionalism in public affairs in,
government, and has not pre-
vented the abuses it was sup-
posed to prevent."
In fact, he says, it has
driven many activities under-
ground, . caused agencies to
fake budgets or - scrounge
money to pay the staffers and
driven away competent profes-
sionals who correctly believe
"the public affairs function is
nothing more than an unin-
spired press release mill."
catty believes that public
I' formation costs should be
node identifiable line items in
agency budgets. (Most are now
hidden.)
The Moorhead subcommittee
has promised to give Beatty's
proposals much thought.
Beatty, who describes himself
as a "naive country boy from
Idaho", may have crunched
too many colleagues' toes in
his crawl out on the limb. But
if he does get carried out
across his IBM executive
model typewriter he will have
earned the thanks of many
old-line professionals for 'giv-
ing it a try. ?
Top Secret: The 'top secret'
stamp gap in government is
widening, with Central Intelli-
gence Agency revealed as hav-
ing the most so-authorized
stompers. Honorable mentions
go to the Pentagon and State
Department.
Rep. Moorhead believes the
White House blew the CIA
stamp cover, when it an-:.
flounced Mr. Nixon's plan to:
reduce the number of people.
who can classify so-called
na-
tional security information.-.At
the White House press brief-,
jag, an official said that 5,100.
people now have the stamp
pads and authority to use.
them in State, Defense and.
CIA. He said ? ?the number:
would be reduced to 1,369
soon. CIA has never told any4.
body what its share of the pio
is.
But Moorhead says it is
matter of a simple arithmetic
since State and Defense can
lier Said they had only 1,171:
people authorized to stamp:
'top secret'.
Moorhead figures that when.?
you take away State-Penta-
gon's 1,717 stompers from the,
5,100 listed by the White.
House, that leaves CIA with
3,400 authorized to use the:
s amp. To ruin a good story,
however, it must be pointed.
out that Moorhead doesn't
think any of the figures are-
correct, so we may never
know just how many 'top se--
def.' stompers ?work for the
CIA.
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
Appriv_ed For Release 2p_06/01/03,: CIA-RDP80-01601R000
BRIDGEPORT, CONN.
TELEGRAM
M - 12,425
MAR 2 3 1972,_.
/7 Congressman Rebukes
Aide for CIA 'Leak'
1
William S. Moorhead said
' Wednesday a White House aide
/ may have leaked a Central in-
telligence Agency secret while
briefing newsmen about new
document - classifying proce-
dures.
? Reporters fell for a "White
House sales pitch which was ei-
ther an outright lie, an exercise
..in pure stupidity or a dan-
?gerous breach of security," the
_Pennsylvania Democrat said.
t. Moorhead, chairman of the
,House government information
? subcommittee, made his re-
marks to a professional group
? -of public information officers
- for the federal government.
White House aide David
?Young told reporters at a
March 8 briefing that the Presi-
? dent's executive order on clas-
sifying documents would reduce
The number of persons who can
:classify national security infor-
mation.
??'He said that 5,100 persons
.:`:now.- can classify information
:?'top secret' in the State Depart-
- merit, the Defense Department
:';and the Central Intelligence
'Agency, and he said that num-
:her would be reduced to 1,860
under the new order," Moor-
' head said.
? "Either Mr. Young is in er-
ror?intentionally or unintentio-
nally?or he had disclosed a
fact that the rest of the govern-
ment security apparatus takes
-,great pains to protect,"
Moorhead said.
In reply to subcommittee
questions, Moorhead said, State
and Defense Department? of fi-
400030001-7
cials have said publicly that 1,-
717 of their people can use the
top-secret stamp. The CIA, re-
quired by law to keep the ex-
tent of its operations secret,
would not tell the subcommittee
publicly "how many of their op-
eratives have 'top secret' ? au-
thority," he added.'
"Has David Young leaked
this important government se-
cret? By subtraating 1,717 State
and Defense Department offi-
cials with 'top secret' authority
from the 5,100 listed by Mr.
Young, a clever foreign agent
can deduce that there are near-
ly 3,400 top-level operatives at
the CIA, he said.
There was no immediate
comment from the White
House.
Moorhead said "I'm sure that
Mr. Young has not breached se-
curity. ? He is a very security-
-minded person. I think he is
engaging in the White House
public relations program to sell
its new classification system. I .
do know that it is a PR pro-
gram, pure and simple, and not
an exercise in government in-
formation," Moorhead said.
"This is a clear fact because
no public information officers
of the federal government were
asked to comment on the draft
of the new classification order.
It was, in fact, written by clas-
sifiers, for classifiers, and will
only perpetuate the security-
classification management bu-
reaucracy without dealing with
the real problems of the system-
as a whole,", Moorhead said.
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
zeiriv YO LIMES_
Approved For ReleasT2pC),41/404 .; uIA-RDP80-01601R00
%L.
STAT
0400030001-7
oorhead Finds 'Errors' in Nixon's Secrecy Order
By RICHARO HALLORAN
Special to The New York Vales
WASHINGTON, March 21 ?
The chairman of the House
subcommittee on Government
Information asserted today that
President Nixon's new execu-
tive order on secrecy in regard
to national security documents
had "major policy deficiencies"
and "obvious technical errors."
'P? Representative William S.
Moorhead, Democrat of Penn-
sylvania, was more specific
than in criticism he made ear-
Per and said the order would
0.ndoubtedly require amend-
rne,nt before it went into effect
on June 1.
The President's order, issued
March 8, was intended to re-
'duce the secrecy surrounding
tiational security documents by
limiting the use of "top secret,'
"secret," and "confidential"
? !classifications and by speeding
up the process of making such
'documents available to the pub-
Mr. Moorhead, while lauding
the intent of the executive
order, charged that it was a
"shoddy technical effort." He
based his statement to the
House on what he said was a
section-by-section staff analy-
sis.
The order "increases the limi-
tation on the number of persons
who can wield classification
stamps and restricts public ac-
cess to lists of persons having
such authority," Mr. Moorhead
said.
A member of his staff said
that the 1,860 persons author-
ized to classify documents "top
secret" could designate an un-
limited number of subordinates
to use the "secret" classifica-
tion. They, in turn, may author-
ize their subordinates to use
"confidential."
Thus, he said, a pyramid of
"thousands and thousands" of
persons will be able to classify
documents. That would limit
public access to the documents
be6ause the level of classifies-
tion did not make any differ-
ence?any classified document
would not be made available.
Mr. Moorhead said that the
order "contains no requirement
to depart from the general de-
classification rules even when
classified information no longer
requires protection."
Under the order, "the top se-
cret" papers are to be made pub
lie in 10 years, "secret" in 8,
and "confidential" in 6, unless
they are exempted. Mr. Moor-
head, the staff member said,
believes that a paper should be
immediately declassified when
the reasons for classifying it no
longer obtains, rather than wait
for the specified time.
Mr. Moorhead also asserted
in his criticism that the order
"broadens authority for the use
Of special categories of classi-
fication." These include labels
such as "for official use only,"
under which material can be.
kept from the public even
though it is not eligible for
classification.
Approved ? For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
E2774
b IA I I
APproNtedgenaeAsteM4V6100:IngkINPROMF9PSILPPs3???111Lrch 21, 1972
SECTION-BY-SECTION COMPARI-
SON AND ANALYSIS OF EXECU-
TIVE ORDERS 10501 AND 11652,
"CLASSIFICATION AND DECLASS-
IFICATION OF NATIONAL SECU-
RITY INFORMATION AND MATE-
RIAL"
HON. WILLIAM S. MOORHEAD
OP PENNSYLVANIA
, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, March 21, 1972
? Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, on.
March 8, 1972, President Nixon issued
Executive Order 11652, "Classification
and Declassification of National Security
Information and Material." It Was ac-
? conipanied by a Presidential statement
containing more than the usual amount
- of flowery rhetoric, glib phraseology, and
?optimistic overkill. The administration's
cleverly orchestrad news management
of the announcement assured an initial
series of press stories lauding the virtues
of the new Nixon order. Seldom has any
?Presidential Executive order received
such a hoopla build-up from the White
House public relations team.
regret to report, Mr. Speaker, that
the results of a careful analysis of the
new. Executive Order. 11652, prepared by
. the staff of the Foreign Operations and
: Government Information Subcommittee,
do not bear out the grandiose claims
/ionic ?for it by the White House "flacks."
As I told the House on March 1 of
this year, our subbormnittee'has for many
, years concentrated considerable atten-
tion on the Nation's security classification
system?REcoaD, page H1637. We held
hearings last summer on the operation of
the classification system, since the type
of Executive order information affecting
national defense or foreign policy falls
? within the language of the Freedom of
Information Act-5 U.S.C. 552?on
' which the subcordinittee has legislative
as well as oversight jurisdiction. '
. A week before the President issued the
new Executive order, I informed the
House that such action was forthcom-
ing and was obviously designed to head
off the additional hearings planned by
our subcommittee this spring and the
hearings by the Special Subcommittee on
Intelligence of the House Armed Services
Committee headed by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. NEDzi), on legisla-
tion related to the subject of the Exec-
utive order. I warned that Congress
should have the opportunity to consider
legislative alternatives to govern our se-
curity classification system and that our
subcommittee would explore such legis-
lation at our spring hearings. I also
pointed out that a formal request to the
White House for the opportunity to re-
view the draft of the proposed new or-
der had been refused and that any action
by the President to deal prematurely
with this complex problem to circumvent
congressional prerogatives- would only
result in additional chaos. '
In remarks to the House on March 8?
RECORD, page H1892?I reported that
the President chose. not to heed my ad-.
vice of a week earlier and had, in fact,
gone ahead that morning with the mas-
sive public relations treatment to accom-
pany the issuance of Executive Order
11652. I also reiterated our subcommit-
tee's plans to continue public hearings on
security, classification matters prior to
the effective date of the new order in
search of a viable legislative approach to
deal effectively with the abuses of the
-Present system.
? Mr. Speaker, the new Executive order
unfortunately does not, in my judgment,
remedy the defects set forth in the Pres-
ident's statement eloquently describing
the massive dimensions of the security
classification crisis which prompted our
subcommittee's current investigation. He
said: .
Unfortunately, the system of classification
which has evolved in the United States has
failed to Meet the standards of an open and
democratic sociaty, allowing too many pa-
pers to be classified for too long a time. The
controls which have been imposed on classi-
fication authority have proved unworkable,
and classification has frequently served to
conceal bureaucratic mistakes pr to prevent
embarrassment to officials and administra-
tions.
Once locked away in Government files,
,these papers have accumulated in enormous
quantities and have become hiddeni. from
public exposure for years, for decades?even
for generations, It is estimated that the
National Archives now has 160 million pages
of classified docunienta from World War II
and oveK 300 million pages' of classified docu-
ments for the years 1946 through 1954.
The many abuses of the security system
can no longer be tolerated. Fundamental to
our way of life is the belief that when in-
formation which properly belongs to the
public is systematically withheld by those
In power, the people soon become ignorant
of their own affairs, distrustful of those who
manage them, and?eventually?incapable of
determining their own destinies.
Yet since the early days of the Republic.
Americans have also recognized that the
Federal Government is obliged to protect
certain information which might otherwise
Jeopardize the security of the country. That
need has become particularly acute in recent.
years as the United States has assumed a
powerful position in world affairs, and as
world peace has come to depend in large
part on how that position is safeguarded.
We are also moving into an era of delicate
negotiations in which It will be especially
important that governments be able to
communicate in confidence.
Clearly, the two principles of an informed
public and of confidentiality within the Gov-
ernment are irreconcilable in their .purest
forms, and a balance must be struck between
theth.
Mr. Speaker, I heartily concur with
this clear and succinct statement of the
broad problem of security classification
procedures wider our democratic sys-
tem. It is regrettable that the eloquence
of this description does not carry over to
the new Executive order in proposing
basic reforms to correct these problems.
The section-by-section analysis that
follows details major defects in the new
Executive order that is scheduled to take
effect on June 1, 1972. It clearly shows
why I had urged the White House to
make available the draft of the pro-
posed new order so that our subcommit-
tee could informally suggest improve-
ments, based on our many years of over-
sight experience in this area, to really
deal with root causes of the security
classification problem. Major policy de-
ficiencies, as well as obvious technical
errors in the new Executive Order 11652,
as described in our analysis can only in-
tensify the security classification ?prob-
lem and will undoubtedly require amend-
ments to the order even before it becomes
operative.
Summarizing just a few of the major
defects, Executive Order 11652:
First. Totally misconstrues the basic
meaning of the Freedom of Information
Act (5 U.S.C. 552) ;
Second. Confuses the sanctions of the
Crimial Code that apply to the wrongful
disclosure of ?classified information;
Third. Confuses the legal meaning of
the term's "national defense" and "na-
tional security" and the terms "foreign
policy and foreign relations" while fail-
ing to provide an adequate definition for
any of the terms; ?
Fourth. Increases (not reduces) the
limitation on the number of persons who
can wield classification -stamps and re-
stricts public access to lists of persons
having such authority;
Fifth. Provides no specific penalties for
overclassification or misclassification of
Information or material;
Sixth. Permits executive departments
to hide the identity of classifiers of spe-
cific documents; .
Seventh. Contains no requirement to
depart from the general declassification
rules, even when classified information
no longer requires protection;
Eighth. Permits full details of major
defense or foreign policy errors of an
administration to be cloaked for a mini-
mum of three 4-year Presidential terms
but loopholes could extend this secrecy
for 30 years or longer;
Ninth. Provides no public account-
ability to Congress for the actions of the
newly created Interagency Classification
Review -Coinmittee:
Tenth. Legitimizes and broadens au-
thority for the use of special categorieS
of "clp.ssification" governing access and
distribution of classified information
and material beyond the three specified
categories?top secret, secret, and con-
fidential; and
Eleventh. Creates a "special privilege"
for former Presidential appointees for
access to certain papers that could serve.
as the basis for their private profit
through the sale of articles, books, mem-
oirs to publishing houses.
These are by no means all of the criti-
cisms of the new Executive order, Mr.
Speaker, and are only illustrative of the
type of shoddy technical effort that is
represented in the order. The adminis-
tration has labored for 14 months on the
new Executive order and has brought
forth a mouse. It is a very restrictive
document that does not correct the ma-
jor security classification problems about
which we are all gravely concerned. In-
deed, it is a document written by classi-
.fiers, for classifiers.
The section by section comparison of
'Executive Order 10501?as amended, and
Executive Order 11652?effective June 1,
1972, and the analysis of Executive Order
11652 follows:
Approved 'For Release 200?/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
WASIIIPTU DAILY E1Z:.;
Approved For Release 200V11/MARCIMRDP80-01601R0004000
:-Anderson tells of plan to promote revolt in Chile
111
, Close ties between top officials of Interna-
tional Telephone and Telegraph and the Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency were revealed today
by columnist Jack Anderson, who charged that
the vast conglomerate plotted to prevent the
1970 election in Chile of leftist President Salva-
dor Allende. ?
The tolumnist, whose revelations about
ITT's contribution to bring the Republican,Na-
tional Convention to San Diego set off the Sen-
ate hearings on the nomination of Richard
Kleindienst as Attorney General, said he had
copies of "secret documents" that showed that
ITT "dealt regularly" with the CIA and "con-
sidered. triggering a military coup to head off
Allende's election."
? ? Mr. Anderson said his documents "portray
ITT as a virtual corporate nation in itself with
vest international holdings, access to Washing-
ton's highest officials, its own intelligence ap-
parattis and even its own classification
system. .
"They show that ITT officials were in close
Much with, William V. Broe, who was then
director of the Latin American division of the
CIA's Clandestine Services. They were plotting
together to create economic chaos in Chile,
hoping this would cause the Chilean army to
pull a coup that would block Allende from
coming to power."
The column.said ITT President Harold Ge-
neen received a confidential wire from a vice
president, E. J. Gerrity, that itemized the
methods to provoke an uPrising in Chile:
"1. Banks should not renew credit or should
delay in doing so.
"2. Companies should drag their feet in
,
C
STAT
.30001-7
sending Money, making deliveries, in shipping
spare parts, etc. .
Savings and loan companies there are in
trouble. If pressure were applied, they would
have to shut their doors, thereby creating
pressure.
"4. We should withdraw all technical help
and should not promise any technical assist-
ance in the future. Companies in a position to
, do so should close their doors.
"5. A list of companies was provided, and it
was suggested that we approach them as indi-
cated. I was told that of all the companies
involved, ours alone had been responsive and
understood the problem. The visitor (evidently
the CIA's William Broe) added that Money
was not a problem. He indicated that certain
steps were being taken but that he was looking
for additional help aimed at inducing economic
collapse."
Mr. Anderson wrote that former CIA boss
John McCone, now a director of ITT, received
a report on Oct. 9, 1970, from William Mer-
riam, head of ITT's Washington office. The
column quoted the memo in part:
"Today r had lunCh with our contact at the
McLean agency (CIA), and I summarize for
you the results of our conversation. "He, is still
very, very pessimistic about defeating Allende
when the congressional vote takes place on
Oct. 24. ?
"Approaches continue to be made to select
members of the Armed Forces in an attempt
to have them lead some sort of uprising ? no
success to date ...
"Practically no progress has been made in
trying to get American business to cooperate
in some way so as to bring On economic chaos.
GM and Ford, for example, say that they have
too Much inventory on hand in Chile to take
any. chances and that they keep hoping that
everything will work out all right.
"Also, the Bank of America had agreed to
close its doors in Santiago but each day keeps
postponing the inevitable. According to my
source, we must continue to keep the pressure
on business."
STAXioto
ITT lobbyist Dita Beard
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : 61A-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
WAglIMTO:i STAR..
Approved For Release 2006tomFAMIDP80-01601R0004000300
'WASHINGTON CLOSE-UP
Grip on Secrecy Stamp Still Fir
The administration is now
In the midst of a thorough
overhaul of its security and
and secrecy classification
-system?and about time, too.
But anyone who thinks this
overhaul will result in any
significant loosening up of in-
formation about day-to-d a y
operations of the government
In a form that will useful to
the press or the public will
sadly disappointed.
Recent congressional testi-
mony explaining and support-
ing the President's new ex-
ecutive order on safeguarding
of official information clear-
ly shows that the government,
as an institution, rather than
-either the press or the public,
will be the principal benefici-
ary of the changes being
made.
*
? If the changes are carried
out and the new rules laid
clown by the President are
rigorously applied, there will
be two results. One will be a
, freer flow of information
within the government and
within those parts of industry
that serve the government,
particularly in the production
bf military hardware. The
other will be a reduction in
the cost of keeping secrets.
The amount of confidential,
secret or top secret material
the government and govern-
ment contractors have in
storage is almost unbelieva-
ble. It amounts to thousands,
perhaps millions, of tons of
paper?stored away in elabo.-
rate file cabinets and safes
that cost an average of $460
? apiece. It is hard to know
even where to begin to deal
with such a mountain of ma-
terial.
David Packard, the former
deputy defense secretary,
took one practical approach
In May of last year when he
ordered the military services
and defense agencies to start
?
. By ORR KELLY
cutting down on the amount
of material they keep classi-
fied. He put teeth in his order
by telling them they could not
buy any more of those expen-
sive security containers for a
year and a half.
By the end of last year,
two of the smaller defense
agencies, the office of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
Defense Intelligence Agency,
had managed to empty 158 of
their containers, according to
Joseph J. Liebling, deputy
assistant defense secretary
for security policy.
One defense contractor, Lie-
bling said, got rid of 90 tons
of classified material last
year and another one destroy-
ed 53 tons of the stuff in a 90-
day period,
The Defense Department
also has been trying to cut
down the cost of keeping
things secret by reducing the
number of people who have
access to highly classified doc-
uments. It costs $5.44 for the
average investigation requir-
ed before a person receives
clearance to handle confiden-
tial material. But it costs an
average of $263.28 for the full
field investigation required
for a top secret clearance.
It is now estimated that 3.6
million persons have security
clearances. Of these, 464,550
are top secret clearances.
But, according to J. Fred
Buzhardt, the Defense De-
partment's general counsel,
that number has been cut by
31.2 percent?from a high of
697,000?since mid-1971.
The President's new rules,
which go into effect June 1,
will restrict the number of
people able to classify materi-
al, expand the number able to
remove classification and
speed up the automatic de-
classification process.
If, as intended, these chang-
es promote greater govern-
1-7
mental efficiency at lower
cost, the public generally will
benefit.
But these changes, and any
conceivable changes that
might be legislated by Con-
gress, do not begin to touch
the kind of problems raised
by the Pentagon papers and
the more recent White House
minutes published by Jack
Anderson.
The fact is that, under .the
? I
old rules, the new rules or
any other rules you might
care to imagine, the execu-
tive branch of the govern-
ment will retain the power
to control the flow of infor-
mation to the public about its
internal decision-making proc-
ess?at least until it is of in-
terest primarily to historians.
If the President and his close
advisers deliberately set out
to mislead the public?and
this reporter is not impressed
by the evidence contained in
the Pentagon and Anderson
papers that they did make
such attempts ? no law on
earth is going to stop them.
Attempts to write such laws
may, in fact, be dangerous.
It is ironic and a little fright-
ening, for example, to find
Buzhardt, the Pentagon's top
lawyer, arguing that the
"clearest congressional ac-
knowledgement of the Presi-
dent's authority to restrict
dissemination of information"
is found in the Freedom of In-
formation Act.
Despite the administration's
efforts to ease security re-
strictions, it probably would
be well for us all to keep in
mind these words attributed
to Lord Tyrell of the British
Foreign Office:
"You think we lie to you.
But we don't lie, really we
don't However, when you dis-
cover that, you make an even
greater error. You think we
tell you the truth."
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
ItIME
Approved For Release 2006/0i/63%1A143P80-01601R00 400030001-7
-
AMERICAN NOTES
Thinning the Veil
? Since World War II, Government
secrecy has developed into a pervasive
bureaucratic habit, an ominous devel-
opment for a system of, by and for
the people. It reached the point where
Defense Department subalterns were
classifying newspaper clippings, admin-
istrators used their SECRET stamps to
conceal waste and stupidity, and the
vaults of Washington were choked with
millions of pages of momentous or
banal information that the public was
paying millions of dollars a year for
the privilege of never seeing. ,
Last week, after more than a year's
review of Government secrecy, the
White House overhauled the classi-
fication procedures for the first time
since 1953. Not that the Government
is exactly throwing ope.n its filing cases.
The President reduced the number of
officials authorized to classify from
5,100 to 1,860. At the other end of
the process, the minimum time for au-
tomatic declassification of low-sensi-
tivity papers was cut from eight years
to six, and most papers will be au-
tomatically declassified in ten years.
Nixon said that he wants an "open"
Administration. "Fundamental to our
way of life," he declared, "is the be-
lief that when information which prop-
erly belongs to the public is system-
atically withheld by those in power,
the people soon become ignorant of
their own affairs, distrustful of those
who manage them." But with a six-
year limit on classification, the Ad-
ministration he was declaring open
was Lyndon Johnson's.
The new executive order raised
an intriguing question: Would the clas-
sification of the Pentagon papers have
been "legal" under the new rules? Per-
haps. Some of the six-year-old ma-
terial in the papers could have been
acquired by the public without break-
ing the law, but even that is in doubt,
since the study, which dealt with na-
tional security, would have required
special clearance in any case.
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
STAT
Approved For ReleasXMAtifiiiii :Pa%1RDP80-01601R
2 0 MAR 197a
..'State-Keep'Viet Stu
By Murrey Marder ?
, Washington Post Staff Writer ? First Broached by U.S.
. The Senate Foreign Rela- ..This staff study emphasizes
tions Committee has met a
that "It was United States offi-
cials who first broached the
flat refusal from the Nixon ad- subject of a bilateral treaty
ministration for security clear- (with South Vietnam) and
ance of an analysis of Vietnam 1United States officials who
negotiations between 1964 and
pressed for a direct military
t'
involvement in Vietnam.
.1968.
?? In a letter to the committee, I "Although news of the ad
the State Department claimed. ministration's consideration of
that the committee's intended combat troops did reach the
? public ?'?means of leaks to
staff reports, based on four
never-published volumes of 1 the press, neither Congress
the 47-volume Pentagon Pa I not the public was made
pers, "could harm" present I aware of the intergovern-
diplomatic efforts in the lndo 'mental discussions regarding a
phina.conflict.
The title of the suppressed bilateral treaty."
report clearly suggests its con-
The report also focuses at-
tents: "Negotiations, 1964-1968: tention on a 1961 recomrrienda-
The Half-Hearted Search for tion by Gen. Maxwell D. Tay-
Peace in Vietnam." ? lor, then President Kennedy's
Committee staff members military adviser, to send a
are continuing negotiations 6,000 to 8,000-man U.S. ?mili-
with the ,State Department to tary task force into South
seek partial clearance of the Vietnam "under the guise of
report. One argument they are performing flood relief work."
using against the blanket re- That was first disclosed in
fusel of clearance is that Pres- press accounts last summer.
ident Nixon on Jan. 25 unilat-
erally declassified information
on a dozen secret meetings be-
The treaty .never material-
tween adviser Henry A. Kis-1
ized, nor did the Kennedy ad-
singer and ?North Vietnamesei i ministration send combat
negotiators' in Paris.
- The committee, headed by
Sen. J. William Fulbright (D.
Ark.), is releasing today the
first of a .series of its staff
analyses of the Pentagon Pa-
pers. This non-sensitive report,
? entitled "Vietnam Commit-
:
ments, 1961," by staff researeh-
Johnson administration, U.S.
er Ann L. Rollick, consists of
troops reached over a half-mil-
12 pages plus 26 pages of docu. lion men.
merits previously available Refusal to declassify the
publicly. Even so, there are Fulbright committee staff's
several security deletions be- more sensitive report on riego-
catise the text used was the tiations was expressed in a let-
version published by the Gov- ter dated March 9 by David M.
ernment Printing Office, al- Abshire, Assistant Secretary
though the deleted material, of State for congressional rela-
on intelligence operations, tons, to Fulbright.'.
was printed in newspapers last
Abshire noted that the in-
summer. tended staff report on "Nego-
Sen. Fulbright said the pub- tiations, 1964-1968: The Half-
lished report on 1961 commit- Hearted Search for Peace in
merits underscores the Vietnam," did contain, as he
"unprecedented . . . extent to said Fulbright stated in a Feb.
which the Executive Branch
17 letter, "partial information
misled both Congress and the
relating to some of these se-
public" in "policies and deci-
sions of the first ,i/ear - of
the Kennedy administration,
I which signifieantly deepened
the U.S. military inPP
ATAMP
In the Vietnam war."
000400030001-7
y., secret
volumes should remain classi-
fied." State's letter continued:
"To disclose these secret
channels and official commu-
nications relating .to them?
would constitute a unilateral
violation of confidentiality in
diplomatic intercourse without
which the diplomatic process
cannot function effectively.
Potentially IIarmful
"Moreover, such disclosure
could harm and possibly pre-
clude future . use of these and
other channels in our continu-
ing efforts to deal with the is-
sues of the Indochina conflict
. including that of our prisoners
'Iof war."
Abshire, in a posicript, ex-
pressed regret "that we cannot
concur with your request" re-
alizing. "the diligent and ex-
tremely capable efforts of the
professional staff" in. prepar-
ing the report.
The reference in the sup-
pressed report to "half-
hearted search for peace" is
understood to refer to efforts
.on both sides of the bargain-
ing, American and-5wth Viet-
namese on .one side, arid North..
Vietnamese and Vietcong on
troops, which Taylor recom-
mf Ithe other. Published portions
ended. "Had one or both o
of the Pentagon Papers have.
these measures been carried shown that the allied side
out at that time," the report often was reluctant to have its
notes in retrospect," a greatly search for negotiations sue-
increased national commit- ceed when the allied military
1 ment to Vietnam would have position was weak. The Un-
resulted" much earlier. In the cleared report presumably
also deals with Communist re-
luctance to negotiate. ?
cret (negotiating) channels"
that "appeared in public
media..." But, said, Abshire,
diFdit SkeleitS6120eeiMin : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
that the substance of these
?
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-0160
NASHVILLE, TENN.
BANNER
MAR 1 41912
E 97 87 9
Restrictions Cut
? On Right To Know
PRESIDENT NIXON HAS ORDERED sweeping
changes in the government's classification pro-
cedures in an effort to drastically cut down bureau-
cratic abuse of the nation's security system.
When signing the executive order last w6ek, the
President said he believes the new restrictions will
"lift-the veil of secrecy" enshrouding warehouses of
ducurnents written by government employes:
"The many abuses of the security system can
no longer be tolerated," President Nixon said. "Fun-
damental to our way of life is the belief that when
information which properly belongs to the public is
systeMatically withheld by those in power, the peo-
ple soon. become ignorant of their own affairs, dis-
truStful of those who manage them, and--eventunRy
?incapable of determining their own destinies."
This demonstrates the President's fine sensitivity
to ?the people's right to an above-the-board govern-
ment, to government documents and information that
insure public' scrutiny of bureaucratic actions.
* * *
THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTIVE, which takes effect
'June 1, represents the first major overhaul of
classification precedures since the administration of
President Eisenhower in 1953.
The government security system never was in-
tended as a hedge against administrative blunders
and embarassments. As President Nixon no1ea, clas-
sification procedures over the years have evolved into
sure-fire cover-up techniques.
Part of the problem has been the number of
people authorized to wield the stamps of "top sec-
ret, "secret" and "confidential," approximately
' 5,100 government employes in the State and Defensp
Departments and the Central intelligence Agency.
The new directive will cut that liliffrtierttrr,764) and
viill also, trim from 24 to 12 the number of depart-
ments and agencies with classification power.
Declassification after 10 years will become the
rule rather than the exception tinder the new order.
The President's intention is to release "top secret"
information after 10 years, "secret" papers after
eight years and "confidential" documents after six
years. ?
The volume of classified go^ vernment documents
is staggering. Since the beginning of World War II,
classified documents totaling 460 million pages have
piled up in government warehouses. The President's
directive should go a' long way toward removing the
excesses.
Sensibly, the President has displayed proper con-
cern for those documents vital to U.S. security. The
President emphasized that information potentially
hazardous to national security would continue to be
withheld for as long as necessary.
1R00040003000r1=7?
*?
NIXON ESTABLISHED four tests for determining a
document's continuing senstitity. Unless a docu-
ment meets one of the four tests, it would be declassi-
fied in accordance with the President's directive. The
tests are:
? It was furnished in confidence by a foreign
government or international organization.
? It pertains to codes or discloses intelligence
sources or methods.
o It discloses specific foreign relations matters
"the continued protection of which is essential to the
national security."
? It could place a person in danger of physical
harin.
Long term government classification for other
reasons amounts to no more than bureaucratic and
political conveniences, the doorway to an invisible
government, a concept repugnant to a democratic
society like ours.
President Nixon has acted forthrightly and re-
sponsibly in devising and implementing a plan that
will diminish security system abuses and make all
government officials more responsive to the public.
J
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
STAT
ULU YORK TIMES
i 4 MAR 1972
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000
liENALTIES CITED
IN SECRECY ORDER
But House Panel Calls Some
Provisions Unenforceable
; By RICHARD HALLORAN
Special to The New Yolk Times
' WASHINGTON, March 13 ?
Assistant Attorney General
Ralph E. Erickson told a House
Armed Services subcommittee
today that "administrative and
criminal sanctions may attach
to the unauthorized release" of
secret a Lionel security docit-
ments under a new Presidth,p..
tial order.
But, in response to questions,
Mr. Erickson was unable t..)
specify those sanctions and said
that the Government was seek-
ing ways to strengthen action
against officials who made such
disclosures and against persons
who received secret informa-
tion without authorization.
Mr.. Erickson, who is the
Justice Department's legal coun
se, also disclosed that the new
Executive order provides for
only minimal sanctions against
officials who stamp "top sec-
ret," "secret" and "confidential"
classifications on papers that
do not require them.
. President Nixon's executive
order, issued last week, is in-
tended to limit the amount of
national security information
that is .classified and to speed
up the process by which such
information is eventually made
available to the public. It goes
Into effect*June I.
. Rehnquist's Successor
Mr. Erickson succeeded Wil-
Ham H. Rehnquist after Mr.
Rehnquist was named to the
Supreme Court, Sand was a
member of the President's com-
mittee that undertook the 14-
month study on classification.
He testified today before the
Special Subcommittee on In-
telligence, which is headed by
Representative Lucien H. Nedzi,
Democrat of Michigan.
Mr. Erickson is scheduled to
represent the Justice Depart-
ment on an interagency review
committee that will be estab-
lished under the new Executive
order to supervise Its execution.
Mr. Erickson was unable to
-explain to the subcommittee
how the. interagency review
committee, which will be re-
sponsible to the National "e.-
' curity. Council, is expected to
operate. He said that would be
set forth in specific guidelines
later.
He added that the committee
would be a full-time, regularly
functioning panel, with its staff
drawn from the departments
represented on it. Besides the
Justice Department, they will
come from the State and De-
fense Departments, the Central
Intelligence Agency, the Atomic
Energy Commission and the
staff of the National Security
Council.
The Executive order says that
"repeated abuse of the classi-
fication process shall be ,
grounds for an administrative
reprimand." Asked to define
"repeated abuse," Mr. Erickson
said that was yet to be decided
but would be in forthcoming
regulations.
The new order also says that,
__"to the extent practicable," por-
tions of a paper containing
classified information should be
marked to distinguish it from
those portions containing un-
classified information that can
be made public.
John R. Blandford, chief
counsel of the Armed Services
Committee, asserted that such
wording meant that the provi-
sion was unenforceable and
was a loophole in the order.
Mr. Erickson said that the Ad-
ministration would have to re-
ly on the attitude of Federal
employes not to abuse that pro-
vision.
Asked how persons with
authority to. classify papers
would be identified, Mr. Erick-
son said that the regulations
governing that had yet to be
developed. He ?added that it
would require the name, title
and position of the classifier or
"some other procedure" where-
by the classifier could readily
be identified.
Sanctions Not Included .
On the question of sanctions,
Mr. Erickson conceded that they
were not included in the Execu-
tive order. He said that the
department was looking at the
crirhinal codes as they refer to
the handling of classified ma-
terial as an adjunct to the Ex-
ecutive order.
Although the case of the:
Pentagon papers was not spe.!
cifically cited, it appeared that
the publication of those secret
documents last summer was be-
hind the issue of sanctions.
Asked about the unauthorized
release of classified informa-,
tion, Mr. Erickson noted that I
one title of the criminal code'
prohibits turning over such in-I
formation to a foreign agent.
00030001-7
. William H. Hogan r., e
subcommittee counsel, asked
whether the law, which says'
that the disclosure must have
the intent of doing harm to
national interests, provided ad-
equate sanctions for prosecut-
/ ing persons who received clas-
sified information to which
they were not entitled.
Mr. Erickson said that there
were serious restraints on how
far the Government could go
without raising a constitutional
problem under the First Amend-
ment, which provides for free-
dom of speech and.the press.
He also conceded that the
executive branch had been un-
able to sols%e the problem that
arises in such prosecutions, be-
cause a court action would re-
quire the Government to con-
firm the accuracy of the infor-
mation that had been released
and perhaps to provide more
to persuade a jury that the na-
tional interests had been
harmed.
4
Approved For Release 200.6/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001.-7
tY YORK MES
Approved For Releasr gown: CIA-RDP80-01601R0
Classification:
The Wor
Now Is:
'Easier on
That Stamp
, ? -
WASHINGTON?The bureaucrat, an.
experienced and dedicated civil serv-
ant with a "top secret" clearance, took
a sip of his martini and said: "Every
guy who writes a document can stamp
,his. own classification on it, at least
up to the level of 'Secret.' He just goes
on an ego trip. It's a status symbol
to see who can have the most classi-
fied documents in his file drawers.
Some offices, like the Joint Chiefs of
? Staff, never deal in anything less than
-top secret?even if it's a clipping from
The New York Times. A lot of people
play gaines with classification to get
attention. They know their paper won't
get read unless it has at least a 'secret'
stamp on it."
In an effort to cut into the inflation
of secrecy surrounding national securi-
ty information, President Nixon issued
an Execu,tive Order last week that is
intended to slow down the use of
"top secret," "secret" and 'confi-
dential" classifications on the one hand
? and to speed up the process of de-
classifying and making public that 'in-
formation on the other.
The .President said that the "many
abuses of the security system can no
longer be tolerated." He added that
"when information which properly be-
longs to the public is systematically
withheld by those in power, the peo-
ple soon become ignorant of their own
affairs, distrustful of those who man-
age them, and ? eventually ? incapa-
ble of determining their own destin-
pies."
' The new order was the consequence
of a study begun 14 months ago and
spurred by the outcry following publi-
cation- of the Pentagon Papers last
swrimer. Many of those documents
would have already been declassified
had the new order been in effect.
? The President tightened the rules
for classifying documents, instructed
officials to use "top secret" with "ut-
post. restraint" and "secret", only
CONFIDENT4
.. for six years.
SECRU
... for eight years.
TOP SECRET
... for ten years.
"sparingly," limited the number and
authority of officials to classify
papers, decreed that each official be
held personally responsible for not
overclassifying documents and or-
dered that secret information be sep-
arated from unclassified material
wherever possible.
At the other end of the process, the
Executive Order, which goes into ef-
fect on June 1, provided that "top
secret" papers be opened to the public
after 10 years, "secret" after eight
and "confidential" after six.
? But the President allowed some ex-
emptions ? information obtained in
confidence from another government,
intelligence and, code documents, and
material that would place a person in
jeopardy of physical harm. He also ex-
empted Information "the continued
protection of which is essential to the
national security," a waiver that ap-
peared to leave wide opportunity for
advocates of secrecy.
Those exemptions, however, can be
challenged. Anyone may ask the de-
partment originating a document for it
after it is 10 years old. The burden of
proof for continuing the secrecy will
be on the. Government, reversing a
?
400030001-7
.pOlky..under which the applicant trust
show why it should be Made public.
Will the new order work? Adminis-
tration spokesmen admitted that rnuchi
depended on the attitude and discretion
of bureaucrats in applying the news'.
rules, The President himself said that
"we cannot be assured of complete
success."
But, the President added, "the full
force of my office has been commit-
ted to this endeavor." He made the
National Security Council responsible
for the program and established an
interagency classification review
committee to monitor it and to act as
a court of appeal in arguments over
whether a document should be made
public. ? ?
On Capitol Hill, some Congressmen
were critical. Representative William
S. Moorhead, chairman of a House
Subcommittee on Government Informa-
tion, said that "the Executive Order It-
self does not, live up to the laudable
goals of the President's statement".
"It appears to be an order written
by classifiers for classifiers," the Penn-
sylvania Democrat said. Because "top
secret" documents will be classified.
for 10 years, Mr. Moorhead said, "a
President could safely stay in office
for his full two constitutional terms,
totalling eight years, and at the same
time make it possible for his Vice
President or another of his supporters
to succeed him without the publio
knowing the full details of major de-
fens6 or foreign policy errors his Ad-
ministration .has committed."
.Others were angered by being left
out of the effort to curb secrecy. A
House Armed Services subcommittee
began hearings on a bill that would
establish a joint Executive-Congres-
sional-Judicial commission to review
continuously the secrecy surrounding
secret papers. The Administration,
however, opposed the bill, arguing
that the Executive branch alone was
better equipped to do the job.
A sampling of officials showed. at
least some initial approval of the
President's order. A diplomat pointed
to the new test for stamping .a paper
"top secret" ? if disclosed, such a
document under the President's new
order, "could reasonably be expected
to cause" armed hostilities against the
?United States, disruption of vital for-
eign relations, compromise of key
defense plans or exposure of sensi-
? tive Intelligence operations.
The diplomat snorted quietly: "that
'top secret' stamp is used much too
often now. Look, how many papers are
going to start a war if they get out?"
?RICHARD HALLORAN
Approved For Release 2006/01/03: CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
NNW 'MK TIMES
*WWI&
Approved For Release 2006,u1 A - DP80-01601R000400030001-7
Crack in the Secrecy Wall
The new rules laid down by President Nixon for
guarding against overuse of secrecy stamps on Govern-
ment documents are clothed in all the right rhetoric.
What remains to be demonstrated, however, is
whether the changes can overcome the Inherent tend-
ency of all bureaucrats?and particularly those in mili-
tary or diplomatic assignments?to err on the side of
overclassification and to find perpetual excuses for keep-
ing things secret long after the most shadowy justifica-
tion has vanished.
The Administration says it wants to "lift the veil of
secrecy which now enshrouds altogether too many papers
written by employes of the Federal establishment." But
the caveat the President attaches to his own admonition
?"to do so without jeopardizing any of our legitimate
defense or foreign policy interests"?provides all the
mummy wrapping any self-protective suppressionist needs
to lack up information foreVer.
If there is to he genuine headway toward openness
In Government information policy, the first step will
-have to be convincing evidence that the White House
itself has abandoned the hostile, even punitive, attitude
toward disclosure it exhibited?and still exhibits?in
connection with publication of the Pentagon and Ander-
son papers.
Unquestionably, the new Nixon order enunciates some
salutary principles, chief among them its ban on classi-
fication of documents to cover up inefficiency or admin-
istrative bungling or to shield an official or agency from
embarrassment. Also on the plus side is Presidential
acceptance of the need for shifting the burden .of proof
in disputes over whether documents should remain classi-
fied. Now Mr. Nixon puts it up to Government officials
to show why secrecy is necessary, not up to the chal-
lenger to show why the information should be made
public. Scholars may get access to historical archives a
few years sooner than they have up to now.
But the vigilance and enterprise of an independent
press and ? an alert citizenry will still be needed to dig
out on a day-to-day basis the facts crucial to public
understanding and intelligent decision-making. ,
STAT
Approved For Release 2006/01/03: CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
ZDIT.OR & PUBLISH
11 MAR 1372
STAT
Approved For Relestoe-24306414.3-!-Cifor-Ft43P80-44.644ROWW90449Pyl -a? respond to a request to
make records available within 10 days af-
ter 'receipt of the request. He said this
would speed up the flow of information to
the public.
Kissinger identified as source
In another aspect of government secre-
cy, the Boston Globe and the Miami Her-
ald identified Dr. Henry A. Kissinger as
the "Administration spokesman" who had
discussed President Nixon's recent talks
with China leaders at a "background"
tmriep.eting of newsmen who had been on the
John S. Knight, editorial chairman of
Knight Newspapers, reported that the
White House had asked why the Miami
Herald's reporter did not abide "by the
rules."
"Well, what rules? Whose rules?"
Knight wrote in his Editor's Notebook.
"Unfortunately, many Washington cor-
respondents who regard themselves as
'statesmen' let themselves be used and
fall for the 'background' con game while
forgetting they are supposed to be report-
ers.
"It's a shoddy practice which more of-
'ten than not actually embarazses the very
officials attempting to serve their own
ends.
"And that is what I told the Biscayne
White House."
The Boston Globe said its reporter had
not been invited to the Kissinger session
'and "therefore is free to identify the -
source of the material."
The edited transcript of Kissinger's
briefing contained sections marked "off the
recosd" and "on the record," and this led
to some confusion among the reporters.
STAT
our , LOflgreSS Nixon order limits
c assay effect of
Information Act
'Top Secret' label
? President Nixon has issued an Execu-
tive Order, effective June 1, which sub-
.stantially restricts authority to classify
papers "Top Secret."
The Supreme Court and a Congression- Materials may be classified "Top Se-
al committee have embarked on separate cret" only if their unauthorized disclosure
inquiries into the way the Freedom of "could reasonably be expected to cause
Information Act, passed five years ago to exceptionally grave damage to the nation's
curb excessive government secrecy and security."
enhance the free flow of information to The burden of proof is placed upon
the Public, is working. those who want to preserve secrecy rather
The high court agreed for the first time than on those who want to declassify the
to hear a case involving the Act, brought documents. This is the first time such a
by 33 Congressmen, to force the White requirement has been imposed.
House to disclose reports and letters The order limits authority to use the
prepared for President Nixon relating to "Top Secret" label to 12 departments and
the underground nuclear explosion at agencies. Under current rules 24 agencies
Amchitka Island, Afaska. have broad classification authority. '
A.Federal District judge ruled that In the State, Defense ?and the Central
documents were exempt from the dis- Intelligence Agency, the number of of-
closure provisions of the Fol. The U.S. ficials authorized to classify material "Top
Court .of Appeals for the District of Secret" is reduced by the new Nixon order
Columbia, however, ordered the District from 5,100 to 1,860.
Judge to inspect the documents and decide The new system provides that "Top
whether some of them could be made pub- Secret" information is to be downgraded
,lie without endangering natibnal security. to "Secret" after two years and to "Con-
In its appeal to the Supreme Court the . fidential" after two more years and de-
Government contended that inspection by classified after 10 years.
judges would invite judicial tampering
with -national security and go beyond the
intention of Congress to encourage free
,exchange of ideas within and between
government bureaus.
The court's action coincided with hear-
ings by a House Government Information
Subcommittee into how the Fol act is
working and whether the Executive
, Branch is following the letter and the
spirit of the law. Representative William
S. Moorhead of Pennsylvania, chairman,
said the ? committee planned to "suggest
legislative solutions to any shortcomings
we uncover."
James C. Hagerty, press secretary to
President Eisenhower, testified that a sys-
tem of classification of documents is es-
sential to the operation of any govern-
ment but that government procedures
should be reviewed periodidally to bring
them into line with changing times and
conditions. ?
George Reedy, press secretary to Pres-
ident Johnson, said Congress should look
into the proliferation of executive privi-
lege operations in the White House, which
he said made it "literally impossible to get
at the facts."
Morehead said he deplored the fact that
Herbert G. Klein, the Nixon Administra-
tion's director of communications, had de- ,
dined to testify on the ground that the
President's immediate staff do not appear
before Congressional committees.
r ' .
Hagerty called 'the existing classifica-
C tion system an ? antiquated one, dating
from World War I, and often subjected to
abuse. He made the following recommen-
dations concerning changes:
Changes suggested
should be classified. Such an organization
should be staffed by high-level government
personnel.
(2) The Freedom of Information Act
might be amended to provide for a re-
quired periodic review of all classified ma-
terial, either by an independent quasi-
judicial board, or commission, or by a spe-
cial staff of the National Security Coun-
cil or by a similar board or staff within
each department and agency reporting di-
rectly to the Cabinet' officer or Agency
head.
"Such a board or staff would be author-
ized to determine periodically, whether
existing documents, or portions of them
that do not endanger national security,
should be removed from classified list-
ings," Hagerty said. "It would be a gi-
gantic?and awesome?job at first, and it
would take a long time to go through the
present classified_ documents, but if it
could be started it would have the result
of eliminating some of the problems relat-
ing to government information."
Hagerty, who is a vicepresident of
American Broadcasting Co., remarked
about the frustrations of trying to -release
over-classified information when he was in
the White House. Sometimes, he said,
documents for release at a news confer-
ence would arrive "literally covered with
classified stamps, including the highest
secrecy ratings."
"I would actually have to take these
papers to .the President and have him
declassify them on-the spot. And the only
thing that was top secret about that was
what he would say when he had-to go
through such nonsense."
(1) Each agency AppteavtdvEarnRaleaseR240810414:14 pCIAMIDP/36401601R000400030001 -7
' should have a classification clearing house University's Law Center's Institute for
which would have sole authority to deter- Public Interest Representation; suggested
TIlinp-whpfhpr sniv if it. minors or actions that the Act should be amended to require
frEW ,r0.?4 ITT
Approved For Release 2046/81VO: L9R-RDP80-01601R00
By FRANK JACKMAN
Washington, March 10?The White House, according
to the National Geodetic Survey, has subsided only four-
hundredths of an inch?actually, just a silly millimeter?
since its reconstruction back in 1952. But when they an-
nounced the big order allegedly loosening up on all that
secret stuff the other day, the executive mansion must
have sunk at least another foot.
".First of all," said David Young, a special assistant to the
National Security g...!ouncil, "I think this is evidence of, and in keep-
ing with, the President's pledge to have `an open administration.'
This is something that is specific. This
is something that you can analyze. We
have tried to be as concrete and forth-
coming as we can."
Well, maybe - you have, Dave. And
then again maybe not. Take, for ex-
ample, who in the executive office is
entitled to classify documents and
information "top secret"?No. 1 among
all the various spooky categories the
? government uses to keep things to itself.
. Besides the White House office, the National Security Council,
the Office of Emergency Preparedness, and the President's Foreign
Intelligence AdyNory Board (our beloved governor, the Hon. Nelson
A. Rockefeller, serves on that one, friends; aren't you proud?), the
Office -of Telecommunications
Policy and the President's Coun-
cil of Economic Advisers also
can stamp things "eyes only" or
-some of those other nifty hush-
hush terms.
It's plain to see why the Coun-
cil of Economic Advisers needs
? the authority to classify things
top secret. There' are a lot of
things they are keeping under
their hats over -there. Why, if
the Democrats ever found out
when the rate of unemployment
was going down, or when wage
and price controls were being
lifted, they'd claim all the credit
for these nice things for them-
selves. You can't be too careful
in politics.
But giving the top secret
stamp to the Office of Telecom-
munications Policy is a mystery,
? too. So far?and this might very
? well be garbled in translation ?
the only conspicuous public ac-
-tion the Office of Telecommuni-
cations Policy has taken is to
warn Congress that public tele-
vision is kind of leaning in one
ideological direction.. And, pri-
vately, to complain about the $80,000 salary Sander Vanocur is
getting to work for public TV. Of course, William F. Buckley Jr.
is getting quite a lot, too, for his Firing Line show, but that's
.different.
Maybe what the Office of Tele-communications Policy is stamp-
ing top secret is how you go about getting those $80,000 jobs. Sure,
that's it. And when they're through, all the biggics on TV will be
? on piecework. Walter and Howard and Harry and John and David
and Sandy will be brown-bagging it to the old shop every day; On
the bus. Join the club, guys.
A Top Secret
Over What's
.Top Secret.
John D. Ehrlichman
"1 don't know?go ask"
0400030001-7
". But periniPs the best eicplanation of how the new system actual y
works- came in this bit of persiflage between John D. Ehrlichman,-
President Nixon's top domestic affairs adviser, and some nosey
newsies at Wednesday's White House briefing. Ehrlichman said that
the overhaul of the whole classification system had been ordered in
January 1971 when the National Security Council issued a "study
memorandum" on the subject.
"That was not: particularly noticed at the time," he said, "but
six or seven' months later it became a matter of some notoriety in
connection with the controversy concerning classification of the
Pentagon papers."
"John," pipes up a reporter, "can I ask one question about that?
Where you mention that the original NSC memo didn't receive very
much attention, was it publicly announced, or was it classified?"
Ehrlichman: "It was not classified."
Q. "Was it announced by the White House?"
A. "Nobody and came out seized you by the lapels, but those
kinds of things are available,"
Q. "Is there something available now in the NSC emeos that
we ought to be digging up?"
A. "I don't know. Go ask."
. (At this point, David Young began his explanation of the new
system, mercifully cutting off the hollow laughter at Ehrlichman's
blithe "go ask" the NSC. At the NSC, they regard it as treasonable
to give out the day of the week.)
Subsequently, however, it became clear that Ehrlichman wasn't
kidding when he said nobody was going to come out and "seize you -
by the lapels" in connection with the immense mass of classified
documents.-
'The Reasonableness Test'
Said Young: ."If the individual, after 10 years, wants to get a
(tap .secret) document which has been exempt, he is given . . . a
mandatory right of review if he can identify the document and we
can produce it with a reasonable amount of effort. These are the two
criteria which are used under the Freedom of Information Act: par-
ticularity and the reasonableness test."
But who ultimately judges what is "particular" and "reason-
able"? The new Inter-Agency Classification Review .Committee acts
as a sort of appeals board. And who's on the Inter-Agency, etc.?
The State Department, the Defense Department, the CIA, the Justice
Department, the Atomic Energy Commission and the National Secu-
rity Council. And who classifies the most stuff in the first place?
. The State Department, the Defense Department, the CIA, the Justice
'1?you get the idea. In this ballpark the pitcher is also the umpire. ?
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
? 1.74W YORK TIMES
Approved For Release 2C134/OM TgN-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
IVI,c46 *s' O'rder Held 'Restrictive'
By House Information Specialist
But Moorhead, Subcommittee
Head, Praises President's
Statement on Secrecy
By RICHARD HALLORAN
Spectal to The New York Times
WASHINGTON, March 10?
Representative William S.
Moorhead, chairman of a
House subcommittee on Gov-
ernment information, criticized
today President Nixon's new
Executive order on secrecy in
national security papers calling
it "a very restrictive docu-
ment."
But the Pennsylvania Demo-
crat praised the President's
statement accompanying the
Executive order for, as he puts
it, "emPhasizing past abuses of
the classification system," un-
der which documents are
stamped "top secret," "secret"
or "confidential." The order, is-
sued Wednesday, goes into ef-
fect June 1.
Mr. Moorhead, at the open-
ing of a hearing by his sub-
committee this morning, assert-
ed that a preliminary study of,
the order itself indicated that
it "does not live up to the
laudable goals of the Presi-
dent's statement."
?"It appears to be an order
written by classifiers for clas-
sifiers," Mr. Moorhead said.
Sees Way to Cover Errors
Thp Executive order? is de-
signed to reduce the secrecy
surrounding national security
material by limiting the use of
secrecy classifications when the
papers are written and by.
speeding up the process by
which they are later made
public.
Among its provisions is one
ordering that "top secret"
documents be automatically de-
classified and made available
to the public after 10 years,
"secret" papers after eight
years and "confidential" ones
after six, with certain excep-
tions that Nixon said would be
narrowly applied.
But Mr. Moorhead argued
that, under this arrangement, a
"President could safely stay in
office for his full two constitu-
tional terms, totaling eight
years, and at the same time
make it possible for his Vice
President or another of his sup-
porters to succeed him without
the public knowing the full' de-
tails of major defense or
foreign policy errors Ilis ad-
ministration had Committil)pro
Liieont,61x
United Press International
William S. Moorhead
A Distinction Is Made .
"In other words," Mr. Moor-
head said, "the same political
party could control the Presi-
dency for 12 years when, per-
haps, the public would throw
it out of office if only the facts
were known."
In his remarks, Mr. Moor-
head drew the distinction be-
tween information covered by
the Freedom of Information
Act and that covered by the
Executive order. The law con-
cerns the disclosure of infor-
.
mttion on the Government's
day-to-day activities, while the
White House order covers in-
formation on national defense
and foreign policy or, as the
President put it, national se-
curity. ?
In the subcommittee hearing
Assistant Attorney Genera
Ralph E. Erickson testified that
from July 1967, to July, 1971
the Justice Department received
about 535 requests for access
to its records under the Free-
dom of Information Act.
Mr. Erickson said that access
had been, granted in 224 cases
and denied in 311. The majority
lof the denials, he said, involved
investigative files or cases
where the privacy of an indi-.
?vidual would have been vio-
lated.
Order Is Defended
iierk Emsdite I easii4
lHouse Armed Services subcom-
STAT
mittee on intelligence, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State
William D. Blair Jr. continued
the Administration's effort to
explain the Executive order and
head off legislation that would
establish a joint executive-Con-
gressional-judicial commission
to review secrecy in the Gov-
ernment.
Mr. Blair conceded that "too
much material ? probably far
too much?was being classified
in the first place, and too much
of that was being over classi-
fied.
He said that, in the central
foreign policy files since .1950
alone, there were more than
eight milion documents,. at'least
half of them classified. To de-
classify them, he said, would
take 10 years, while more pa-
pers piled up.
Mr. Blair noted that the new
order severely limited the au-
thority of officials to classify
material. He said that about
800 officers of the department
may now stamp papers "top
secret," that number will be
cut to about 300 when the new
order becomes effective.
1,860 May Use Stamp
Linder the Executive order,
about 1,860 persons designated
by the President or the 1,Vhite
House staff, as well as the
heads of 12 agencies or those
designated by them, may use
the "top secret" stamp.
They are the heads of the
State Defense, Treasury and
Justice Departments; the De-
partments of the Army, ' the
Navy and the Air Force; ? the
Central Intellirence Agency, the
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and the Agency
for Internatoinal Development.
The heads of 13 more agen-
cies and their principal sub-
ordinates may use the 'secret"
classification. They are the De-
partment of Transportation, the
Department of Commerce, and
the Department of Health. Edu-
!cation and Welfare; the Federal
'Communications Commission,
the Export-Import Bank, the
!Civil Service ?Commission, the
United States Information
Agency, the General Services
Administration, the Civil Aero-
nautics Board, the Federal
Maritime Commission, the Fed-
eral Power Commission, the
National Science Foundation
and the Overseas Private In-
vestment Corporation.
Regulations to Be Issued '
Each agency; before june -1,
will designate those officials
who will have the authority to
use each stamp; The agencies
will also issue regulations and
guidelines within the frame-
work of the Executive order.
For classified documents al-
da0t WOCgigiligg
to them by specifying which
ones he wants to see. Thei
agency that originated the
documents will then' review
them to make sure national .
security will not be compro-
mised by releasing them.
If the applicant is dissatis?
fied, he may then appeal to the
National Security Council's In-
teragency Classification Re-
view Committee, established by
the new order. If that com-
mittee still refuses to release
the document, the applicant.
may go to Federal court.
STAT
400030001:7
. ?.
Approved For Release 20ilealX3IXIThaRtggiciiM1R00
? 9 MARCH 1972
PENKOVSKY
SECRETS '
DEMAND
By RICHARD BEESTON
in Washington
A REPUBLICAN ? presi-
dential candidate filed
a suit against. the ;Penta-
gon yesterday to force pub-
lication of the Penkovsky
" special collection " Papers
which he claimed related to
.
current Russian plans in
case of nuclear war against
?
America.
The move coincided with an
announcement by President
Nixon yesterday ordering the de-
classification of large quantities
of secret documents, but not
specifically referring to the
Penkovsky Papers.
Mr John Ashbrook, an Ohio
member of the House of Repre-
sentatives, said the papers con-
tained Soviet top-secret doc-
trine for nuclear war, and long-
range strategic plans which the
American people had a right to
know about.
The papers Were provided to
British intelligence ? which
passed them on to Washington
?by a Russian intelligence
officer, Col Oleg Penkoysky, who
was reported to have been exe-
cuted by the Russians in 1963.
Mr Aslibrook, a conservative,
said that those papers which
accurately predicted the Soviet
nuclear build-up had been pub-
lished, but not the "spN,a1
collection " dealing with specific
Soviet strategic intentions against
America.
Highest classification
He released a copy of a letter
from Mr Lawrence Eagleburger,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defence, acknowledging that the
"special collection" contained
material of the "?highest classi-
fication, extremely relevant to
current Soviet strategic doctrine
and war plans."
Mr Eagleburger said that in
all likehtmod Russia ',NW still
?trying to determine which of
'their secrets Penkovsky had
given. away. It would not be in
America's interest to assist
them.
But Mr. Ashbrook contended
that the only purpose served by
continued secrecy "is to keep
the American people from know-
ing what the men in the Kremlin
have known for all ?these 10
years. It is the right of .the
American people to know, and
to know just how the Nixon
Administration plans to protect
them."
" Many abuses
In his statement from the
White House yesterday Mr
Nixon promised to "lift the veil
of secrecy which now enshrouds
altogether too many papers."
The secret classification of docu-
ments did " not meet the stand-
ard of an open and democratic
society."
The "many abuses'? of the
security system would no longer
be tolerated. Classification fre-
quently served to conceal
bureaucratic mistakes.
400030001-7
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
.tiFNT 1,n5:
Approvcd For Rolcalse 2006/01/0k. ifliCRIgg30-01601R000400030001-7
PRESIDENT ORDERS
LIMIT ON LABELING
OF DATA AS SECRET
Calls for Faster Release of
klaterial Not Injurious to
the Nation's Security
?
. .
By RICHARD HALLORAN.
.speete to The New Yes: Times
WASHINGTON, March 8?
President Nixon signed today
an Executive order to limit the
secrecy surrounding Federal
documents, a major source of
information about the Govern-
ment
The President said in a state-
ment that his action was "de-
signed o lift the veil of secre-
cy which how enshrouds alto-,
gether too many paper S writ-
ten by employes of the Federal
establishment?and to do so
without jeopardizing any of our
legitimate defense or foreign
policy interests."
The Executive .order, which
will become effective June 1,
calls for reducing the number
of. documents classified "top
secret," "secret" or "confiden-
tial" when they are written and
for limiting the authority of
officials to stamp such classifi-
cations on those papers.
Rely on Discretion
At the other end of the proc-
ess, the order calls for speed-
ing up the process of declassi-
fying these documents, making
them availatle to the public,
with certain exceptions that
the Administration pledged
would be narrowly applied.
The President and Adminis-
tration spokesmen who ex-
plained the new order readily
conceded, however, that the
success of the program would
depend largely on the discre-
tion of officials. Mr, . Nixon
said, "Rules can never be air-
tight and we must rely upon
the good judgment of inefiv4-
nals throughout the Govern-
ment."
The action is a result -of a
14-month study ordered by the
President and spurrka by th_e,
publication last, suirMMKPYR0
secret Pentagon study of the
Vietnam war. Had the new or-
der been in effect, then, large
portions of the documents in
the Pentagon papers would al-
ready have been declassified.
10-Year Limit Set
Under the new order, "top'
secret" papers can become pub-I
lie after 10 years. Thus, docu-
ments in the Pentagon papers'
that were written before 1961;
would have been automaticallyi
declassified or would have been'
subject to a challenge in which'
th Government would have had'
to Itirove - that injury to the!
national security would Shave(
resulted from their Publication.
Similarly, many "secret" pa-
pers dated before 1963 andI
"confidential" documents datedi
earlier than 1965 would have;
been available. The Pentagond
papers included documentsI
from 1945 to 1968.
The new order means ? that
large numbers of papers from
the Truman and Eisenhower
Administrations should become
available, plus those of. the
early Kennedy years. Docu-
P in
merits concerning the Bay oigs operation in 1961, for
stance, will be eligible for pub-
lic inspection unless the Gov-
ernment can prove that such
disclosure will harm the na-
tional interest.
Later this year, under the or-
der, documents pertaining to
the Cuban missile crisis of 1962
will become eligible for inspec-
tion unless the Government can
prove that the national interest
will be harmed.
The order drew some imme-
diate fire on Capitol Hill. Rep-
resentative William S. Moor-
head, Democrat of Pennsylvania,
who is chairman of a
House subcommittee on Gov-
errirrient information, said,
"Congress may want to write
its own statutory law on this
important and sensitive' mat-
ter."
I Along the 'same line, a
House Armed Services subcom-
mittee began hearings this-
morning on a bill proposed by
Representatives F. Edward
Hebert, Democrat of Louisiana,
and Leslie C. Arends, Republi-
can of Illinois, the committee
chairman and senior minority
member respectively.
While the Nixon Administra-
tion plans to keep control of
the classification of documents
in the hands of the Executive
branch, the Hebert-Arends bill
r411341.#441sAlP-efigiu;;
commission to undertake
'drilling reviews of secrecy in
? !ma tlrevprnement ?
The general couns
Department of Defen5
Buzhardt, testified thi
before the House Armed Ser'-I
vices subcommittee, which isi
headed by Representative Lu-
cien N. Nedzi, Democrat of'Mich,
igen, in opposition to the
Hebert-Arencls billi
Mr. Buzhardt. said that, in an
effort to stop unauthorized dis-
closures of secret information,
Pentagon researchers had begu
looking for a type of paper thatl
could not be Xeroxed or other
wise duplicated. The Pentagon
vapers given to The New York
Times and other newspapers
were reportedly Xeroxed copies
of the original clocuMents ? in
some cases, Xeroxes of Xeroxes
In issuing his order today,
Mr. Nixon said, "We have re-
versed the burden of proof: For
the iirst time, we are niacin
burden ? and even the
threat or administrative sanc-
tion ? upon those who wish to
preserve the secrecy of docu-
ments rather than upon those
who wish to declassify them
after a reasonable time."
Under the new order, papersi
can be classified only if theft]
disclosure 'could reasonably be
.expected" to cause damage -to
the national interest. Previously
a paper could be stamed ''se
cret" even if the threat of dam-
age to the national security was
remote.
The new order further re-
duces the number of Federal
agencies, outside the White
House, that can classify docu-
ments. At present, 38 agencies
can classify papers "top secret''
or place them under the lesser
classifications.
Must Identify Officials
After June 1, however, only
12 agencies, such as the State
Department, the Defense De-
partment and the Central In-
telligence Agency, can use the
"top secret" stamp and 13 more
will be able to use the "secret"
stamp.
In the agencies that will be
able to use the "top secret"
label, only 1,860 officials will
be authorized -to assign such a
classification, against 5,100 at
present.
Moreover, the President said,
each agency will be required to
identify those officials doing th
classifying. "Each official is to
be held personally responsible
for the propriety of the classifi-
cation attributed to- him," the
President said.
"Repeated abuse of the process
through excessive classifica-
tion," the President continued,
1"shall be grounds for admin-
istrative action." That would
be an administrative reprimand,
sk_uwadufg,50048
The President also ordered
that, wherever possible, classi-
lied information be separated
STAT
mation be classified in order to
conceal inefficiency or adminis-
trative error', to prevent 'embar-
rassment to a person or a
department, to restrain compe-
tition or independent initiative,
or to prevent for any other
reason the release of informa-
tion which does not require
protection in the interest of
national security.
The President ordered that
the "top secret" label be used
"with utmost restraint" and
that the "secret" label be em-
ployed "sparingly."
As to declassification, the
President ordered that "top
secret" documents be made
available after 10 years.
1"secret" papers after eight
'years and "confidential" items
after six years.
But there will be exceptions,
including the. following:
Iginforma:tion furnished in
confidence by a foreign gov-
ernment or international organ-
ization op, the understanding
that it be kept in confidence.
cfnformation covered by law,
such as atomic energy infor-
mation, or documents pertain-
ing to codes and intelligence
operations.
CInformation on a matter
"the continuing protection of
which is essential to the na-
tional security." That broad
statement would appear to give
advocates of secrecy, consider- .
able leeway..
'cinformation that, if dis-
closed, "would place a person
in immediate jeopardy." That
Pertains to intelligence agents.
May Ask for Document ?
But anyone may, after a doe-
ment is 10 years old, ask for
a review of the reasons why
it is still kept secret. He must
specify the document he wishes
to see, which means that he
must know that it 'exists. More-
over, the agency holding the
paper must be able to find it
"with a reasonable 'amount of
effort."
That part of the order also
applies to documents written
before the order becomes effec-
tive. The President said that
the National Archives had "160
million pages of classified doc-
uments from World War II and
over 300 million pages of classi-
fied documents for the years
1946 through 1954."
Only a small number of those
postwar documents have been
made available. The vast ma-
jority are not now subject to
any sort of automatic declassi-
? a provided under the
. The rest are subject
to declassification only after 12
years, as opposed to the top
limit of 10 years under,the new
WISTIE1iGT.C.11POS
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : C -RDP80-01
.9 MAR 1s
'U.S.' Is Sued
By Ashbrook
On Secrets
United Press International
Rep. John Ashbrook (It-
Ohio), announced yesterday a
suit to force the Defense De-
partment to make public se-
cret documents on Soviet mili-
tary strength obtained from a I
Red army official.
The suit, he told a news con-
ference, would allow access to
the so-called Penkovsky Pap-_
ers?a compilation of statistics
on Soviet nuclear weaponry
by Col. Oleg Penkovsky, a sen-
ior intelligence officer with
the Russian army general
staff, whO was executed for es-
pionage 10 years ago.
Ashbrook, conservative chal-
lenger to President Nixon in
Republican presidential prima-
ries, said declassification of
the documents was essential
to any debate on a SALT
agreement which may be
forthcoming between the
United States and Russia.
He said his efforts to per-
suade the Pentagon to volun-
tarily declassify the papers
were unsuccessful. A suit
under the Freedom of Infor-
mation Act was filed in fed-
eral district court for southern
Illlinois yesterday, he said.
"It is the right of the Ameri-
can people to know how the
Soviet Union plans to destroy
them; and it is their right to
know just how the Nixon ad-
ministration plans to protect
them," Ashbrook commented.
Material from Penkovsky's
reports was rewritten and pub-
lished in the United States in
1966. as "the Penkovsky Pap-
ers." But the raw material on
.which the book was based has
r never been released.
STAT
01R000400030001-7
Approved For For Release 2006/91/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R0004000300017
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP8. -01601R000400030001-7 ?
WASHINGTON STAR
8 MAR 1972
Nixon Acts to Lift
'veil of Secrecy'
By GARNETT D. HORNER complex cryptologic and corn-
. .* star Staff Writer munications intelligence sys-
President Nixon today or- terns.
dered a major overhaul of the The "secret" classification
system for classifying govern- was limited to materials for
meat papers. He said his ac- which unauthorized disclosure
tion was aimed at making meld "reasonably be expected
more information available to to cause serious damage to the
the publie. national security." The "confi-
In an executive order, effec, dential" clasSifichtion can be
tive June 1, he substantially used on materials for which
restricted authority to classify disclosuy4.--might cause plain
papers "top secret" and speci- "damage" to the national se-
tied that this authority must curity.
be used with "utmost re-
straint." Authority Limited
Those given authority to use Under current rules, Nixon
the "s ecr e t" classification noted, 24 federal departments
were directed to use it "spar- and agencies, plus his execu-
ingly." tive office, have broad classif
The President's order also cation authority, while others
set up a new systeraspeeding have more restricted powers.
declassification of documents. The new system limits the
Nixoh said his aim is to "lift authority to classify informa-
the veil of secrecy which now than "top secret" to 12 depart-
.enshrouds too many papers ments and agencies and such
written by employes of the White House offices as the
federal establishment?and to President may designate.
do so without jeopardizing any Those plus 13 others will have
of our legitimate defense or authority to stamp papers "se-
foreign policy interests." cret" and "confidential."
In the past, he said, "classi- In the principal departments
. fication has frequently served concerned with national seen-
to conceal bureaucratic mis- rity ? state, defense and the
Central Intelligence Agency ?
takes or to'prevent embarrass- the number of individuals whc
ment to officials and adminis-
trations." Such misuse of the may be authorized to classify
"secret" stamp is specifically material?p e is
banned by the executive order. duced from 5,100 to approxi-
Inmately 1,860.
what he described as a This authority may be exer-
"critically important shift," cised only ,`Iy the heads of thp
Nixon said his order places
agencies and certain high offi-
the burden of proof for the
first time on those who want cials whom the heads must
to preserve ?the secrecy of designate in writing.
documents rather than on .
those who wish to declassify ' Anticipates Drop
them. ? Nixon said he anticipates
Under Nixon's order, mater- that these reductions will
ials can be classified"top
mean a sharp cut in the quan-
secret" only if their unauthor-
tity of classified material.
ized disclosure "could reason-
The new system for declassi-
ably be expected to cause lying papers provides that
exceptionally grave damage to . "top secret? information is to
be downgraded to "secret"
the national security."'
As examples of such darn-
after two years, to "connf idea-
age, it listed armed hostilities tial" after two more years,
and declassified after a total
against the U.S. or its allies, of 10 years?with certain ex-
disruption of foreign relations
vitally affecting the national emptions.
security, and compromise qf "Secret" information is to
vital national defense'plans or be downgraded to. "confiden-
? ? tial" after two years, and de-
classified after eight years.
"Confidential" papers are to
be declassified after six years.
The order specified that pa-
pers may be exempted from
this automatic process only by
an official with "(op secret"
classification authority who
must specify in writing the
specific reason for the exemp-
tion.
Exempt Categories
The order lists four catego-
ries of information that may
be exempted from the auto-
matic declassifying system.
They are classified informa-
tion:
Furnished in con!' ience by a
foreign government or interna-
tional organization.
Covered by statute or per-
taining to cryptography, or
disclosing intelligence sources
or methods.
Disclosing a "system, plan,
installation, project or specific
foreign relations matter the
continued protection of which
is essential to the national se-
curity."
Which would "place a per-
son in immediate jeopardy"
(defined as physical harm, not
personal embarrassment of
discomfiture) if disclosed.
The order specifies that
there must be a "mandatory
review" of the classification of
any exempted material if a
document is requested by any-
one, including "a member of
the general public," so long as
the request describes the rec-
ord sb that it may be identified
and it can be obtained with a
"reasonable amount of . ef-
fort."
If any material is still classi-
fied 30 years after its original
classification, the executive
order provides, it shall be au-
tomatically declassified unless
the head of the originating.de-
partment personally deter-
mines in writing that its pro-
tection is essential to national
security or that its disclosure
would place a person in imme-
diate jeopardy.
? Approved For Release 2006/01/03: CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
ttg ANCELES- IlUES ?
Approved For Release 2006/71VAR ORRDP80-01601R0
0400030001-7
High Court to Rule on Disclosing
Nonsensitive Parts of Secret Papers
?-BY LINDA MATHEWS
Times Staff Writer
WASHINGMC't ? The
Supreme Court a gr eed
Monday to rule on the
government's much-debat-
ed policy of classifying an
entire document ."secret"
or stop secret" even if
tions contain nonsensite:
Information.
The issue came to the
court in a suit brought by
Rep. patsy T. Mink (D-Ha-
waii) and 32 other mem-
bers of Congress.
They had sought public
access to nine reports pre-
pared. for President Nixon
on last fall's atomic test at
Amchitka Island, Alaska.
The reports allegedly con-
tained information about
the dangers of under-
ground nuclear testing.
? Order to Judge
?
The Justice Department
had asked the Supreme
Court to reverse an order
? by the U.S. Court of Ap-
? peals here that would al-
low release of sections of
the documents. The ap-
peal' will be heard next
term.
In a decision favorable to
the congressmen, the Ap-
peals Court 'ordered Fed-
eral_ Dist. Judge George
Hart Jr. to examine the se-
cret documents and decide
which sections were so.
nonsensitive that they
could be disclosed._
The Appeals Court rul-
ing also voided the con-
troversial 1033 presiden-
tial order requiring that a
document carry a classifi-
cation "at least as high as
that of its highest classi-
fied component."
The Justice Department,
in appealing this order,
said it was "highly unreal-
istic" to think that a court
could distinguish secret
information from non-se-
cret.
The government also
objected that "judicial in-
quiry into matters which
are peculiarly within the
province of the executive"
is inconsistent with the
1970 Freedom of Informa-
tion Act.
The, high court also
cleared the way . Monday
for a ruling later this term
on an attempt by Sen.
Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) to
stop a federal grand jury
in Boston from investigat-
ing arrangements he made
for publication of the se-
cret Pentagon Papers.
Only two weeks ago, the
court agreed to hear the
case. At that time, it was
expected that arguments
could not be heard this
court term without ex-
tending the session past
its customary June recess
date. The Justice Depart-
ment, however, sought and
w o j permission for a
speeded-up ruling later
this term.
Retroactivity Issue
The department insisted
that without an immediate
decision the grand jury in-
vestigation would be para-
lyzed and the government
would be. deprived of in-
formation it needs for suc-
cessful prosecution of Da-
nie Ellsberg and Anthony
J. Russo. They will go on
trial May 9 in Los Angeles
on charges.of violating the
Espionage Act by giving
secret documents to unau-
thorized persons.
In other actions Monday,
the court:
?Let stand, with a dis-
sent from Justice William
0. Douglas, the contempt
citation of UC Berkeley
demonstrator who violat-
ed a pretrial court ord.er
f or bi d ding defendants
from discussing their
cases with the press. Stev-
en Hamilton. one of 10
persons arrested during a
November, 1966, protest
against military recruiting
on the Berkeley campus,
claimed the gag order was
so broad that it violated.
his freedom of speech. .1
?Affirmed a lower
court's denial of a hearing
to an ? Alabama woman
challenging a state law re-
quiring that driver's
licenses be issued to mar.
ried women in their mare.
:tied names, even if they
use their maiden names
for all other purposes.
.Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
X0,13K.
Approved For Release 2006/07/4ARC1VEDP80-01601R00040003
JUSTICES TO WEIGH
U.& SECRECY ROLE
Will Hear Plea on Extent of
Government Authority to
Bar Reports From Public
The Associated Prete
WASHINGTON, March 6 ?
The Supreme Court agreed to-
day to rule on the scopc of the
Government's authority to clas-
sify documents as secret and
keep them from Congress and
the public.
The case concerns nine re-
ports and letters prepared for
President Nixon in advance of
an underground nuclear test
that was held last year in
Alaska.
The Federal Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia
Circuit has ruled that an entire
file cgnnot be classified and
kept secret simply because seine
of the material in it is sensitive.
A Federal judge was direc-
ted to separate one kind of
document fro the other.
Suit by Congressmen
. The Justice Department ob-
jected, saying that this kind
of judgment belonged exclusive-
ly to the executive branch of
government. The dispute will
be argued next winter and a
decision reached by June, 1973.
The nuclear test file was as-
sembled for President Nixon by
a committee headed by Under-
Secretary of State John N. Irwin
It contained reports on potential
consequences to the environ-
ment, national defense and for-
eign relations of the test, known
as Cannikin and conducted last
November on Amchitka Island.
- When word leaked out that
some Government officials dis-
approved of the test, 33 mem-
bers of . Congress headed by
Representative Patsy T. Mink,
Democrat of Hawaii, sued for r
lease of portions of the file.
The Supreme Court also acted
?today to speed up consideration
Alaska, about publication of
of attempts by a grand jury
to question assistants of Sen-
ator Mike Gravel, Democrat of
the Pentagon Papers. This case
also would have been heard
next term, but Solicitor General
Erwin N. Griswold sought and
WO n promise of a ruling .before
the end of June
Mr. Griswold told the court]
that not only was the grand I
jury inBoston slowed down
but also tht the Government
might be deprived of important
evidence needed for the prose-
cution of Daniel ?Ellsberg and
Anthony J. Russo. They go
on . trial in Los Angeles on
May 9 charged with theft of
the once-secret study of the
Vietnam war.
In a 5-to-2 decision, the high
court prevented thousands of
prisoners across the country
from reopening their cases on
the ground that a lawyer was
not present at their preliminary
hearings.
On June 22, 1970, the Court
held that criminal suspects have
a constitutional right to a, law-
yer at these hearings. This is
when a judge decides whether
to hold the suspect for a grand
jury, whether to permit his
release on bail and when the
prosecution broadly outlines its
case.
Justice William J. Brennan
Jr. said in today's opinion that
the ruling may be invoked to
challenge convictions only if
the preliminary hearing was
held after the date of the
Court's ruling. Retroactive ap-
plication, he said, would cause
widespread disruption of court
calendars while judges consider
pleas for a new trial.
Justices William 0.. Douglas
and Thurgood Marshall com-
plained in dissent that the rul-
ing was not in accord with
"even-handed justice."
Appeal on Prisons Blocked
WASHINGTON, March 6
(UPI) ? Without comment, the
Supreme Court let stand today
a lower court ruling that state
prison officials may be sued by
inmates for mistreatment or
arbitrary punishment in the
absence of a fair hearing.
The Court's action was not in
the form of an opinion. It mere-
ly rejected an appeal by New
York authorities from a deci-
sion by the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Cir-
cuit in favor of a prisoner,
Martin Sostre, who was sen-
tenced to solitary confinement
fter a dispute with prison of-
ficials.
At this point, the ruling of
the appeals court applies only
in New York, Connecticut and
Vermont, but it could be ex-
tended to other jurisdictions in
subsequent cases.
Sostre, a black sentenced as
a second felony offender, filed
a $2.5-million damage suit
against three state prison of-
ficials after he was plced in
solitary confinement at the
Green Haven Correctional Fa-
cility in Stormville. The sen-
tence was imposed by the war-
den following an altercation
over SoStre's legal activities on
0001-7
behalf of a former co-deferi?
and statements contained in his
and statements contained in his
outgoing mail.
United States District Judge
Constance Baker Motley ruled
that he had been im-
properly punished for express-
ing his political opinions,
awarded him $13,000 in dam-
ages and limited his time in
solitary to 15 days.
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
MIAMI HERALD
Approved For Releas$2fififfa1/1971A-RDP80-01601R00
shingion Secrec
r und Iraws
By WILLIAM VANCE
Herald Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON ? A diet-
conscious visitor to Washing-
ton, concerned and curious
? about how much fat he was
getting with his hot dogs
back in Muncie, Ind., took
some time from his touring
to ask the government.
? The government, in this
?case the Department of Agri-
culture, didn't answer. That
sort of information, he was
told, isn't available to the
public..
Although the episode ? as
,a?elated by Ralph Nader's
Center for the Study of Re-
sponaige law ? occurred
several months ago, the in-
formation on hot dog fat was
,Indeed available.
. Months earlier the Agricul-
ture Department had estab-
lished the maximum fat limit
at 30 per cent. What's more,
It had published the informa-
tion In the Federal Register
the public's official guide
to' agency rules and regula-
tions.
? THE MAN from Muncie
was simply getting a taste of
"government secrecy, acciden-
tal or intentional, which
ranges from trivial to bizarre
In the day-to-day operation'
of the gigantic federal bu-
reaucracy.
? Today, a casual caller can
? learn all about hot dogs from
the Agriculture Department.
But there are plenty of other
things he can't find out
there, and elsewhere, in
Washington. Things that
come under the heading of
pubt lc nf orf?ami oft
Despite the enactment
nearly five years ago of the
Freedom of Information Act,
federal agencies continue to
evade, and at times defy, the
public's right to know.
Because of recurring criti-
cism of the act's shortcorn-
Ingo, the House subcommit-
Rep. Moorhead ?
. . . another look
tee, which fashioned it, has
decided to take another long
look at the government's se-
crecy system,
BEGINNING Monday, the
so-called freedom'of informa-
tion subcommittee, headed
by Rep. William Moorhead
(D., Pa.), will begin a series
of 29 public hearings de-
signed to measure the gap
between the people's right to
know and the government's
reluctance to tell.
? Congressional Interest in
the secrecy system has been
heightened in recent months
by publication of the Penta-
gon papers on the Vietnam
war and the Anderson papers
on the. Indo-Pakistan war.
Moorhead's subcommittee
likely will touch on military
security classification and
the executive branch's with-
holding of information from
Congress.
'But the main focus will be
on the less dramatic and
more frequent clashes be-
tween the bureaucracy and
the citizenry 'over informa-
tion about such things as
pesticides, product safety
and government subsidies.
'The subcommittee' ? will
have plenty of examples to
work with.
use Probe
Harriion Welford, environ-
mental associate at ?the
Nader Center and a pros-
pective witness at the hear-
ings, charges that public offi-
cials use loopholes in the law
to delay and deny the release
of information ? or to price
the information out of sight.
THE INFORMATION Act
provides; for example, that
agencies may charge "a rea-
sonable fee" for collecting
and Copying requested infor-
Mation.
"W'haes 'reasonable; and
what's exorbitant?" Welford
asked. ?
. . .. ?
"We've petitioned the sec-
retary' of agriculture to re-
strict the use of sodium ni-
trate in meat products," he
said. "We've asked for data
on how much, is being used
and what sort of testing is
being done. ? ? .
"Now we have a letter.say-
ing they will give us the int?
formation, but because it's
scattered throughout ?the
agency we'll have to put up a
$100 deposit and pay $25 an
hour for the search and 25
cents a page for copies of
whatever they find."
That, said Welford, simply
had the effect of denying the
request.
"HOW ARE we to know
that this information isn't all
in one place? How can we
put up that kind of money on
the chance the information
will be of some value?".
Higher fees have been
asked.
Larry Sherman, a lawyer
who represents migrant
workers, asked the Agricul-
ture Department for a list of
its subsidy payments to
sugar beet growers.
The department controls
migrant's wages, as Well as
subsidies, and Sherman
though, the comparisons
He was told there was no
such subsidy list ? although
the department publishes
farm subsidy payments annu-
ally ? but that one could be
developed for $2,000.
? WHAT IS public informa-
tion in one agency may be
lockid up as confidential in
another.
James Michael, a former
lawyer with the Product'
Safety ? Commission, spent
months compiling 'a public
file on unsafe toys before the ?
commission was absorbed by
the FDA about a year ago.
Michael, who subsequently
decided to write a book
about toy safety, visited the
FDA to do some research
from his old files, only to be
told the information no long-
n? is available to the public.
The Freedom of Informa-
tion Act says that all govern-
ment papers, policy state-
ments, opinions, records and
staff manuals are to be made.
available upon request ?
with certain exemptions for
national security, personnel
practices, trade secrets and
investigatory documents.
IF INFORMATION is re-
fused, the act provides that
the requestor can take the
agency to court, with the
government bearing the bur-
len of proof.
But it also gives an agency
or department 60 days to re-
spond to appeals under ad-?
ministrative procedure?before
court action can start, and
lawsuits can take months or
? years -- a long time to wait
for informaton.
Welford and other critics
say the delay is frequently
used as "a stultifying tactic"
to thwart the intent of the
'act.
In some cases, according
to subcommittee staffers,
agencies will respond with
"partial information" on the
' would be valuable.. 60th day. When the reque-
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R 000400030001-7
?
THE LONDON NEW SCIENTIST
Approved For Release 2086MV6 :16a2RDP80-01601R00
No break in the code war
STAT
1400030001-7
STA
The business of intercepting and interpreting the radio transmissions of potential enemies grows steadily
.more sophisticated, more expensive
John Marriott
Is the pen name of a
retired RN officer who
writes on defence
matters for British,
European and US
periodicals
Last week, senior officers of all NATO nations ?
met for a three day conference at the SHAPE
headquarters near Brussels to discuss a
subject which is commanding increasing
attention?electronic warfare. In the words
of General Sir Walter Walker, who has just
relinquished the command of NATO's
Northern Area,. "In a limited aggression
situation, the skilled use of electronic war-
fare by Soviet forces could be an overwhelm-
ing factor in deciding the outcome of the
battle." Interception of enemy transmissions
is one of.tl_T key elements in electronic war-
fare.
When the Second World War began,
Britain's own intercept organisation, which
had done excellent work during the First
World War, had dwindled to practically
nothing. However, the principles were well
known and it was not long before Britain had
established listening posts all over the world.
Perhaps because the techniques had not been
kept alive, Britain's cyphers were singularly
Insecure and German intelligence was able
to break them with little difficulty. At the
same time, British cryptographers were able
to read many of the German secret messages
?so honours were about even.
By 1943, Britain had. built up an efficient
intercept organisation, known as the 'Y'
service. It consisted of a large number of
intercept stations, a direction finding net
(directed primarily against the U boats) and
a headquarters situated in a stately home at
Bletchley Park, Buckinghamshire. The 'Y'
service grew apace, and by the end of the
war no less than 25 000 persons were
employed on this work.
The generic term for the business today is
Signal Intelligence (Sigint). This is divided
Into two halves?Communication Intelligence
(Comint) and Electronic Intelligence (Elint).
The basis of successful cryptanalysis is to
have the maximum possible amount of traffic
to work on. Comint organisations, therefore,
endeavour to intercept as much enemy signal
traffic as possible. This may mean establishing
listening stations close to an enemy border
(or in the air) to intercept frequencies which
travel over line of sight paths such as VHF,
UHF and microwaye, or in good receiving
sites at strategic points around the world to
intercept high frequency communications.
The listening stations themselves can vary
between huge receiving complexes, with
perhaps 1'00 or more receivers together with
their associated forest of aerials; a. UHF
receiver in a jeep or on top of a haystack,
?and receivers in aircraft or satellites.
The intercepted traffic must, of course, be
got back quickly to a central headquarters for
.Approv
e imanalersitanetzemnit =visa-
igkiottiVditqc916011W914001120114147 a teletype transmitter as
equipped with their own cyphers. The raw it is produced.
Intercepted traffic which has been cyphered- - What is the situation today? Nobody out-
up before transmission is decyphered at the.
headquarters. Using modern on-line cypher
machines, this work is nowhere near as
laborious as it sounds.
The traffic arriving at the headquarters is
subjected to two processes: traffic analysis
and cryptanalysis. The former is a method
of gleaning intelligence from the scrutiny of
traffic passed, without necessarily knowing
its contents, and the latter is actual cypher
breaking. The very volume of traffic alone
may indicate that something is happening, or
about to happen; but apart from this, move-
ments of units can often be deduced simpl7
by the manner in which a signal is routed.
Suppose that a warship, whose call sign is
ABC, is heard regularly working a Black Sea
shore station. Suddenly she is not heard for
two weeks; then she is once again picked up,
by another listening post, calling a Vladivos-
tok shore station and thereafter she is heard'
working this station regularly. Obviously she
has moved from the Mediterranean area to
eastern Russia. The ship could of course
change her call sign, but even then it is
sometimes possible to recognise a ship's
actual transmitter. Transmitters, like type-
writers, often have small characteristics un-
noticeable to the human senses but instantly
detectable by electronic analysis.
Another useful method of recognising a
'particular unit, so long as the morsc code is
still with us, is by "fingerprinting" its opera-
. tors?niost ef whom have certain peculiari-
ties, one perhaps making his dashes slightly
too short, another hurrying over certain
letters and so on. By recording messages and
analysing them by means of an oscilloscope it
is possible to note these idiosyncracies. This
useful give-away is, however, gradually being
lost as morse code is replaced by teletype
and data transmissions generally.
? The unbreakable codes
A modern cypher, working on the one time
principle, is virtually unbreakable. The
simplest form of "one timing" is to code-up
the message from a code book into num-
bered groups. These groups are then sub-
tracted from (or added to) a recyphering
table of similar groups, but the groups so
used are never used more than once. This
system has now been replaced by machines
which do the entire process automatically. In
.fact, it is possible to type out the message
en .ciair and the machine will produce the
encyphered version as fast as one can type,
the one time recyphering tables being fed
into the machine on tape, which is then des-
troyed to ensure that it is never used again.
A refinement is to put the process on-line,
with the encyphered version produced on
luZi YORK TIIIES
Approved For Release 296/MAT319721A-RDP80-016
,
Hearings Indicate Ellsberg Trial
Will Raise the Issue of Secrecy
By STEVEN V. ROBERTS I Ruling Buoys Defense
Special to The New York Times 1. Defense attorneys were de-
LOS ANGELES, March 1 ? lighted with his ruling. "This
Pretrial hearings indicate that means we will be able to get
the trial of Dr. Daniel Ellsberg; into the documents thorough-
and Anthony J. Russo Jr. wi1l11 one said.
1 The Government had tried to
result in a detailed debate by limit the case to a discussion
expert witnesses on some of of where and how Dr. Ellsberg
the critical sections of the Pen- and Mr. Russo took the papers
tagon papers, the Defense De. from the Rand Corporation and
partm copied them on a Xerox ma-
ent stydy of American .'n- chine.
volvement in Vietnam. In a brief answering, one mo-
Two days of hearings also in- tion. -, .:',. Government lawyers
dicate that at the trial, schedu assert, ? "Like most defendants
to begin May 9, the defendants who consider themselves heroes
will make a full-scale attack their basic aim is to thwart
on the system of Government
secrecy and classification of
documents. .
The hearings were suspended
today after Judge William Mat-
;thew Byrne Jr., suffered severe
jabdominal pains.
'Dr. Ellsberg, who has admit-
ted giving the documents to the
!news media, and Mr. Russo,
ihis former colleague at the Rand
ICorporation, were indicted last
December on 15 counts involv-
ing Federal laws Oovering con-
spiracy, theft of Government
property and espionage.
Debate on Defense Move
The ligelihood of a substan-
tive discussion of the Pentagon
papers were raised in debate
on the defendants' motion for
a bill of particulars.
Prof., Charles Nesson of the
Harvard Law School, a defense
attorney, noted that, to violate
the espionage laws, a defendant
had to act in such a way as to
injure the "national defense."
' Therefore, Professor Nesson
argued, the defense must know
1R000400030001-7
the fact that Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger had asked
the clerk's office to see if the
parties to the appeals would
agree to speed up matters.
The two cases that the Gov-
ernment wants to expedite in-
volve a review of the decision
of the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit,
in Boston, concerning?immuni-
ty from grand jury investiga-
tion for aides and other third
persons who have dealings
with a Senator.
When the Government was
attempting to block publication
any effort to try the issues . of the Pentagon papers last
raised by their indictment and year, Senator Gravel held a
instead to transform the trial midnight subcommittee hear-
into a form of 'theater' in
which the defendants create
new issues and new defend-
ants to be tried in their'place."
lag at which he read long pas-
sages from the secret history
of the Vietnam war.
But the defendants contend Mr. Gravel has sought to
!block brand jury testimony by
that such "new issues" are cen- 'his aides and other parties
tral to their case. For instance, connected with his effort to
they note that the theft counts
rely heavily on the allegation publish the papers "on the
that they had "unauthorized ground that such testimony
would violate his constitutional
possession" of the Pentagon privilege not to be questioned
study, which they say raises about his actions as a member
the question of who laas "au- of Congress.
thority" to handle such ma-, The Court of Appeals decisio
terial. displeased both Mr. Gravel and
the Justice Department and
both have appealed to the
Supreme Court.
An aide to Senator Gravel
said tonight that the Govern-
ment, in its new motion was
apparently contradicting what
it said in arguments before
the Federal District Court and
Speedier Hearings Asked
Special to The New York Timex
WASHINGTON, March 1?
The Government asked the
Supreme Court today to ex-
pedite hearings on Senator
Mike Gravel's legal effort to
stop a Federal grand jury in
Boston from investigating
ef. appeals court when it con-
forts he made to publish the tended that information from
Pentagon papers last year. the Boston proceedings was not
ry for the trial of Mr.
necessary Erwin N. Griswold, the So-
licitor General, said that court Russo and Dr. Ellsberg in
stats had effectively halted California.
T
the grand jury's investigation he aide said that Mr. Gravel's
which sections of the 38-vol- of possible violations of the attorney intended to file a
ume study the ? Government, Espionage Act in connection countermdtion to the Govern-
feels do, in fact, threaten na- with the Pentagon papers. He meat's motion.
tional security by their disclo-said that the Government The Government asked that
sure. It would be impossible to arguments be heard the week
prepare
also be deprived of im- of April 17, the last scheduled
prepare arguments on all 38 portant evidence needed for week of argument for this term
volumes, he said. .the prosecution of Dr. Daniel of the Supreme Court.
Government lawyers vigor-;Ellsberg and Anthony J. Russo
ously opposed the motion, but 'Jr. in California.
Judge Byrne cut off their argu- Last week a spokesman for
meat, saying, "There is no the Supreme Court, Banning
question but one of the key E, Whittington, announced that
issues of this case is whether:the appeals involving Senator
the documents relate to the na- Gravel and the Government
tional defense." would be heard on an expedit-
He then directed both sides ed basis.
to draft a proposed order indi- However, the deputy clerk
'eating how the Government at the Court, Michael Rodak,
would identify those parts of said today that that statement
the study that bear on defense was an error growing out of
-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
Issues. Approved For Release 2006/01/03: CIA
111638
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R0004
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
requirements of all formal and informal pro-
cedures available;
"(C) rules of procedure, descriptions of
forms available or the places at which forms
may be obtained, and instructions as to the
scope and contents of all papers, reports, or
examinations;
"(D) substantive rules of general applica-
bility adopted as authorized by law, and
statements of general policy or interpreta-
tions of general applicability formulated and
adopted by the agency; and
"(E) each amendment, revision, .or repeal
of the foregoing.
Except to the extent that a person
has actual and timely notice of the terms
thereof, a person may not in any man-
ner be required ,to resort to, or be adversely
affected by, a matter equired to be published
in the Federal Register and not so published.
For the purpose of this paragraph, matter
reasonably available to the class of persons
affected thereby is deemed published in the
Federal Register when incorporated by refer-
ence therein with the approvarof the Director
of the Federal Register.
"(2) Each agency, in accordance with pub-
lished rules, shall make available for public
inspection and copying?
"(A) final opinions, including concurring
and dissenting opinions, as well as orders,
made in the adjudication of cases;
"(B) those statements of policy and inter-
pretations which have been 'adopted by the
agency and are not published in the Federal
Register; and
"(C) administrative staff manuals and in-
structions to staff that affect a member of
the public;
unless the materials are promptly published
and copies offered for sale. To the extent re-
quired to prevent a clearly unwarranted in-
vasion of personal privacy, an agency may
delete identifying details when it makes
available or publishes an opinion, statement
of policy, interpretation, or staff manual or
instruction. However, in each case the JuAti-
fication for the deletion shall be explained
fully in writing. Each agency also shall main-
tain and-make available for public inspection
and copying a current index providing iden-
tifying information for the public as to any
matter issued, adopted, or promulgated after
July 4, 1967, and required by this paragraph
to be made available or published. A final
order, opinion, statement of policy, interpre-
tation, or staff manual or instruction that
affects ,a member of the public may be relied
on, used, or cited as precedent by an agency
against a .party other than an agency only
f ?
" ( ) it has been indexed and either made
available or published as provided by this
paragraph; or
"(it) the party has actual and timely notice
of the terms thereof.
"(3) Except with respect to the records
made available under paragraphs (1) and
(2) of this subsection, each agency, on re-
quest for identifiable records made in ac-
cordance with published rules stating the
time, place, fees to the extent authorized by
statute, and procedure to be followed, shall
make the records promptly available to any
person. On complaint, the district court of
the United States in the district in which
the complainant resides, or has his principal
place of business, or in which the agency
records are situated, has jurisdiction to en-
join the agency from withholding agency
records and to order the production of any
agency records improperly withheld from the
complainant. In such a case the court shall.
determine the matter de novo and the bur-
den is on the agency to sustain its action.
In the event of noncompliance with the or-
der of the court, the district court may
punish for contempt the responsible em-
ployee, and in the case of a uniformed serv-
ice, the responsible member. Except -as to
causes the court considers of greater im-
portance, proceedings before the district
court, as authorized by this paragraph, take
precedence on the docket over all other
causes and shall be assigned for hearing and
trial at the earliest practicable date and
expedited in every way. -
"(4) Each agency having more than one
member shall maintain and make available
for public inspection a record of the final
votes of each member in every agency pro-
ceeding.
"(b) This section does not apply to matters
that are?
"(1) specifically required by Executive
order to be kept secret in the interest of the
national defense or foreign policy;
"(2) related solely to the internal person-
nel rules and practices of an agency;
"(3) specifically exempted from disclosure
by statute;
"(4) trade secrets and commercial or finan-
cial information obtained from a person and
privileged or confidential;
"(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memo-
randums or letters which would not be avail-
able by law to a party other than an agency
in litigation with the agency;
"(6) personnel and medical files and simi-
lar files the disclosure of which would con-
stitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
Personal privacy;
"(7) investigatory files compiled for law
enforcement purposes except to the extent
available by law to a party oilier than an
"(8) contained in or related to examina-
tion, operating, or condition reports prepared
by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency
responsible for the regulation or supervision
of financial institutions; or
"(9) geological and geophysical informa-
tion and data, including maps, concerning
wells.
"(c') This section does not authorize with-
holding of. information or limit the avail-
ability of records to the public, except as
specifically stated in this section. This sec-
tion is not authority to withhold information
from Congress."
SEC. 2. The analysis of chapter 5 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by striking
Out:
"552. Publication of information, rules, opin-
ions, orders, and public records."
and inserting in place thereof:
"552. Public information; agency rules, opin-
ions, orders, records, and proceed-
ings."
SEC. 3. The Act of July 4, 1966 (Public Law
89-437, 80 Stat. 250), is repealed.
SEC. 4., This Act shall be effective July 4,
1967, or on the date of enactment, whichever
is later.
Approved June 5, 1967.
[From the Washington Post; Feb. 11, 1972]
NSC URGES STIFFER LAW ON SECRETS
(By Sanford J. Ungar)
The National Security Council is propos-
ing tougher regulations to keep classified.
information out Of the hands of unauthor-
00030001-7
Lu arca _1, 1,172
ized government officials, defense contractors
and the public:
It suggests that President Nixon may want
to go as far as seeking legislation similar to
the British Official Secrets Act, which would
have the effect of imposing stiff criminal
penalties on anyone who receives classified
Information, as well as on those who dis-
close it.
The recommendations are contained in the
draft revision of the executive order that has
governed the security classification system
since 1953.
The draft was submitted to the Depart-
ment of State, Defense and Justice, the Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency and the Atomic
Energy Commission last month for their
comments. A copy was obtained by The
Washington Post yesterday.
After suggestions have come back from
those agencies, a revised draft is expected
to be sent to the President for approval on
his return from China.
The National Security Council draft Is
the result of a year's work by a special inter-
agency committee headed by William H.
Rehnquist, foirnerly an assistant attorney
general and now a Justice of the Supreme
Court.
National Security Council sources said yes-
terday that Rehnquist's contributions to the
revision were "very important. . . He did
yeoman work."
Rehnquist resigned from the Inter-agency
committee when he was sworn in as a mem-
ber of the high court last month, And he has
not been replaced.
If adopted in its currtkit form, the - NSC.
draft would freeze the existing secrecy
stamps on thousands of documents now in
special categories exempt from automatic
declassification over a period of 12 years.
The exempt documents now include "in-
formation or material originated by foreign
governments or international organizations,"
"extremely sensitive information or mate-
rial" singled out by the heads of agencies
and "information or material which war-
rants some degree of classification for an
indefinite period."
The NSC draft abolishes special categories
and introduces a "30-year rule" setting the
time limit for declassification of all future
secret government information.
The time period over which some docu-
ments would be automatically down-graded
in security classification and eventually de-
classified would be reduced from 12 to 10
years.
Documents originally stamped "top secret"
could be made public after 10 years. Those
marked "secret" could be declassified after 8
years, and those with a "confidential" stamp
6 years.
1-c before that time has passed, the NSC
draft suggests, "classified information or ma-
terial no longer needed in current working
files" may be "promptly destroyed, trans-
ferred or retired" to reduce stockpiles of clas-
sified documents and cut the costs of han-
dling them.
A House subcommittee investigating the
availability of classified information has es-
timated the cost of maintaining secret gov-
ernment archives at $60 to $80 million an-
nually.
Although the special review of classification
procedures was commissioned by President
Nixon long ? before the top-secret Pentagon
papers on the War in Vietnam were disclosed
to the public last summer, the NSC draft re-
flects a number of the problems debated
during the Pentagon papers episode.
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
March 1, 19PProved For ReftergIN31,40A:
. RIft1R130-0M9M30400030001-7 H 1639
A
Among the recommendations in the NSC
draft are:
Creation of an "interagency review com-
mittee," whose chairman Would be appointed'
by the President, to supervise all govern-
ment security classification activity and han-
dle complaints from the public about over-
classification.
An annual "physical inventory" by each
agency holding classified material to be sure
that security has been strictly preserved.
Establishment of a requirement that every-
one using classified material not only have a
security clearance, but also demonstrate his
"need for access" to particular items "in con-
nection with his performance of official duties
or contractual obligations."
Tighter control over "dissemination outside
the Executive Branch" to such organizations
as the Rand Corp. in California, which per-
forms defense research under government
contracts.
? Establishment of safekeeping standards by
the General Services Administration to as-
sure that all classified material is appropri-
ately locked up and guarded.
Markings on every classified document to
? make it possible to "identify the indi
or individuals who originally classified each
component."
Establishment of its own rules by every
government agency on when and how it will
make classified information available to Con-
gress or the courts.
The NSC draft lists 41 government agen-
cies which would have the authority to put
classification stamps on documents and other
materials. They range from the White House
and Atomic Energy Commission to the Pan-
ama Canal Co. and the Federal Maritime
Commission.
Several agencies which previously did not
have such authority are added to the list,
such as the White House Office of Telecom-
munications Policy and the Export-Import
Bank.
Only two agencies?ACTION, successor to
the Peace Corps, and the Tennessee Valley
Authority?are to be restricted to the use of
"classified" stamps, and banned from classi-
fying documents "top secret" or "secret."
Except for its final pages, which are
stamped "For Official Use Only," the copy of
the NSC draft obtained by The Post bears no
security marking itself.
It is in the final pages that the National
Security Council makes its recommenda-
tions for revising criminal statutes to deal
with unauthorized'clisclosure of classified in-
formation. The President is offered three
options:
Leaving existing law unchanged.
Revising one section of the federal espion-
age act to omit the requirement that dis-
closure, to be considered criminal, must be
? "to a foreign agent." The revision would make
? it a crime to disclose classified information
to. any unauthorized person.
? Seeking legislation like the British Official
Secrets Act, which, severely punishes those
who disclose and receive classified informa-
tion.
Touching on an issue that was repeatedly
raised during the court cases involving the
? Pentagon papers, the NSC draft also in-
structs:
"In no case shall information be classified
in order to conceal inefficiency or adminis-
trative error, to preyent embarrassment to a
person or agency, to restrain competition
or independent initiative, or to prevent for
any other reason the release of information
Which does not require protection in the
interest of national security."
?
Several judges ruled last summer that pub-
lication of the Pentagon papers, a history
of American involvement in Vietnam, might
cause embarrassment to government officials
but would not endanger the national well-
being.
The draft also substitutes the term "na-
tional security" wherever "national defense"
was used in the previous regulation con-
trolling the classification of information.
One expert on security classification said
yesterday that national security is generally
considered a broader term which permits the
classification of more material.
The NSC draft also provides for classifica-
tion of anything whose "unauthorized dis-
closure could reasonably be expected to re-
sult" in damage to the nation, a less strin-
gent condition than was previously imposed.
The preamble to the draft states that "it
is essential that the citizens of the United
States be informed to the maximum extent
possible concerning the activities of their
government," but adds that It is "equally
essential for their government to protect cer-
tain official information against unauthor-
ized disclosure."
The draft, says the NSC, is intended "to
provide for a just resolution of the conflict
between these two essential national inter-
ests."
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 12, 1972]
PENTAGON FIGHTS SECRETS PLAN
(By Sanford J. Ungar)
The Defense Department is oppoSing a Na-
tional Security Council recommendation that
all classified government information be
made public after being kept secret for a
maximum of 30 years.
Criticizing an NSC draft. revision of gov-
ernment security regulations, the Pentagon
has appealed for a "savings clause" that
would permit agency heads to designate ma-
terial affecting foreign relations which they
believe must remain secret indefinitely in
the interest of "national security."
But the Defense Department also questions
some sections of the NSC draft as unduly
restrictive and has suggested changes that
might have the effect of reducing the number
of classified documents in government
archives.
The Pentagon suggestions are contained
in a memorandum to the National Security
Connell from J. Fred Buzhardt, general coun-
sel of the Defense Department,
The Washington Post has obtained a copy
of that memorandum, one of several that
will be considered by the National Security
Council before submitting the draft for presi-
dential approval.
Meanwhile, members of Congress and other
experts on security classification attacked the
NSC draft for cutting back on public access
to government information rather than ex-
panding it.
Rep. John E. Moss (D-Calif.), the author
of the Freedom of Information Act, said that
"no more stringent regulations are needed.
They are the antithesis of a free society."
Commenting on details of the NSC draft
as revealed in The Washington Post yester-
day, Moss was especially critical of the sug-
gestion that the President seek legislation,
similar to the British Official Secrets Act,
which would severely punish anyone who re-
ceives classified information as well as those
who'disclose it.
Such legislation, Moss said, "would be an
outrageous imposition upon the American
people. I will fight it, and I would hope that
every enlightened American will fight it."
? Rep. William S. Moorhead (D-Pa.), whose
House Subcommittee on Foreign Operations
and Government Information will open new
hearings next month, complained yesterday
that the NSC draft was "aimed only at dos-
ing information leaks in the executive branch
rather than (making) more information
available to the public and in Congress."
Moorhead said he had requested a copy
of the NSO draft from the White House.
Earlier in the day, the Office of Legal
Counsel at the Justice Department declined
to provide a copy to the staff of the Moor-
head subcommittee, saying that it was only
"a working draft."
The Jan. 11 letter of transmittal which
accompanied the NSC proposal when it was
sent to the Departments of State, Defense
and Justice, the Central Intelligence Agency
and the Atomic Energy Commission, however,
called it."the final draft."
The Defense Department recommendations
concerning the draft, sent to the NSC on
Jan. 21, were the product of a review by the
three military departments and "a working
group composed of classification specialists,
intelligence experts and lawyers," according.
to Buzhardt's memorandum.
Buzliardt observed in the memo that the
Pentagon found so many problems with the
draft that it should "be substantially re-
worked before submission to the President."
Among other matters, the Defense Depart-
ment urged an updating of the definitions of
the three security classifications as follows:
"The test for assigning 'Top Secret' classifi-
cation shall be whether its unauthorized dis-
closure could reasonably be expected to cause
exceptionally grave damage to the nation or
its citizens."
As examples of such damage, it cited a
range of situations from "armed hostilities
against the United States or its allies" to the
compromise of cryptologic and communica-
tions intelligence systems."
"Secret" is to be used to prevent "serious
damage" such as "endangerment to the ef-
fectiveness of a program or policy signifi-
cantly related to the national security" or
"jeopardy to the lives of prisoners-of-war."
"Confidential" refers to national security
information or material, the unauthorized
disclosure of Which could reasonably cause
damage to the national security." No exam-
ples were listed in this category.
The Pentagon also said that "it is impera-
tive that these restrictions be imposed only
where there is an established need."
The Defense Department objected, how-
ever, to the NSC's proposed requirement that
every classified document be marked to in-
dicate who had declared it secret. Buzhardt's
memo called this condition "both unrealistic
and unworkable."
Its strongest objection appeared to involve
the NSC suggestion for a 30-year rule guar-
anteeing that all secret documents are re-
leased eventually.
"A savings clause to provide for exceptions
to be exercised only by the agency head con-
cerned is essential to prevent damage to na-
tional security," the Pentagon recommenda-
tions said..
"There are certain contingency plans dat-
ing from the 1920s which should be exempt
from the 30-year rule," the Pentagon critique
added. "Release of such documents would be
unacceptable from a foreign relatisas stand-
point for an indefinite period."
William G. Florence, a retired security ex-
pert for the Air Force, complained yesterday
that the NSC draft, as reported in The Wash-
ington Post, "will continue to permit hun-
dreds of thousands of people to continue
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
Approved For Release Ktffa1URAZDA-RDP80-01601R0004
27 FEB 1972
lQ On
Federal
apers?
. '
? Elisberg Case
? .1Iangs on Answer
By JACK C. LANDAU
. Miami Herald-Newhouse Wire
WASHINGTON ? Who
The rule appeared to he
ov,m4 the Pentagon papers or
'any other' government study? stated flatly in the 1909 Copy-.
,
. Until recently, the answer right Act: "No copyright
would have
(ownership right) shall sub-
been simple. sist in the original te::t ef
6ov6rn- any work or in any publi-
ment studies cation of the United States
belong to the government, or an" reprint,
public. There-
in whole or in part."
fore, accord-
But when The. New York
lag to this
Times refused to stop nubli-
view, newspa-
cation of the Pentagon ra-
pers pri- Pers, Assistant Attorney
Vj .vate citizens General Robert G. 'Mardian
ll
f
d informally:
ELLSBEKG should be free argue ?
"
to publish any government I don't see why we can't
report ? if it doesn't pose stop The Times, if a private
"irreparable and immediate"
danger to national security.
? But as the indictment
against Daniel Ellsberg
? shows, the Justice Depart-
ment, is developing a new
legal restriction on freedom
? .Of the press.
In its view, stich studies
.are government property.
Thus, the government (like -
any private author) can' pros-
ecute for unauthorized use of
the information. ,
AN OFFICIAL of the Re-
gistrar of Copyrights Office
in the Library of Congress
said: "I don't know what to
think. No one has ever ar-
gued before that the govern-
The court of appeals re-
men t owns information, --
jected the argument, but
whether it's classified ?or
press from publishing any-
thing . . reports from HEW
(Department of Health, Edu-
cation and Welfa're) . . .
anything at all except what
they want to ha.nd out.
"Iii many ways," he said,
"this poses as much of a
threat to the press as the at-,
tempt to halt the Pentagon
papers."
UNTIL TI1E ? Pentagon pa-
pers case last June, no one
appeared to question the phi-
losophy of unrestricted use
of government publicalions,
providing that the newsman
could get the report. ?
The late Justice Jo
Harlan noted in his diss
.the Pentagon papers
that the 47-volume stud
parently had been
Joined."
With this background, the
Justice Department proceed-
ed to indict Ellsherg for theft
of "government studies, re-
ports, memoranda and com-
munications which were
things of?value to the United
States."
Now; it's simple legal logic
that the- government cannot
indict Ellsberg, for theft of in-
formation which the govern-
ment deesn't own ?.unless;
of ? cew?se,- the -government
does own the Pentagon pa-
pers.' ? - ?
0030001-7
corporation can stop you
from using stolen informa-
tibn, then why can't the gova
ernment?"
THE JUSTICE Department
presented its 'view before the
U.S: Court of Appeals in
Washington. In asking that
The Washington Post he ban-
ned from publishing the Pen-
tagon papers, Solicitor Gen-
eral Erwin Griswold said that
if "some enterprising paper"
obtained a copy of an un-
published manuscript by Er-
nest Hemingway ? "perhaps
stolen, bought from his sec-
retary or found on the side-
walk" ? Mrs. .HemingWay
could enjoin its publication.
not." (The exceptions are'
Items ? such as secret code?
books and'missile plans).
A lawyer, associated with
The Washington Post said:
"If they 'succeed in arguing
that the government is the
Owner- of government re-
Ports, then they can stop the
?
Griswold raised it again in
the Supreme Court and re-
ceived a sympathetic hearing
from Chief Justice Warren E.
Burger, who said:
"You (The New York
Times lawyer) say a newspa-
per has the right to protect
its sources, but the govern-
Ment does not." .
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
%sIG'QST
rrrs eCt79
Approved For Release 200610W3 l.CtA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
TAT
An Appeal for a Sensible Policy on, National, Detense secrecy
? ? The Washington Post recently published' 2. Definition. A fatal defect of Executive
Order 10501 was the absence of a definition
of "national defense information." That-com-
paratively narrow term was an improvement
over the broader terms "national security"
and "security information" which were dis-
carded in 1953. However, it is imperative
that the designation used be limited se-
verely by specific definition to information
which the President really believes would
damage the national defense and which leads
itself to effective control measures. ,
3. Categories. Consistent with the urgent
need to narrow the scope of protection,
there should be only one eategora of de-
fense information. Internal distribution des-
ignators could be used to limit distribution
of a given item, but there need by only one
classification marking. Experience proves
that three classifications -invite serious con-
fusion, promote uncontrollable overclassili-
cation, and reduce the effectiveness of the
security system.
4. Authority to Classify. The President's as-
sumed authority to impose a defense classi-
sification authority since they are not classi-
cation ought to be exercised by only a tiny
fraction of the hundreds of thousands of
people who rife now classifying. The new
definition and great _importance of the infor-
mation involved would permit limiting clas-
sification authority to persons designated by
the President and to such others as they
might designate. (Individuals who put mark-
ings on documents containing information
classified by someone else do not need clas-
tiers.) As a new procedure. anyone who as-
signs a defense classification to material
which does not qualify for protection should
be made subject to disciplinary action as a
counterfeiter.
5. Declassification. The millions of classi-.
fled papers currently gushing forth cannot -
possibly be kept under review for declassifi-
cation on a document-by-document basis.
But that is no reason for -perpetuating as-
signed classifications as the NSC proposed.
The President should take .the insignificant
risk and cancel the classification on histori-
cal material by appropriate order. As guid-
ance, this writer authoreo DoD Directive
5200.9 in 1958 which canceled the classifica-
news of a National Security Council rccom-
- mendation that the existing secrecy policy
in Executive Order 10501 for safe-guarding
national defense information be reissued in
new -order. Measures currently imposed to
keep Congress and the people from knowi -es
what the Executive branch is doing wouid
be 'continued.
We can all be thankful for the opportunity
,
to explore this subject with the President
anti express our own views. Excessive se-
creecy has ?developed into one of the most
critical problems of our time The court
cases and other events of 1971 show that the
more secret the Executive branch becomes,
the more repressive it becomes. It has al-
ready sadopted the practice of honoring its
own secrets more than the right of a free
press or the right of a citizen to free speech.
The NSC "final draft" revision, as ob-
tained by The Washington Post. claims that
an Executive Order is required to resolve a
conflict between (a) the right oi citizens to
be informed concerning the activities of the
? government and (b) the need of the govern-
ment to safeguard certain information from
unauthorized disclosure. Of course, that Sint-
ply is not true. The Constitution did not cre-
:ate- and does not now contain a basis for any
such conflict. The interests and the power of
the people are paramount in this country.
The only conflict about this matter is the
President's failure to recognize the citizens'
(rights and ask Congress for legislation, in
.. -addition to existing law. tint would provide
the protection he wants for imformation
bearing on the active, defense. of this nation.
The information Could be called National
Defense Data. A specific definition for the
data could be similar to the one already rec-
ommended in the report submitted to the
-President and Congress last year by the Na-
tional Commission on Reform of the Federal
Criminal Code. The President. should take
guidance from the fact that the Atomic En-
ergy Act has been quite effective in con-.
trolling Atomic Energy Restricted Data with-
out objectionable impact on the citizens'
right of access to government activities.
If the President -still insists on having an
Executive order on the subject of safeguard-
ing information, here are some comments
that could be helpful:
1. Updating. The procedures in -Executive
Order 10501 for classifying defense informa-
tion as TOP SECRET, SECRET or CONFI-
DENTIAL are substantially the same as the
Army and Navy used before Worlu War II to
classify military information as SECRET.or
?CONFIDENTIAL. The policy was suitable
for small self-contained militar y forces. All
- of the SECRET and CONFIDENTIAL mate-
rial held .by some of the large Army posts
could fit in a single drawer of a storage cabi-
net. Circumstances are -completely different
today. The strength of our national defense
Is not limited to military effort. It stems
from the vast politico-social-industrial-mili-
tary complex of this country. A cornmensu-
?rate interchange of information is essential.
Therefore, such Executive order as the Pres-
ident considers to be required should he rad-
ically updated.
tion on a great volume of information under
the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense
that had originated through the year 1945.
As for the smaller number el items that
should be produced in the future, declassifi-
cation by the originating authority would be.
practicable and enforceable. Exceptional
classified items, if any, sent to records repos-
itories could be declassified atoomatically
after the passage of a period of time such as
10 years.
6. Privately Owned Information. It is esti-
mated that at least 25% of the material in
this country which bears unjustifiable classi-
fications was privately generated and is pri-
vately owned. The Executive order should
specifically exclude privately owned infor-
mation from the defense classification sys-
tem.
7. .Misrepresentation of Law. The s 'NSC
draft revision would continue the existing
misrepresentation of the espionage laws by
warning that disclosure of information in a
classified document to an unauthorized per-
son is a crime. The law applies only if there
is intent to injure the United States, with no
reference to classification markings. Falsifi-
cation of the law should be eliminated.
'The ? President could do the country a
great service if he . would seek advice from
Congress and others oureide the Executive
branch regarding Executive Order 10501. It
is hoped that many concerned citizens will
help influence the adoption of that course of
action.
WILLIAM G FLORENCE.
Washington.
The writer retired from. the Air Force in
May, 1971, after 43 years of government ser-
vice, including 26 years as a security policy
.spe-ciattsete
S editorial, "Official Secrets.")
. .
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
Approved For Release 20'08/011.MXIAMI:980-01601R000
2 2 FEB 1972
Offidal Secrets
At least three times in the past year the admin.
titration has suffered the embarrassment of unin-
tended leaks of classified information. Intended
leaks are a commonplace?a form of standard op-
erating procedure. Nothing but embarrassment,
however, was entailed in the publication of files
stolen from the Media, Pa., office of the FBI, or in
the publication of the so-called Pentagon Papers, or
th the publication of some reports of National Se-
curity Council sessions obtained and made public
by columnist Jack Anderson. When we say "nothing
but embarrassment" we mean: no irreparable injury
to the country's security, no loss of human life, no
disclosure of vital facts such as the sailing of trans-
ports or the location of troops. Nevertheless, it is
easy to understand why t.;.e -administration was
embarrassed and why it would have preferred to
keep these documents securely locked up in its
own file cabinets. In fact, a great deal of what goes
on in the executive agencies of the government is
wisely and properly kept secret. No one with any
practical sense would suggest that Cabinet meetings
ought to he conducted on television or that the
Pentagon publish all its war plans or that the Secre-
tary of State's talks with ambassadors be made
known to all the world. Confidentiality is a key to
many kinds of policy planning, many kinds of con-
tingency preparation, many kinds of difficult and
delicate negotiation.
Nevertheless, the first responsibility for the
preservation of government secrets is clearly the
government's. And clearly the government isn't
discharging it very well. Thanks to yet another
unofficial leak, this newspaper published the other
day an account of the final draft of a proposed re-
vision of the executive order establishing security
classification procedures. It would prescribe, among
other things, new standards for classification and
declassification of government information. A
highly sophisticated criticism of this proposal is
I
contained in a letter appeasing on the opposite page
N today from William G. Florence, an experienced
security policy specialist formerly with the U.S.
Air Force.
We have no quarrel with the proposed measures
for tightening the physical safeguards for preserv-
thg official documents. And we are in full accord
with the philosophy of the proposal's opening state-
ment: "It is essential that the citizens of the United
States be informed to the maximum extent possible
concerning the activities of their government. In
order that it may protect itself and its citizens
against hostile action, overt or covert, and may
effectively carry out its foreign policy and conduct
diplomatic relations with all nations, it is equally
essential for their government to protect certain
official information against unauthorized dis-
closure."
- One proposal tentatively put forward in the draft
STAT
400030001-7
seems to us, however, to be fraught with danger to
self-government. Existing -law makes it a criminal
offense for any government employee or official to
disclose classified information to a foreign agent;
the proposal would make it a crime to disclose
classified material to any unauthorized person, if
the classification was "secret" or "top secret." In
addition, it is suggested that legislation be enacted
in imitation of the British Official Secrets Act,
which would impose criminal penalties not only
on the government employee, who divulges classi-
fied information but on the recipient of the in-
formation as well. That seems pretty plainly aimed
at newspapers.
But newspapers in America are not agents, or
even allies, of the government. They are, by spe-
cific provision of a written constitution?some-
thing England doesn't have?wholly independent
of governmental regulation, precisely in order to
enable them to serve, in Mr. Justice Hugo Black's
splendid phrase, the governed, not the governors.
If they are to do this effectively, they must be free
to publish, within the limits of their knowledge,
what they believe the public ought to knew. The
very ?essence 'of press freedom, it seems to us, lies
in leaving the determination of what to publish to
editors, when information becomes available to
them, rather than to government officials.
Under American law, the press may not publish
with perfect impunity. It may be called to account
and punished for publishing official information if
it does so with reason to believe that the publica-
tion will do injury ,to the United States. But this is
a standard which imposes on the government, be-
fore publication can be punished, the burden of
proving injury?not merely embarrassment?and
of proving intent. Thus a free press is left free, if
its editors and publishers have the courage of their
convictions, to publish what they think the public
ought to know.
There are risks in this system?as there are risks
in all forms of freedom. But these are risks that a
self-governing society must run if it wants to be in-
formed, in spite of official classification, of corrupt
deals like the Teapot Dome oil leases or the fact
that government agents are maintaining surveil-
lance of persons not charged with, or even sus-
pected, of any violation of law, or the deliberate
manipulation of public opinion to take the country
into war. Official secrets are sometimes disclosed
? because someone inside the government regards.
it as his patriotic duty to make the information
available to a free press, some ramifications of
which are discussed by Kenneth Crawford else-
? where on this page. But to foreclose the publica-
tion of such information, when it is not actually in-
jurious to the nation, is to foreclose an essential
means of keeping control of the government in the
hands of the governed.
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
PITTSBURGH, PA-pp
A roved For Release 2006/01/03: CIA-RDP80-01601
POSTF gtz FIE 1972
? 243,938
GOVERNMENT MOOD KEEPS COVER
oorhe
By MILTON JAQUES
Ppst-Gozette Wanhinoton Correspondent
WASHINGTON ? The mood
In Congress and in the Nixon
administration at this time is
probably against reducing sec-
recy .in government.
? And that is too bad, accord-
ing to Rep. William S. Moor-
head, .? Shadyside Democrat,
Who heads the House subcom-
mittee dealing with govern-
Inca information policies.
?? On h i s own assessment,
. Moorhead feels it would.proba-
bly be futile this year to at-
' tempt-to get liberalizing legis-
lation enacted to the 1967 Free-
? dons of Information Act.
. That leaves Moorhead fac-
?ing the possibility of. holding
extensi,ve hearings on the act
this:-Year, with a view toward
later legislation. .
MoOr head 's assessment
grow S Out of his study during
the ',Past year of government
Information practices. These
range from the "ridiculous" as
practiced by the intelligence
.\/ apparatus, the CentoaLIntetli-
gence Agency, or the "spooks"
as Moothrrt calls them, to the
just plain liureaueracy cover-
ing-up of ' goofs and political
deals with a secrets label.
During the year, too, the
publication ? of the so-called
"Pentagon Papers" and the
"Anderson Paper s" caused
Shocks to race through the
' government over leaks in the
secrecy erected around some
official documents.
THE PENTAGON PAPERS
dealt ?with an official staff
study; ordered by former De-
fense Secretary Robert S.
McNamara on the origins and
background of the unpopular
War In Vietnam. The other
paPers disclosed concerned
apparent differences between
the administration's. pUblic
-and private positions oh the
India:Pakistan conflict.
Moorhead, a lawyer, is deep-
ly involved in the congression-
al discussions on the sensation-
al disclosures. He's chairman
of, the House subcommittec defense interests of the na-
foreign operations and govern-- ti01."
ment information, a wilt of the bat, womo
w15A
House Government larirs?Y I x offalEc o,.rtmcktink uturptre?
Sees No Secrecy C
? His thinking now is that Con-
gress should at . some point
assert its watchdog rote more
over the area of official se-
crets, and the process by
which the government classi-
fies its documents.
-"You can't set up an execu-
tive branch institution to cor-
rect secrecy in the executive
departmcot." Moorhead fig-
ures as point of departure
kr his study. If he had a
proposal to .make, it would be
to have Congress appoint a
commission dealing with the
matter or secret classification
of government documents.
The details of such a com-
mission, and the legislation;to
create it, according to Moor-
head, are "negotiable." He is
inclined toward a measure (S-
2965), introduced by Sen. Ed-
round S. Muskie (D-Me.), the
presidentiar-ispirant, which
would provide Congress and
the public a means for gaining
access to certain information
now locked in government
files.
? ',MOORHEAD INDICATES
he is also impressed with the
testimony given to his subcom-
mittee by at least one former
Peritagon security official who
claims an excessive amount of
information is stamped class-
fled. -
"There are good citizens
within government and outside
who think this classification
has been overdone," Moor-
head says. The object of the
Freedom of Information Act,
he believes "is to make the
maximum amount of informa-
tion available to the public, not
the minimum.
-"ADemocraticsociety
doesn't work well unless it has
the.maximum."
The testimony on over-clas-
sification was supplied by Wil-
liam G. Florence, who said
that "disclosure of information
n at least 99.5 per cent of
th o s e classified documents
could not be prejudicial to the
Centage of information that
should be withheld could range
from one to five per cent, ,
instead of 9.5 per cent. .
Florence obviously in the
Moorhead view is one of those
"good citizens" who believe .
the. classification system has
gotten out of hand.
The mood in the Nixon ad- .
' ministration, a s Moorhead '
sees it, is toward greater se-
crecy, not less. Efforts within
the administration are direct-
ed at stopping leaks, such as
those in the Pentagon Papers
and the incident involving col- ;
urrihist Jack Anderson.
Of course it is a legitiMate
effort to try to prevent leaks,"
Moorhead says. "but it should
have its counterpart in how to
maximize the ao?tount of infor-
mation available."
in "covering up for goofs in
government."
"Whenever somebody h a s
made a mistake, he may try to
cover' that up with a secret
label" Moorhead contends.
"It took a change of admin-
istration and a whole series of
coincidences" for Moorhead
and Sen. William Proxmire
(D-Wis.) to get the informa-
tion leading to their exposing
of the Air Force's? problems
with huge cost overruns on the
C5-A aircraft.
"We never would have got-
ten that information other-
wise," Moorhead says. .
ALONG WITH other Demo-.
crats, Moorhead also suspects
the Republican' administration
may be using secret tags to
cover defense spending for
what might be called political
purposes. The charge grows
out of the administration's call
to Congress for extra funds
this year for the department of
defense.
The feeling in Congress is
that some of the money being
spent in the 1972 election year
could .be. interpreted as for
political purposes if it is di-
rected solely toward relieving
unemployment a n d thereby
helping "to reelect the presi-
? ? !
ANOTHER PROBLEM fac-
ing the subcommittee, Moor-
head feels; is. the amount of. ;
lee way given a President in
revealing secrets. During the
,e-ubcommittee hearings which
tkgin next month former pros- ;
idential press secretaries have j
been invited to testify on this ?
aspect of their work ? at the
-White House. -
President Nixon's recent
speech revealing secret nego-
tiations carried on with the
North Vietnamese about their
American prisoners fo? war
was cited by Moorhead as in
this area of security.
According to Moorhead, the
Nixon' speech disclosing the
talks "blew the cover" (re-
vealed the identity) and dis-
closed the role of presidential
adviser Henry Kissinger. This
presents Congress with the
?
problem that "if you only let
the top elected political official
blow the covers of a country,
then he won't reveal all, just
that which is advantageous to.
.him and keep concealed that
which isn't." ?
Moorhead said the memoirs
of former President Lyndon
Johnson also revealed secrets
with a one-sided treatment to-
ward accuracy. ? .
Secrecy's other uses, the
?
3
figure, PINti-REN0861614610KPOPk400030001-7
Committee. ' ?
marprGTON POST PARADE MAGAZ
Approved For Release 2Oubiui/0133: pararyi.?0-01601R00040 030001-7
EDITOR'S NOTE: Newspaper columnist
Jack Anderson, who exposed the U.S.
role in the recent Indian-Pakistan con-
flict, has been with PARADE nearly 20
years and is today its Washington
Bureau Chief. Readers will recall such
articles in these pages as "Congress-
men Who Cheat," "The Great High-
way Robbery," and "Let's Retire Con-
gressmen at 65."
Like all investigative reporters, An-
derson is provocative and controver-
sial. Many government officials and
.politicians of both parties object to
his ferreting out secrets they would
rcither keep hidden.
In this article, Jack Anderson tells
why he believes the people have a
right to know.
PARADE welcomes the opinions of
Its readers. Tell us what you think of
Anderson's views and in a future issue
we will present g cross-section of the
comments.
- WASHINGTON, D.C.
0 you 'feel as an American citizen
fhat you have the right to know
about an impending war?
This question is pointed up by
the secret documents I got out of the
White House. They tell a chilling story.
While Americans sang of peace on earth
last December, grim men sat in guarded
rooms in Washington, Moscow and
Peking making life-and-death decisions.
The world might have awakened on
Christmas morning, not to jingle bells,
but to the roar of nuclear warfare.
When I became aware of the de-
veloping confrontation, I was deter-
mined to inform the American people.
The only way this. could be accom-
plished was to rip the secrecy labels off
the details. For the dangerous drift to-
ward Armageddon, during the second
week of December 1971, was classi-
? fied top secret.
? Two third-class powers, India and
Pakistan, were fighting over the fate of
East Pakistan. Just offstage, the world's,
three great powers?China, Russia and
the United States ? began making
by Jack Anderson
A tireless muckraker, Jack Anderson
is responsible for important exposes.
On Dec. 7-30 years to the day after
the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor?a
message was received in the situation
room in the basement of the White
House. It was stamped "Top Secret Um-
bra." Umbra means the darkest part of
a shadow. In U.S. intelligence circles, it
is the syrribol for the darkest of secrets.
This cable warned that three Soviet
ships?a destroyer armed with missiles,
a seagoing minesweeper and a tanker?
had passed eastward through the Strait
of Malacca to join other Soviet warships
in the Bay of Bengal.-
China rumblings
Intelligence reports brought into the
White House other evidence that the
Soviets were supporting the Indian
thrust into East Pakistan. There were
simultaneous rumblings out of China
that the Chinese might intervene on the
side of Pakistan,
It was a situation that the U.S. was
better equipped to observe than to
alter.
On Dec. 8, Henry Kissinger, the Presi-
dent's foreign policy czar, told a strat-
Soviet Union, turning half of Pakistan
into an impotent state and the other
half into a vassal." He warned the as-
sembled policymakers that they must
consider the long-range consequences.
They began planning at once to coun-
teract the Soviet ploy. On Dec. 10, a de-
cision was made to send an American
flotilla, led by the carrier Enterprise, into
the Bay of Bengal. The ships, called Task
Force 74, were to make "a show of
force." It was suggested the flotilla
would divert Indian ships and planes
from the war with Pakistan and, there-
by, relieve the pressare on President
Yahya Khan's beleaguered forces. al
Forces 'erted
The risks were apparent. On Dec. 10,
the commander or the Seventh Fleet
flashed the secret word that the "prim-
ary air threat would be from IAF (Indian
Air Forces) aircraft . ." The next day,
Washington }iyarned Task Force 74 that
it "must be alert to the possibility of
provocative and irrational acts by hos-
tile forces." .
Adm. John McCain, the Pacific com-
mander, asked for and received per-
mission to maintain aerial surveillance
of the Russian squadron.
Not long afterward, a new Soviet
squadron, including two guided-missile
destroyers and a pair of submarines, set
sail from Vladivostok for the troubled
waters.
The scene was set for another Gulf of
Tonkin incident. In the secret docu-
ments, the parallels are frequent and
frightening.
Meanwhile, other moves were taking
.place on the ground. The White House
situation room learned the Chinese
were gathering weather reports along
the China-India border, an unusual
move indicative of military interest.
. The Chinese were a worry to the Rus-
sians. In remote Kathmandu, Nepal, in
the Himalayas, the Soviet military at-
tach?arned the Chinese attache that
Chinese intervention _ to aid Pakistan
would be met with massive Russian
,moves in a far morAilt&Sala MieRelea.megYs?
wmectiwng grimly: "We may be wit-
orce.
altt0i31kCilA-BaRA0b91t601RI
pone.
40316
: ccor.
04.'4. intelligence re-
ins to a reliable clan-
AA,141-41.11Nall
11..44.7(
I..
1 c' 'FEB 1972
Approved For Release 2006/01/03: CIA-RDP80-01601R000
_
?
}W RULES URGED
ON SECRET PAPERS:
Se9uri:ty Agency Proposes a
Presidential Order on Law
WOW to The New York Tlmes
? WASHINGTON, Feb. 10?The
National Security Council has
proposed an Executive order
tightening regulations govern-
ing.the handling of classified
information and suggested the
possibility that the President
might seek legislation to make
It a crime for unauthorized per-
sons to receive secret docu-
ments, a White House officiial
said Thursday night.
? The legislative suggestion, if
accepted, would result in a pro-
posal by the President of a
tough new law similar to the
British Official Secrets Act,
Which 1.. imposes stiff penalties
on those who receive as well
as on those who disclose classi-
fied information.
This was one of three alter-
natives suggested for the Presi-
dent in a draft proposal now
being circulated among the De-
partments of State, Defense and
Justice, the Central Intelligence
Agency, and other governmen-
tal bodies, the White House of-
ficial said.
Of the two others, the draft
suggested that the President
might -seek revision of a sec-
tion of the Federal Esr4onage
Act to make it a crime to give
classified information to any
. unauthorized person. The law
now provides penalties for dis-
closure to "a foreign agent."
, e 41
? Other Passibility
The other possibility suggest-
ed was merely that present
laws be left unchanged.
These were the only legis-
lative suggestions in the draft
proposals, which were offered
in response to the President's
demand for a study of the
handling of classifed material,
made shortly after the publica-
tion of the Pentagon Papers,
the Defense Department's se-
cret study of the United States
drift into the Vietnam War.
The other suggestions in the
draft proposal applied primarily
to the classification of Govern-
ment documents, setting up
regulations over how materials
should be classified, the length
of time certain documents
could remain classified, and
who would be allowed to re-
ceive them.
These, the draft proposal
said, could be effected in a re-
vision of the Executive order
that now controls the handling
of classified information.
The draft was being circulat-
ed to the various agencies for
their comments.
.sdiers"--4
400030001-7
Approved For Release 2006/01/03.: CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
STAT
. . ?
By Sanford J. Ungar
I ? ', Washington Poet Staff Writer
WWII.
2' Ftii 1972
Approved For Release 2D0 1/03 : ClA-RDP8Ofl1lQ01R000400 30001-7
elitagoia Fights. eerets Flati
. a?. 1..4 ?
" The Defense Department is
opposing a National Security
'Council recommendation that
all classified government in-
formation be made public
after being kept secret for a
maximum of 30 years.
Criticizing an NSC draft re-
-vision of government security
regulations, the Pentagon has
appealed for a "savings
clause" that would permit
agency heads to designate ma-
terial affecting foreign rela-
tions which tiles believe must
remain secret indefinitely in
the interest of "national se-;
,eurity."
But the Defense Depart-
ment, also questions some sec-
tions of the NSC draft as un-
;.duly restrictive and has sug-
gested changes that might
? have the effect of reducing
the number of classified docu-
ments in government archives.
The. Pentagon suggestions
are contained in a memoran-
dum to the National Security
Council from J. Fred Buz-
hardt, general counsel of the
Defense Department.
The Washington Post has
obtained a copy of that memo-
randum, one of several that
will be considered by the Na-
tional Security Council before
submitting the draft for presi-
dential approval.
Meanwhile; members of
Congress and other experts on
security classification attacked
the NSC draft for cutting back
on public access to govern-
ment information rather than
ekpanding it.
Rep. John E. Moss (D-Calif.),
the author of the Freedom of
Information Act, said that "no
more stringent regulations are
needed. They are the antithe-
sis of a free society."
? Commenting on details of
the NSC draft as revealed in
The Washington Post yester-
day, Moss was especially criti-
cal of the suggestion .that the
President seek legislation,
similar to the British Official
Secrets Act, which would sev-
erely punish anyone who re-
ceives classified information
as well as those who disclose I
it. . ? ?
Such legislation. Moss said,
"would be in outrageous im-
position upon the American I
people. 1 will tight it, and I I
would hope that every enlight-
ened American. willAiiiviiio4e"
Rep. William S Moorhead
(D-Pa.), -w-tose House Subcom- ?
mittee on Foreign Operations:
and ilovernmeat Information
will Open new hearings next
month, complained yesterday
that the N,-,C draft was
"aim :id only t_ closing infor- I
matioa leaks -in the executive;
branch rither than (making) I
more informati.?n available to
the public and to Congress.!'
1110.ml-cad said he had re-1
? quested a copy of the NSC
, draft tram the White House. ?
' Earlli !ti??_1n the day, the Of-
fice of Legal Counsel at the
, Justice Department declined
to provide a copy to the staff
of the -Moorhead subcommit-
tee, saying that it was only
a working draft.
The Jan. 11 letter of trans- -
mittal which accompanied the
NSC proposal when it was
sent to the Departments of
State, Defense and Justice, the
Central Intelligence Agency
and the Atomic Energy Com-
mission, however, called it
"the final draft"
The Defense Department
recommendations concerning
the draft, sent to the NSC on
Jan. 21, were the product of a
review by the three military
departments and "a working
group composed of classifica-
tion specialists, intelligence
experts and lawyers," accord-
ing to Buzhardt's memoran-
dum.
Buzhart observed in the
Irmo that the Pentagon
'eund so many problems with
the draft that it should "be
arbstantially reworked before I
mhmission to the President."
AmJi-t; odic,: matters, the,
Defense Department urged an I
updating of the definitions of I
the th-ee security classifica-i
tions an. follows: ?i
? "The test for assigning
;Top Secret' ? classification i
shall be whether its unauthor-
ized disclosure .,ould reasona-
bly be expected to cause ex-:
ceptionally grave damage to
the nation or :is citizens."
As examples of :inch dam-
age, it cLed a range of situa-
tions from "armed hostilities
against the . United States -or
its allies" to the compromise
of cryptologic and communica-
tions intelligence systems"
? "Secret" is to be usea to
preveitt "set toils damage" ,
'polIcY?significantiy. related - to
the natonai security" or
"jeopardy to the liseS of pris-
oners-?f -war." ? ..
? "Contidential" refers to
national security information
or material, the unauthorized
disclosure of which could 'rea-
sonably cause damage to the
national security." No exam-
ples Were listed in this cate-
gory. .
The 'Pentagon also said that
"it is imperative that these re-
strictions be imposed only
where there is an established
need." .
The I.),?fense Department ob-
jected. however, to the NSC-'s I
proposed requirement - that I
every classified document be
marked to indicate who had
deciared it secret. Buzhardt's
memo called this condition
"both um ealistic .and unwork-
able.",
7sIts strongest objection ap-
peared to involve the NSC
uggesticn for a 30-year rule
guaranteeing that all secret
I documents are released even-
tually.
Ily.s
a
v
i
n
gs clause to provide
for executions to be exercised
wily by the agency head con-
cerned is essential to prevent
damage to national security,"
: the Pentagon recommenda-
tions said ? .
"There are certain contin-
gency plans dating from the.
1920s which should be exempt
from the 30-year rule," the
Pentagon .critique added "Re-
lease of such documents
would be unacceptable from a
foreign relations standpoint
for an indefinite period."
Williani G. Florence, a re- -
tired security expert for the :
?Air Forte. complained yester-
day that the NSC draft, as re-
ported in The Washington
Pest, will continue to permit
hundreds of thousands of peo-
ple to continue putting unwar-
ranted security classifications
on information."
Florence referred to the
practice as ' "illegal censor-
.ship."
? . , .
dalittWA1
CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
VISIIINGTON POST
Approved For Release 16616440191A-RDP80-0160
ST AT
The Washington Merry-Go-Round
Protesters Leak Their
? By Jack Anderson
The planners in the White
;House basement, who howled
in pain over our disclosure of
their India-Pakistan secrets,
have slipped fragments from
the same secret documents to
their friends in the press.
This illustrates how the
White House uses official se-
crecy to control the flow of
news to the public. Favorable
facts are leaked out: unfavora-
ble news is suppressed.
?
The official lcakers are now
spreading the word that Presi-
dent Nixon's pro-Pakistan pol-
icy was not the disaster it ap-
peared but really saved West
Pakistan from dismember-
ment.
' ? As evidence, the boys in the
basement leaked a few selec-
tive secrets to our column-
I writing colleague; Joseph
Alsop, who has excellent con-
tacts at the highest levels of
government.
Alsop stated "on positive au-
thority" that the U.S. govern-
ment had "conclusive proof"
of India's intention to crush
? the main body of the Pakistan
army in. West Pakistan. This
positive proof, he wrote, was
'the centerpiece of every one
of the. CIA's daily reports to
the White House during the
crisis period."
We have read the CIA's
daily reports to the White
House during the India-Paki-
stan war. They are stamped
"Top Secret Umbra," a desig-
?
nation reserved 'for the dar-
kest of the CIA's secrets.
Alsop's 'Proof'
Alsop told us he never read
the CIA reports himself. He
had no way of knowing, there-
fore, that his sources gave him
only part of the story,
These CIA digests, true
enough, raised the possiblitY
of an Indian attempt to crush
West Pakistan. But the same
disgests also suggested India
would accept an early cease-
fire.
Here is a typical excerpt:
"There have been reports that
(Indian Prime Minister) Gan-
dhi would accept a cease-fire
and international mediation as.
soon as East Bengal had been
liberated ... On the other
hand, we have had several re-
cent reports that India now in-
tends not only to liberate East
Bengal but also to straighten
its borders in Kashmir and to
destroy West Pakistan's air
and armored forces."
The strongest CIA warning
was sent to the White House
on December 10. "According
to a source who has access to
information on activities in
Prime , Minister Gandhi's of-
fice," declared the report, "as
soon as the situation in East
Pakistan is settled, Indian
forces will launch a major of-
fensive against West Paki-
stan."
But the CIA also took note
of repeated Indian assurances
to American Ambassador Ken
1R000400030001-7
tat Secrets
Keating that India has no ter-
ritorial ambitions and wished
only tO end the conflict with
the least possible bloodshed.
Dubious 'Proof'
It is clear from the secret
documents in our possession
that the CIA had no "conclu-
sive proof" of an Indian plan
to dismember West Pakistan.
The CIA. had received a num-
ber of reports that a major In-
dian offensive might be immi-
nent on the western front But
these were discounted by both
the State and Defense Depart-
ments.
Only Henry Kissinger, the
President's foreign policy czar,
seemed eager to believe the
worst.
Alsop's sources also told
him that President Nixon in-
tervened with the Kremlin,
threatening "an ugly show-
down," to stop Mrs. Gandhi's
army from carving up West
Pakistan.
In response, Alsop claims
that the Kremlin hurriedly
dispatched Deputy Foreign
Minister Vasily Kuznestsov to
New Delhi on December 12 to
tell Mrs. Gandhi not to attack
West Pakistan.
The secret CIA report on
his mission, however, doesn't
mention any ultimatum
against attacking West Paki-
stan.
"Vasily Kuznestsov arrived
in India on 12 December to
discuss the political recogni-
tion of Bangladesh by the So-
viet Union ...," according to
the CIA. "Kuznestsov has told
Indian officials that the Soviet
Union is not prepared to rec-
ognize Bangladesh until Dacca
falls and until the Indian
army successfully liberates
Bangladesh from Pakistani
forces." .
The question of an Indian
offensive against West Paid-
stan was brought up the next
day by Soviet Ambassador Ni-
kolai .-Pegov. Reported the
I CIA:
"Pegov pointed out that
iIndia has achieved a marvel-
ous military victory. Pakistan
is no longer a military force,
and it is therefore unneces-
sary for India to launch an of-
fensive into West Pakistan to
crush a military machine that
no longer exists.
"If India should decide to
take Kashmir, Pegov added;
the Soviet Union would not-in-
terfere, but India would have
to accomplish this Objective
witlalin the shortest possible
time."
Joseph Alsop is an enter-
prising and conscientious col-
umriist. He acknowledged to
us that "it is possible to be
lied to on the very higheSt
level." But he assured es his
source had "never lied be-
fore."
The evidence in our posses-
sion, however, suggests that
the White House is playing
peekaboo with CIA secrets to
distort the truth. ,
Bell-McClure Syndicet?
04.
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
THE INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE (Paris)
12 Jan 1972
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R
STAT
0400030001-7
Thy Name, Oh Liberty!
? 111IPPARIS.?A few years agu Mau-
rice Couve ? de Murville, the,
-eminent French statesman who
has served his country both as
'foreign minister and premier,
complained to me that it Was im-
possible to talk confidentially
? with American leaders. The rea-
son, he said, was that they im-
mediately made memoranda of
such conversations and distribut-
ed them in Washington and al-
lied capitals. Often these sub-
sequently leaked to. the press.
Rather sadly he commented
that the substance of ? every ..k.._
almost invariably was spreac.:'?::-
yowl its designated aliclienee.
.?, Be-
cently Couve dc Murville had had
'a very confidential discussion
' with an: important American and
yet, two days later, it was publish-
ed in the newspapers. If the
French government specifically
requested that special care be
taken to safeguard 'secrecy, re-
ports were: merely: labelled "top
secret" instead of 'secret" when
they were circulated?and often
Leaked, 2
By C. L. Sulzberger
This made it extremely hard
for France to deal with the
United States.. At that time.
there Were certain pressing and
sensitive issues which Faris felt
required urgent review with
Washington. Yet it was frustrat-
ed because even in informal con-
versations a man like the Amer-
lcdn secretary of state would dic-
tate memoranda?and then these
memoranda, or their substance,
would be classified and sent
around.
Mesmerized
This aspect of the question now
obsessing the United States?
when does the government have
a right to keep its attitudes
secret??is infrequently consider-
ed. .Many are mesmerized by the
thought that the public has a
right to know .everything, . It
doesn't?and' if seriously consulted
on that, very issue, would probably
confirm as much.
?
Americans choose their govern-
ment. by free election and then
freely accept its temporary rule.
But they cannot expect to moni-
tor every decision before, during
and after it has been made, espe-
cially decisibns affecting national
security. or the interests of for-
eign nations. In the latter case,
those foreign .nations will simply
freeze up and cease to deal with
US if all their secrets are aired.
.1 have no 'doubt that stififng
bureaucratic habits of the Amer-
ican administrative machinery
continually err by over-classifying
masses of information that prop-
erly belong in the public domain.
This tendency?which is ob-
servable in all governments
everywhere?should be rigorously
curbed.
But that does not mean the
people should be in a position
to debate military movements-of
each naval vessel or army divi?
sion, the. daily give and Lake of
disarmament discussions with
Russia, tentative suggestions for
truce arrangements in the Middle
East or all tentative travel plans
of President Nixon. The exercise
of such a privilege would produce
administrative chaos equivalent to
anarchy, would strengthen our
adversaries abroad and cost us
our last, foreign friends.. '?
"Oh liberty! Liberty! What
crimes are committed in thy.
name," wrote an outraged Lamar-
tine and this is most certainly a
?
. danger that can be extended to
liberty of the press. Raymond
Aron, the brilliant French pro-
fessor and, commentator, is much
disturbed. He writes: ?
"As far as I am Concerned, it
strikes me as contrary to the
duties of the citizen of a demo-
cratic country, in a normal pe-
riod, to establn himself as a
judge of what should or should
not be published...
"The path upon which men in
political life, functionaries and
journalists are engaged in the
United States seems dangerous to
me... will journalists try to
install microphones in the desk
of the Pfesident in the name of
the public's right, to be in-
formed?"
An excess of freedom in any '
form' of life produces license or
abuse, whether applied to eating,
drinking, sex, driving automobiles
or making noise. Such excesses
are well recognized and generally
democratic societies have built-
in restraints against them, ulti-
.mately applied by servants of the
community paid to enforce laws
suited to the general convenience.
It seems to me that an excess
of freedom can also infect the
press. The proof of this. of '
course, is that no American jour-
nal' lvtaild knowingly publish
blueprints of vital secret weapons
or State Department codes. But
it is evident that dangerous fron-
tiers are being. trespassed when
highly classified information is
made public and .thereby U.S.
relations with foreign countries
are jeopardized. This threatens
confidence in the United States
of those large areas abroad which
depend upon our stability and
discretion for their own security.
? ;Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
XORK TAIAE3
Approved For Release 20196/4M4q1A-RDP80-016014000
Avoiding Cosia)...:i
. liy.C. L. SULZBERGER Therefore, it says: "For the sake of
the free world we must strike now.
PARIS?The following has been sera
to me through the good offices of
Baron C. L. Munchausen, a secret
agent whom I have found to be totally
Unreliable over the years.
This is being written as a public
service. Because of the shortsighted-
ness of the Founding Fathers, who
imposed on the U.S.A. a Presidential
system of government that -does not
allow give-and-take debate between a
prime minister and parliament (as in
England), the press must assume that
role.
In this capacity, as a newspaperman,
I have been made privy to highly
classified documents from SHAPE
headquarters, Belgium, the seat of the
North Atlantic Alliance and Gen.
Andrew Goodpaster, NATO commander
and top United States officer in
Europe. These documents are labeled
"TOP SECRET, NATO COSMIC."
They confirm a clear U.S. intention,
endorsed by all North Atlantic allies
save 1,rance, to stage a?surprise aggres-
sion against the Soviet Union on April
9 1972, the Russian Easter and, even
under the Communist system, a day
of feasting when the guard is down.
Pentagon experts estimate the action
may cost the lives of at least ten
million people between Leningrad,
Murmansk and Archangelsk.
? This operation, only just approved,
Stirred violent debate at the top alli-
ance echelon. Gen. Burnt Njal, chief
? Of the Icelandic military mission, was
so indignant that he sent a personal
envoy to me bearing Xeroxed copies
of the principal documents.
In an accompanying letter he spe-
cifically authorized me to use his
name as the source. He added: "Unless
the American press can halt this mad-
*cap project immediately it threatens
to touch off World War HI' and un-
controlled holocaust. Fortunately you
are not inhibited by any official secrets
act prohibiting publication of classi-
fied documents."
The diabolical OPERATION LEM-
MING agreed on by the NATO defens.2,
ministers denies any aggressive action
against the U.S.S.R. while simultane-
ously threatening all-out retaliatory
nuclear strikes should the Russians
take "protective" action.
. (According to one document classi-
fied NODIS EYES ONLY SACEUR) our
force estimates indicate that within
eighteen mo'nths the Soviets will have
surpassed our own planned defense
levels when their new MIRV systems
and submarine program near corn?
pletion. Approved Fdr R
Our optimum calculation is that this
will insure such a heavy setback to
Soviet planning that for two decades
there will be no. further threat. We
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
STA
00030001-7
General Njal, In a personal letter,
says: "It is your duty as an American
journalist to report these facts before
it is too late. This is the only recourse
left to me. My own Government has?
ignored my warnings. It prefers to
concentrate attention on the extension
of territorial fishing limits.
"Although I have the highest regard
for the people of your country it is
may then turn our attention toward plainly evident to me that this scheme
China. At the very least, by destroy-'is directly related to President Nixon's
mg the population of Leningrad and campaign for re-election."
the two principal White Sea ports, we
will insure control of the Baltic and
the North Atlantic."
"Operation Lemming" stems from
two plans dating back to early cold
war days. A certain U.S. Brigadier
General Michela first contemplated
something of this order after reading
a report from Maj. Gen. Patrick Hur-
ley, then in Chungking.
The Hurley study said Genghiz Khan,
when investing the impregnable Chi-
nese fortress of Volohai,? raised his
siege in return for, delivery by the
Volohai commander of one thousand
cats and ten thousand swallows. Gen-.
ghiz then had woolen tufts tied to their
tails, lit these and released the crea-
tures. They returned to their lairs and
nests and burned the city down.
Hurley proposed similar tactics be
used against Chinese Communist
strongholds. This was refused but
Michela, assigned to a special Wash-
ington study group, suggested a simi-
lar operation against Soviet Russia by
infecting with deadly and communi-
cable germs herds of reindeer.
The reindeer would be driven from
northern Norway into Soviet Karelia.
Selected Lapp agents had been en-
rolled by the C.I.A., but the project
was abandoned because of fears that
symbolic linking of reindeer and Santa
Claus would prove too much for U.S.
public opinion?should there ever be
subsequent leaks.
The present plan envisions use of
lemmings, sthall migratory rodents
whose traditional westward trips often
end in mass suicide by drowning in
boreal waters. According to Njal,
however, American scientists have dis-
covered a method of reorienting the
lemmings' sense of direction so their
leaders can be turned eastward and
will pour into Russia.
Camouflaged biological stations have
been established at Norwegian loca-
tions. There, lemmings are being
sprayed with solutions containing
deadly botulism germs prepared to
have no effect on rodents but unbe-
lievably infectious and deadly for
higigb 2006/01/03 : CIALRDP80-01601R000400030001-7
WASHINGTON POST,
Approved For ReleasebttiOgia : CIA-RDP80-01601R0004000
_
Joseph Kraft.'
The Ancleis'on
apers
JACK ANDERSON achiev? 3 that "he (the President) suspicion that the depart-
ed a journalistic coup in pub. wants to tilt in favor of Paki. ments and agencies are full
stan." of crypto-Democrats out to get
se-
cret White House meetings on
lishing the minutes of the se-
gOn. Dec. 7, in a background the tn gadtmo iVestirnattleonnsi?fids. oAnr1i3ci
se_sion with reporters subse-
the India-Pakistan crisis. But quently released by Sen. Bar- that deep suspicion is going
how much of a hero is the ry Goldwater, Dr. Kissinger to yield two sets of adverse
man 'Who leaked the informa- said: "There have been some reactions. ?
For one thing, security will'
,
tIon? comments that the adminis- be tightened. There is apt to
t-My strong impression is tration is anti-Indian. This Is be an end to the kind of min-
that he accomplished very lit- totally inaccurate." utes that were taken at Dr.
tte public good, if any. On the Seen thus starkly, Dr. Kls?
Kissinger's meetings. They
contrary, his actions are al- singer told a flat lie. My im- will certainly not be spread
most certain to drive the Nix- pression is that, taken in the tnthri;oreu.:.th the bureaucracy any-
.an administration deeper than larger context, his remarks Secop.dly, the limited access
ever into secret dealings on a at the secret conference were which experienced officials
restricted basis, not in such flagrant contra- now have to White House de-
On the good side of the diction with his remarks at cision-making is going to be
edger, the leak has now pro- the background briefing. Still, even further curbed. The
vided unmistakable informa-, he was plainly trying to. ma- President and Dr. Kissinger
tion that the President delib- nipulate public opinion. are. going to keep things to
Icy in favor of Pakistan and .
? erately tilted American poi-
BUT SO WHAT? Does the themselves more than ever.,
new evidence do more than Important decisions which are
against India. But that much
was known to everybody in confirm a universal Judg- even now made with too little
touch with the State Depart-
ment? After the U-2 and the /consultation. ? and with too
ment and White House at the
Bay of Pigs and the credibil- small an input from the out-
time of the crisis. ity gap, is there anybody not side are going to be made by'
Sens. Edmund Muskie, Ed-
impossibly naive or 111-inform- an ?even more narrowly dr-
ward Kennedy and Frank .
ed who doesn't know that the cumscribed group of men.
Church, among others, said government lies? Is one more No doubt Anderson gets
bit of evidence a noble act? high marks for his acumen
so. Hundreds of us wrote it. and industry and courage as
Indeed, one reason Henry Kis-
Or is it just a pebble added a journalist'. But his source,
to the Alps? the man who leaked the stuff,Singe held hi background a
briefing of Dec. 7 was to take Set against these gains, is something else. Whatever
h'
.there is the way the admlnis-
is motives, he has done this
the edge off the charges the
White House was biased in tration is .apt to react. Maybe country _a disservice. ?
favor of Pakistan. the President and Dr. Kissin-
A second and more impor- ger are going to say to them-
taut gain from the revelation
selves: "Golly, we sure erred
in not telling the truth and
has to do with information nothing but the truth. Jack
about -the way the govern- Anderson has taught us that
ment works. The secret min-
utes provide detailed, irrefu-
honesty is the best policy."
table evidence that clay-to-day But much more likely, they
foreign policy is made in the
are going to feel that the min-
White House as never before.
utes of- the meeting were le-
They equally show that top gitimately classified internal
.
officials allowed themselves
working papers of the govern-
y
to be treated as mere lackeys ment. Probabl they are going
by the White House. Some of
to feel that the stuff was leak-
them?including such sup-
ed not for any large purpose,
posed heavyweights as the
but out of opposition to the
chief of naval operations? policy, And almost certainly?
said, and apparently regularly and I say this as an opponent
say, things silly enough to of the policy?they will be
Issue from the mouth of right in this surmise,
Bertie Wooster. In these circumstances, the
? Then there is the matter of limited trust they have in the
outside world is going to be
truth-telling. According to the
minutes released 4 Ander-
even more sharply. limited.
meeting, of officials on Dec.
have. of me hureaucracy.7?a
Eon, Henry Kissinproyegi Rim Redellide *wove-fugal' CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
,
ExTp,n A ruBLInER
Approved For Release 2004014n :=-RDP80-01601R0004
Anderson scoop
a challenge to
secrecy system
Played originally in its customary spot
on the comics page in the Was hinton
Post, Jack Anderson's Merry-Go-Round
column based on secret/sensitive White
House notes burst into front page head-
lines in that newspaper on Wednesday
(January 5).
Anderson said he intended his revela-
tion of India-Pakistan war policy memos
to challenge the government's security
classification system. He declined to iden-
tify his sources but suggested they hold
high places in the Nixon Administration.
"To name the sources," the columnist
said, "'would embarrass the Administra-
tion and make a very funny story."
Taking him up on his televised offer to
make the documents available to members
of the press and officials, a Washington
Post representative inspected them and
then obtained typewritten copies of photo-
copies of the documents in Anderson's
possession. Later, Anderson gave copies
of his material to other newspapers, the
AP and UPI.
More than column gave
Post reporter Sanford J. Ungar said
the full texts provided substantially more
details of discussions of the National Se-
curity Council's Washington Special Ac-
tion Group than Anderson had given in
his column which was distributed by Bell-
McClure syndicate to about 700 newspa-
pers for publication Monday, January 3.
The documents substantiated Ander-
son's story that Dr. Henry Kissinger, the
President's adviser on foreign policy, had
directed administration spokesmen to sup-
port the anti-India policy. Kissinger as-
serted his remarks had been quoted "out
of context."
Initially, Anderson told the Post, his
sources provided only a few documents,
written on the stationery of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and of a Defense Depart-
ment officer, G. Warren Nutter. Eventual-
ly he said he talked them into compiling
for him what he considered to be a com-
plete set. Then he decided it would be a
good opportunity to force a showdown on
the system of classifying government in-
formation.
The FBI reportedly was trying to de-
termine the source of the leak.
Anderson said he also had copies of
cables from U.S., ambassadors to India
and Pakistan, as well as numberous other
documents bearing on American policy,
but he decided to protect them lest they
be useful to cryptographers.
_
Ellsberg arraigned
The columnist's coup coincided with the
arraignment of Dr. Daniel Ellsberg on a
new set of charges related to his leaking
of some of the Vietnam war policy papers
to the press last summer. Federal Judge
Matthew Byrne Jr. in Los Angeles set
trial for March 7 for both Ellsberg and
his co-defendant, Anthony J. Russo, but
indicated it may have to be postponed.
Ellsberg, who has admitted giving the
documents to news media, declared in
court, "I am not guilty for any of the
offenses charged." He pleaded "not
guilty" to each of 12 counts in an indict-
ment, charging theft of official documents
and conspiracy.
His attorney, former U.S. Senator
Charles Goodell, (R-N.Y.), told newsmen
the indictment "charges Ellsberg and
Russo with stealing the truth and telling
it to Americans." Ellsberg said he "de-
cided to give the Pentagon papers to the
American people" more than two years
ago when Goodell introduced a bill to end
U.S. involvement in Vietnam by the end
of 1970.
0030001-7
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
CHICAGO, ILLf?PProved For Release 200.6/01/03: CIA-RDP80-01601R00
TRIBUNE 1
? Si
? 767,793
a 041(6' 27972(---
ea
rqT 7'7
dr6
C
STAT
400030001-7
STAT
zzpers Gra india?
BY JOHN MACLEAN
[Chicago Tribune Press Service]
WASHINGTON Jan. 5?The resident tnat
e are no e-
rederal Bureau of Investiga-
-
"Kissinger: I am getting hell administration more than it
every half hour from the
.tion today investigated leaks of ing tough enough on India. lie
secret memoranda of high-level., has just called me again. He
White House consultations dur-1, does not believe we are carry-
the/Jack Anderson, whose svndi-
India-Pakistan War. ing out his wishes. He wants
/
1, to tilt in favor of Pakistan. He
cated column Washington
feels everything we do comes
'
Merry-Go-Round appears in out otherwise."
"Dr. Kissinger said that who-
-700 newspapers, released the e
text of the secret papers. ver was putting out back-
Anderson has been writing
dolunms from the material 'and
.has concluded "that Presiden-
tial_ braintruster Henry Kiss-
inger lied to reporters when he
told th,2.in the Nixon adminis-
tration wasn't anti-India." .
Why Papers Released
Anderson released the papers
'because Kissinger, President
Nixon's chief adviser on na-
tional security affairs, said
Anderson "took out of context"
. remarks indicating the admin-
istration was against India in
its recent war with Pakistan.
ground information relative to
the current situation is pro-
voking Presidential wrath. The
. President is under the 'illu-
sion' that he is giving instruc-
tions; not that he is merely
being kept appraised of affairs
as they progress. Dr. Kissinger
asked that this be kept in
mind."
"Dr. Kissinger said . .? 'it
is quite obvious that the Presi-
dent is not inclined to let the
Paks be defeated.' "
"Dr, Kissinger then asked
whether we have the right to
authorize Jordan or Saudi Ara-
The FBI investigation re- bia to transfer military equip-
portedly has narrowed down ment to Pakistan." [Anderson
to the National Security Coun- said this morning on the tele-
cit after checks in the Depart- vision program Today that he
meats of State and Defense, has additional memos which
Spokesman for the White show that fighter planes were
House, State Department, and
Pentagon used nearly identical
phrases as they declined to
answer all questions on the A cutoff of military aid to
Subject. The response of Charles Pakistan was ordered early
Bray, State Department spokes_ last year].
man, was typical when he told ? "Dr. Kissinger also directed
reporters: "I won't discuss the that henceforth we show a cer-
issue." Asked why he wouldn't tam n coolness to the Indians.
he said, "because I won't."
The documents are minutes
Of. three meetings of a special
action group of high level of-
ficials of the National Security
Council. I
Some of Highlights
Excerpted from t1413KRY
here are some of the high-
lights:
among the things being con-
sidered in a scheme to
"sneak" aid to the Pakistanis.
The Indian ambassador is not
to be treated at too high a
level."
From High Sources
Anderson indicated the docu-
ments came from high sources
within the Nixon administra-
earFor Release 2006/01/03
"If the. sources were identi-
fied, it would embarrass ?the
would me," he said. "It would I
make a very funny story." i
Anderson said his sources for
the story consider United States
handling of the Indian-Pakistan
affairs a "colossal blunder."
Anderson released the docu-
ments to newsmen with the
urging that they compare them
with Kissinger's remarks dur-
ing a briefing of newsmen on
Dec. 7.
' Kissinger held a lengthy and
unusual .briefing on that day
detailing what he said were the
Nixon administration's actions
regarding the India-Pakistan
conflict.
He disclosed that India had
attacked Pakistan even tho the
United States has informed
India that Pakistan was willing
to make concessions.
- 'India a Great Country'
? "There have been some com-
ments that the administration
is anti-Indian," Kissinger said.
"This is totally inaccurate.
"India is a great country ...
when we have differed with
? India, as we have in recent
weeks, we do so with great
sadness." .
The memoranda released by
Anderson deal with meetings
held before this briefing, the
last one on the day before the
briefing, ?Dec. 6.
1 The sessions were attended
by heads of the Joint Chiefs of
? Staff, Centr
Agency, and representatives of
the Defense and State Depart-
ments. ? ?
Kissinger was chairman -of
the meetings, which typically
involved an appraisal of the
situation in the India-Pakistan
conflict followed by discussion
of hi S,..x.gikey and possible ac-
i? -rWra0-01601R0004
All the Anderson documents" /
were marked "secret/sensi-
tive," but it is doubted the
federal government will take
any action to stop publication.
. The Supreme Court's decision
last June in the Pentagon Pa-
pers dispute ruled in favor of
newspapers publishing the se-
cret Pentagon study. The high
court cited a 1963 decision that
"any system of prior restraint
of expression comes to this
court bearing a heavy pre-
sumption against its constitu-
tional validity."
The Supreme Court said then
that government had failed
to Meet- the "heavy ?burden"
needed to justify such.a move.
A typical .exchange 'involved
Kissinger and Maurice Wil-
liams, of the State Department
staff.,
During the Dec. 6 meeting,
Kissinger asked if there al-
ready had been a massacre of
Bihari people living in -East
Pakistan. Williams said he ex-
pected there would be killing
of these people in reprisal for
their support of West Pakistan.
"Mr. Williams states that
perhaps an international hu-
manitarian effort could be
launched on their behalf. Dr. -
Kissinger asked whether we
should be calling attention to ,
the plight Of these people now.
Ir. Williams said that most of
these people were centered,
around the rail centers . . .
and that some efforts on their
behalf might now well be :
started thru the United Na- ?
tions.
"Dr. Kissinger suggested that
this be done quickly to prevent
a bloodbath. Mr. Sisco [Joseph
Q9134C)(M)194 Far Eastern af-
.
J
flflOtL?-IT:7711
Approved For Releas2aY/0119R3 : CIA-RDP80-01601 000400030001-7
,
Washington; Jan. 5 (NEws Bureau) ?Disturbed Nixon administration officials:
admitted today, after a two-week intensive manhunt, that they have failed to uncoveri
the source of the most Sensationalleak of White House secrets in modern history.
- ?. The secrets, revealing in now ' les of cables, ,orders, direct-Fes .'
painful detail the inner debates
Of the National Security Conn- and official recommendations. 1
cil's Washington Special Action The administration was caught
Group at the peak of the ludo- flat-footed with no warning of
Pakistan war, were wrapped up a leak on Dec. 14 when the first
in three long_ memoranda for the? Anderson column appeared, quot-
record. - ing notes about meetings held
White House Silent barely a week earlier. The quotes
., Syndicated columnist Jack, were authenticated quickly and
Anderson released texts of the ' the bunt for the source was he-
memos to the press generally to- gun.
'day. He has been -quoting seg; One official said that to date,.
rnents of them in occasional the case has been regarded as
-columns for two weeks. an ' "administrative" affair and
- The White House, which is di- not a cause for criminal action.
reefing the search for the leak,
There were 11 officials at the
.refused comment on the case. But
in private officials expressed first meeting and 19 at each of
grave concern that sensitive the next two. Henry Kissinger,
?,col-crimicnt infi-Tmation distri- foreign affairs adviser to ' the
buted enly on a "need to know"
ba-?is could become public so President, presided at all three
I
SW if ay. meetings, and Central Intelli-
There was no denial of the gence Agency Director ' Richard
-authenticity of the documents.
Helms was Present at all of them,
Anderson, amused at the ad- but representatives from t Ii (.
ministration's discomfort, said State Department and - the Pen-
the papers came from high tagon varied. - .
"sources, and added, "If the
;
sources were identified, it would
embarrass t h e administration i
.more than it would me." .
..
FBI Makes Check
i----An official dose to the man-
hunt denied that a "high source"
Was involved with the leak but
mould not amplify the statement.
'? The FBI, asked to assist the
!'search, has made. a cursory check
but because of the, small number
of top- level officials who were
.present at the Special Action
}Group meetings, has not launched
an intensive investigation -z- vet.-
? The case is considered of vastly
, greater importance than that of
Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon
. ?papers, because it is undeniable
-evidence that someone with a
pipeline to innermost White -
House consultations has other
;than the interests of Presidenti
'Nixon at heart.
r?ROTITever; because of the nature,
of the douuments, and despite
their super - sensitivity, it was
suggested by some officials that
the individual concerned probably
would not be prosecuted, but
Merely- fired, if his identity be-
came known.
The memos were records of
notes of the Special Action
Group meetings on Dec. 3, 4 and
6, not official transcripts. While
the papers were stamped "secret
'sensitive," they did not include,
as did the Pentagon papers, cop-..
STAT
Approved For Release 2006/01/03: CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
t
Low-Key' U.S. Inquiry
tbn Disclosures Foreseen
NEW YORK TIMER
Approved For ReleeteMOWC41/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R0004
0030001-7
nderson Ready for Battle "
Government but Appears Unlikely
to Get One
?
es '
By JACK ROSENTHAL
i"4 1 ' ? Special to The New York Times
, oWASHINGTON, Jan. 5?The referring to Dr. Daniel Ellsi "When I first ? starting get- tides prior to releasing the full
i -
lumnist Jack Anderson said
berg, the former Defense De 1 ting them," he said, "I felt very documents to other newspapers,
'Co '
partment official indicted for!istron?1h that these documents . .
his-role in the Pentagon papers Ishoulcl not have been classified,/, d
day that he was ready, if
.necessary, for a battle with the
.0overnment over his disclosure
of _secret. India-Pakistan papers,
but he appeared unlikely to
gee it. .
-The Justice Department con-
Ceded that the matter was un- of- -White House strategy ses- Round, a Washington expose,
der investigation but would say sions during the Indian-Pakis-I column with more than 700 military secrets involved, only
no-more. And officials of three tani war, to 17 ncw potential embarrassment.spapers,j newspaper subscribers, since i
agencies, speaking privately, the Asmiciated Press and United the death in 1969 of Drew "And if something is classi-
' '
left the impression that the Ad- Press International Pearson, its founder. Five other fled 'Secret' just because it
At first, he declared, he was
case. In fact, Mr. Anderson saidd 'secret,' but `censored.'. The "cautious, even timid." The
h ? fl ' d 1 ? 'security stamp is being used 'fighting was still going on and
. .
. ,.
is continuing. ;as promiscuously as a stapling
-Today, his office distributed'ne."
i
copies of three of the docti-i; Mr. Anderson has presided
ments. secret internal accounts over Washington Merry-Go-
.he had determined that he
;would print no military secrets,
he declared.
It became evident to him, he
E went on, that there were no
ministration regarded the dis- The impression of apparent! reporters work for Mr. Ander-
.clo'sures more as an embarrass- Government calm appeared to! son, but it was he himself who
ment than as a damaging differ from the reaction mr.; obtained the documents in the
could be embarrassing, then
secrecy no longer means any-
thing," he asserted. "I said to
my staff, 'Let's publish all we
. One official said that "meas- eneed. "I've had no overt, di-II
1 Through its 35-year history,
, current controversy.
security breach. Anderson said he had experi-ican get until the Government;
?itred, low-key analysis" might
even be a more accurate de- told of recerect threats," he said, but lie:.the column has developed a adopts a sensible policy on
classification."
wing telephcmeireputation for pursuing tips and ...
scr,iption" than the word "inves- calk from two officials, alsol rn
: leads from Government e-
tigation, in contrast to prior friends, saying that he risked:
vitensive inquiries by the Jus- being indicted. .
tice Department into security And there are more subtle,
ployes, often anonymous.
Mr. Anderson today offered
the following guarded chronol-
leaks. sophisticated pressures V011 ?gY of how he had obtained
7-4 is widely felt that these learn to sense," the columnist the current set of documents.
hftve often been undertaken said "During "During the India-Pakistan
more for deterrent effect than He said he understood that I war, one of my sources told me
out-of real hope of discovering f}'dpral inveotierir,n ,,- 1 we were bungling. Here was a
?.reporters' sources. But this
time. an official said: "There's
no,banging of cymbals. Right
now, we're assessing where we
are "
.
disclosures was being coordi- conflict between a military dic-
nated bv Robert C. Mardian. :tatorship and the world's sec-
head. of t he .1 ustice Depart- !ond largest democracy, and
iwhose side did we?the largest
ment's Interol Security Divi-
idemocracy?come out on? The
?? Reflecting the same relative "I,f fMr.n is going Mardian ? ?
? no to ,dictatorship."
senior Pentagon sources investigate me, I guess gl should ? His sources became even
-said the disclosures primarily investigate him," Mr. Anderson more troubled, he recounted,
-affected diplomatic sensitivity declared. "1 expect I'll find out .when American warships were
Tither than military security. more about him than he will
??sent into the Bay of Bengal.
i , j..ower-Level Source Seen on_tne. I don't tnink the Gov-. They feared that' the Soviet
=?.?
Union might react. "It sounded
tAnd some officials, noting ?-?
ernment has ac much right til like another Gulf of Tonkin sit-
l
:that, as many as 25 persons in investigate reporters as they! like
but much hairier," Mr.
The?Pentagon alone had access do to investigate the Govern-
i0..the documents, which dealt ment-
with United States policy to- In any event, he added, he
ward the Indian-Pakistani con_ is sure no investigation can
Viet, expressed belief that Mr. uncover his sourees?"unlesS
And,erson's source was not a the sources themselves are
trusted senior official but pos- careless." He said no previous
'4ibly a junior assistant. - investigation, including one
i This was. at odds with Mr. last summer that reached the
Anderson's view, expressed in grand jury stage, had succeed-
an"- interview today. "my ed in doing so. The investiga-
solutes?and they are plural_ tion last summer concerned an
are .some of their own boys," article Mr. Anderson had writ-
be7said. "And if they want to ten about plans for bombing
finger them, they're going to in Vietnam.
wind up' with bubble gum all The view within the Govern-
over their faces."A.? ment that the disclosures were
,,,These sources are fit4ticttiledeFetrifielease 2Q061OrW
?bergs who left the Government .aging, squared with Mr. Ander-
iwo?years ago," he continued, il son's own assessment.
Anderson said.
Documentation Requested
He said he had persuaded his
sources that if they wanted him
to .write about their -fears he
would have to have access to
documents to authenticate his
reports.
"They gave me a dozen rep-
resentative documents."' Mr.
Anderson said. But he insisted
that he could not rely only on
selected papers. he explained.
"In time, they let me see a
whole massive file of docu-
ments " he said. "Then I, not
8idyChAi-REQ81140601R00 400030001-7
Ultimately, he used secret
passages in a- toal of seven ar-
te.....?????????411
NU YORK TIUg
Approved For Release62nO1ga : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
wa:
Texf? of secret -Documents on ribp7Leve
Special to The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Jan. 5?Following are the tests of three secret
documents made public today by the columnist Jack Anderson describ-
ing meetings of the National Security Council's Washington Special
:Action Group on the crisis between India and Pakistan:
Memo on Dec. 3 Meeting
? Secret Sensitive
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
- WASHINGTON, D. C. 20301
r? Refer to: 1-29643/71
'International Security Affairs
:Memorandum for Record
. SUBJECT
? WSAG .meeting on India/Pakistan
!participants.
? 'Assistant' to the President for national
t security. affairs?Henry A. Kissinger
'Under Secretary. of State?John N.
; Irwin
Deputy Secretary of Defense?David
/ Packard
Director, Central Intelligence Agency?
Richard M. Helms
,Deputy Administrator (A.I.D.)?Maurice
J. Williams
( 'Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff? Adm.
Thomas H. Moorer
Assistant Secretary of State (N.E.E.A.R.)
?Joseph J. Sisco ?
Assistant Secretary of Defense (I.S.A.)
? -??G. Warren Nutter
Assistant Secretary of State (1.0.)?
Samuel De Palma
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense (I.S.A.)?Armistead I. Selden
Jr.
,Assistant Administrator (A.I.D/N.E.S.A.)
?Donald G. MacDonald
TIME AND PLACE
. 3 .December 1971, 1100 hours, Situa-
tion Room, White House.
SUMMARY
I Reviewed conflicting reports about
major actions in the west wing. C.I.A.
agreed to produce map showing areas
;of East Pakistan occupied by India.
.The President orders hold on issuance
of additional irrevocable letters of
-credit involving $99-million, and a hold
'on further action implementing the $7-
P.L. 480 credit. Convening of
:Security Council meeting planned con-
tingent on discussion with Pak Ambas-
sador this afternoon plus further clari-
fication of actual situation in West
.Pakistan. Kissinger asked for clarifica-
lt;on of secret special interpretation of
iMarch, 1959, bilateral U. S. agreement
with Pakistan.
KISSINGER: I am getting hell every
half-hour from the President that we
HELMS: Concerning the reported ac
tion in the west wing, there are con-
flicting reports from both sides and the
only common ground is the Pak attacks
on the Amritsar, Pathankot and Srina-
gar airports. The Paks say the Indians
are attacking all along the border; but
the Indian officials say this is a lie.
In the cast wing the action is becoming
larger and the Paks claim there are
now seven separate fronts involved.
KISSINGER: Are the Indians seizing
territory?
HELMS: Yes; small bits of territory,
definitely.
SISCO: It would help if you could
provide a map with a shading of the
areas occupied by India. What is hap-
pening in the West?is a full-scale at-
tack likely?
MOORER: The present pattern is puz-
zling in that the Paks have only struck
at three small airfields which do not
house significant numbers of Indian
combat aircraft.
HELMS: Mrs. Gandhi's speech at 1:30
may well announce recognition of
Bangladesh.
MOORER: The Pak attack is not
credible. It has been made during late
afternoon, which doesn't make sense.
We do not seem to have sufficient facts
on this yet.
KISSINGER: Is it possible that the
Indians attacked first and the Paks sim-
ply did what they could before dark
in response?
MOORER: This is certainly possible.
KISSINGER: The President wants no
more irrevocable letters of credit issued
under the $99-million credit. He wants
the $72-million P.L. 480 credit also held.
WILLIAMS: Word will soon get
around when we 'do this. Does the
President understand that?
KISSINGER: That is his order, but I
will check with the President again. If
asked, we can say we.. are reviewing
our whole economic program and that
the granting of fresh aid is being sus-
pended in view of conditions on the
subcontinent. The next issue is the U.N.
IRIVIN: The Secretary is calling in the
Pak Ambassador this afternoon, and the
Secretary leans toward making a U.S.
move in the U.N. soon.
KISSINGER: The President Is in favor
.are not being tough enough on India, of this as soon as we have some con-
'He has just called me again. He does firmation of this large-scale new action.
not believe we are carrying out his If the U.N. can't operate in this kind of
'wishes. He wants to tiliktegrENtrd oittRiNeatfec120053/01103tYMAGRDP
Pakistan. He feels every g we do to an end and it is useless to think of
comes out otherwise. - U.N. guarantees in the Middle East.
SIS-CO: We will have a recommenda-
tion for you this afternoon, after the
meeting with the Ambassador. In order
to give the Ambassador time to wire
ome, we could tentatively plan to con-
vene the Security Council tomorrow.
KISSINGER: We have to take action.
The President is blaming me, but you
people are in the clear.
SISCO: That's ideal!
KISSINGER: The earlier draft for
Bush is too even-handed.
SISCO: To recapitulate, after we have
seen the Pak Ambassador, the Secretary
will report to you. We will update the
draft speech for Bush.
KISSINGER: We can say we favor
political accommodation but the real job
of the Security Council is to prevent
military action.
SISCO: We have never ha'd a reply
either from Kosygin or Mrs. Gandhi.
WILLIAMS: Are we to take economic
steps with Pakistan also?
KISSINGER: Wait until I talk with
the President. He hasn't addressed this
problem in connection with Pakistan
yet. ?
SISCO: If we act on the Indian side,
we can say we are keeping the Pakistan
situation 'under review."
KISSINGER: It's hard to tilt toward
Pakistan if we have to match every
Indian step with a Pakistan step. If you
wait until Monday, I can get a Presiden-
tial decision.
PACKARD: It should be easy for us
to inform the banks involved to defer
action inasmuch as we are so near
the weekend.
KISSINGER: We need a WSAG in the
morning. We need to think about our
treaty obligations. I remember a letter
or memo interpreting our existing
treaty with a special India tilt. When I
visited Pakistan in January, 1962, I was
briefed on a secret document or oral
understanding about contingencies aris-
ing in other than the SEATO context.
Perhaps it was a Presidential letter.
This was a special interpretation of the
March, 1959, bilateral agreement.
Prepared by:
/S/ initials
JAMES M. NOYES
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near
Eastern, African and South Asian Af-
fairs
Approved: ?
(illegible signature)
For G. Warren Nutter Assistant Sec-
retary of Denfense for International
Security Affairs
Distribution: Secdef, Depsecdef, CJCS,
ASD(ISA), PDASD(ISA), DASD: NEASA
r.581ACO, ?
1 4 ? 440 IP3NSCA:
74,
1AT
SAT
corltlzuod
N.EW YORK TIMES
Approved For Releafieale6W14103 : CIA-RDP80-01601
113. ENVOY IN INDIA
DISPUTED POLICIES
BACKING PAKISTAN
Keating Said Explanation of
Nixon's Stand Was Hurting
.:.;.:Americans' Credibility
ACTS ALSO QUESTIONED
Ambassador's Cable Bared
. by Columnist, Who Also
Replies to Kissinger
By BERNARD GWERTZMAN
- specig to The New York Times
. WASHINGTON, Jan. 5?Ken-
neth B. Keating, United States
Ambassador .to India, com-
plained in a secret cablegram to
The documentrprovide "ari
unusual look into the thinking
and actions of Mr. Nixon and
his advisers on national se-
curity affairs at the start of
the crisis, which eventually led
to the Indian capture of East
Pakistan and the establishment
of, a breakaway state there
under the name Bangladesh.
Because the White House Se-
curity Action Group, known
here as WSAG, did not have a source of contention between i that he was correct in predict-
formal structure, the language Mr. Kissinger and Mr. Ander- ing that the Russians would
of Mr. Kissinger and the other :son. In it Mr. Kissinger said that Push for permanent use of a
participants was often looser,!1the -United States was not base at Visag, on India's east
"anti-Indian" but was opposed coast.
more piquant and franker thanj to India's recent actions. Mr. Often Mr. Helms simply read
that in public statements byl Anderson, seizing on the denial, rival claims by Pakistan and
Mr.-Kissinger and other Admin- sought to prove that the Ad- India, without making any
istration spokesmen at the ministration was "anti-Indian," judgment on their accuracy?
time. and therefore lying. ! indicating that the United
On Dec. 3, the day that full-
scale fighting broke out, Mr.
Kissinger told the White House
strategy session, according to
one document:
"I am getting hell every half-
hour from the President that
we are not being ;tough enough
on India. He has just called me tion withtion with Foreign Min-hdians from extinguishing West
again. He does not believe we India "was reluctant to see a
ister Swaran Singh was that IpaAkifsttearn.t"h"
e war was over Mr.
are carrying out his wishes. He relief program started in East;iNixon said in an interview in
STAT
R000400030001-7
Pakistan. 'Ambassador 'Keating
cated that intelligence informa-
is also understood to have
tion on the situation in South
argued since March. when the
Asia was quite thin, at least
repression began, for a state
in the early stages.
. Mr. Helms and the Joint
Chiefs of Staff?while agreeing
that India would win in East
Pakistan ? disagreed on the
time it would take. Adm. Elmo
R. Zumwalt. Jr., Chief of Naval
Operations, came close by say,
ing it would take one to two
weeks but there is no sign yet
ment against Pakistan.
Mr. Keating's cable, dated
Dec. 8, was in response to the
United States Information
Agency's account of a briefing
given by Mr. Kissinger at the
White House on Dec. 7, setting
forth the Administration's justi-
fication for its policy.
That briefing also became a
.Dispute Over Relief
In his briefing Mr. Kissinger
States had no independent in-
formation.
Fears for West Pakistan
said, among other things, that'
the United States had allocated! By Dec. 6, when it was clear
$155-million to avert famine in I that the Indians would win in
East Pakistan at India's "spa- East Pakistan, Mr. Sisco said
cific request." , that "from a political point of
Mr. Keating said that his;.view our efforts would have to
recollection from a conversa-The directed at keeping the In-
Washington during the Indian- _
;Pakistan pribr to a political
wants to tilt in favor of ----------------Pakistan ilTime magazine that theArneri-
Pakistani war that the Nixon , settlement on grounds such an,1 can intelligence com munity
stan. He feels everything
Administration's justification for we do effort might serve to bail out" i had reason to believe that
out otherwise."mes
Its pro-Pakistanpolicy detracted coGen. Agha Mohammad Yahya,' there were forces in India
from American credibility. and The group included John N. Khan, then President of Paki- a pushing for total victory but
was inconsistent with his knowl- Irwin, under secretary of state
Richard Helms, Director of state;/ tan. who was displaced after that under pressure from the
he loss of East Pakistan.
; United States the Soviet Union
edge of events. , The Ambassador noted that convinced India to order a
and Adm al Intelligence,Centr
? The secret message to the' 'the briefing said that the IP,dian' cease-fire once East Pakistan
4, Thomas H. I'vloorer,
-State Department was made Chairman; Ambassador in Washington, L.1 surrendered. ?
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. K. Jlia, was informed on Nov.;
'availible?TO.?The 'New York This version of events has
The next day, Dec. 4, the,19 that the United Sttates and' been officially denied by New
Times at its request by the syn- United States called for a meet. Pakistan were prepared to dis-i Delhi, which said it had no
diCated columnist Jack Ander- ing of the United Nations Sc-cuss a precise schedule for po-1
plans to invade West Pakistan.
son; who says he has receiVed curitY Council to discuss the,litical autonomy in East Paki-{ But in the period covered by
from:Unidentified United States war and to press India for a stan but that India had sabo- the documents made public by
Government informants"scores" withdrawal. Joseph J. Sisco, As- taged the efforts by starting the; Mr.- Anderson there seemed
of 'highly , sistant Secretary of State for war,
considerable confusion in th
classified documents "The only message I have on e
Near Eastern and South Asian Administration. At one point
rethting *to the conflict last Affairs, told newsmen that the record of this conversation Mr. Kissinger said that Mr.
month. ? United States believed that makes no reference to this crit- ;Nixon might want to honor
' Today Mr. Anderson?assert- India bore "the major respon- ical fact," Mr. Keating said. I any requests from Pakistan for
-ing-that he was irked by a com- sibility" for the fighting.
Mr. Kissinger said at the
. . I American arms ? despite an
ment from Henry A. Kissinger,
President Nixon's adviser on
national security disputing thein Washington since most dip-. we had no reason to believe session to look into the possi-
hat military action was that
accuracy of some of his recent!lomats and officials had ex-,t; bility of shipping arms quietly
pecte iimminent and that we did not
columns?released the Defense,. d a more neutral stance.
De-
have time to begin to work on '
to Pakistan But the State De-
r 'partmen t said today that no
,pepartment's record -of three! Disagreed With 'Tilt'. la peaceful resolution." action was taken.
lop-level White House strategy Critics of the Administrationl "With vast and voluminous
jesSions held at the start of such as Senator Edward M. 'efforts of intelligence commu- Carrier Sent to Rejoin
Kennedy, Democrat of Massa-Inity, reporting from both Delhi "It is quite obvious that the
the two-week war. chusetts, - and Senator Erankiand Islamabad, and my own President is not inclined to let
? !Secret Sensitive' Reports Church,
Democrat of Idaho, had:decisions in Washington, I do the Paks be defeated," Mr.
? The reports of the meetings been complaining about IvIr.;not understand statement that Kissinger said, apparently re-
of Dec. 3, 4 and 6, were classi- Nixon's failure to criticize Paki.a'Washington was not given the ferring to the possibility of the
stan for her bloody represseion'slightest inkling that any mili- loss of West Pakistan,
fled' "secret sensitive." A low- of the East Pakistani autonomy ?tary operation was in any way
key. investigation is underway movement and the arrest of its ?
imminent,' " Mr. Keating re-
to ascertain who leaked the leader, Sheik Mujibur Rhaman.
sponded. He said that on Nov.
documents to Mr. Anderson. He Mr. Anderson has indicated
said today that he was ready, that, the documents in his pos - . .
_ 19 he sent a cable "stating
se.
inn scgri leaked oboyeaoffi- specifically that war is quite
The 'decision by the Adminis- .briefing, that when prime Min- I American embargo on arms to
tration to attach blame to India ister . Indira. Ghandi was in
India or Pakistan.
Washington in early November, .
came as something of a surprise It was decided at the Dec. 6
if necessary, for a ba0tXp epra
s QE e gRaed2 atdoWntrAt, 894:gown
Page, I ;7.] House strategy sessions indi-
the' Government. [Details on'The reVE
Administration's "tilt" toward
Later on in the crisis the
United States sent the nuclear-
powered aircaft carrier Enter-
prise into the Indian Ocean, ap-
parently as a show of force to.
deter any attack on West Pak-
at. the [lined .
coptinued
?
-(
WASHINGTON POST
Approved For Release 2006/9M3, ..gIA-RDP80-01601R00
_ 6 Ji-wi 191 G
Classification of Documents
. _..
13y Sanford J. Ungar
, Washington Post Staff Writer ,
; ep. F. Edward Hebert (D-
La.), chairman of the House
Armed Services Committee,
yesterday announced "a major
inquiry into the problem of
proper classification and han-
dling of government informa-
tion involving the national se-
euritY."
- He said it was "a- coinci-
dence" that the investigation
would come on the heels of
the"release by syndicated col-
umnist Jack Anderson of se-
cret government documents
concerning American policy in
the Indo-Pakistani war.
i"
, Nonetheless, the disclosure
? of the top-secret Pentagon
papers on the history of Viet.
nam war last summer, and
memoranda describing meet-
ings of the National Security
Council's Washington Special
Action Group.
The sources stressed that
the memoranda,-prepared for
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
for G. Warren Nutter, assist-
ant secretary of defense for
international security affairs,
had been 'circulated only
within the Pentagon.
They said they were espe-
cially surprised by the leak of
the memoranda, because it
would be relatively easy to
trace their limited distribu-
tion.
Other government officials,
however, pointed their fingers
elsewhere. -
One White House official
said he suspected that the
now Anderson's release of cur-
State Department was the
rentdocuments, appeared to
source of the security breach.;
_
,have focused new concern "You know that place leaks
throughout the government like a sieve," he said, especial-
over the troubled security lY in instances that might
classification system. make Henry A. Kissinger,
Hebert assigned ? the new President Nixon's natiorral se-
probe, which will begin curity adviser, look bad,
shortly after Congress recon- At the Pentagon, on the
yenes Jan. 18, to a subcommit- other hand, attention was di-
tee headed by Rep. Lucien verted to the National Secur-
Nedzi (D-Mich), a critic of the ity Council. .
Pentagon and of administra. The Justice Department con-
tion policy in Vietnam, tinued to decline comment on
In 'a telephone interview the continuing FBI investiga-
last night, Nedzi said that "it tion.
is not my intent to investigate Anderson continues his bat-
the leak" of documents to An- tie against government secrecy
derson. ' today, switching from the
'J'What we what to go into Indo-Pakistani war to secret
are the general problems of White House documents used
by President Nixon in prep-
classification and security, oration for meetings at San
.how much is required and how Clemente with Japanese Prime
It is handled and what kind of Minister Eisaku Sato.
new legislation may be neces- In a column distributed to
tory," Nedzi said. 700 newspapers, including The
4 He acknowledged, however, Washington Post, Anderson
that the Anderson documents, discloses the contents of brief-
three of which appeared in ing papers prepared for the
full in The Washington Post President. . ?
7`yesterday, would "almost nee- Those papers, And e r son
lessarily" come up during the says, indicate that Sato has
been dismayed with American
probe. policy in the Far East and is
. Meanwhile, government in- considering an independent
vestigators pressed their ef: Japanese aproach to China.
iforts to locate the source of Anderson quotes a cable
from Armin Meyer, U. S.
Anderson's documents. ? Ambassador to Japan, which
? A report circulated yester- said that "whereas heretofore
day among high-level adminis- anti-Americanism was pretty
tration sources that theAmpamy1pdpia:i.%ag lierikvi
tigation had alreadrilih- position iMrel'Wnt'SYM
pointed pffices in the,Pentag-I tendentious press, develop-I
on as the probable source of ments of past few months have
fostered seeds of doubt within
n rmally American-oriented
ommunity."
Meyer also told Washington
that the Japanese have the
"impression that Japan is
eing asked to maintain cold-
-ar confrontation posture
while President's mission to
Peking gives (the U.S. govern-
ment) advantage of appearing
to be more progressive and
peace-minded."
In San Clemente, one
Japanese diplomat in the
Sato party told Washington
Post reporter Stanley Karnow
that it was "alarming" to
400030001-7
I Boston o e a pu s e e
texts of the memoranda in
yesterday's editions after they
received them from the
Los Angeles Times-Washing-
ton Post News Service.
The widespread appearance
of the documents in news-
papers throughout the coun-
try appeared to obviate the
possibility of any action in
court by the Justice Depart-
ment, as in the case of the
Pentagon papers.
The New York Times said
it would publish the docu-
ments in today's editions.
Responding to Anderson's
, suggestion Tuesday that the
'secret documents and others
learn the content of the secret in his -possession could be
American papers. ? made available to Congress as
"I must pay my compliments the basis for an investigation
to the White House," he added, of American policy toward
however. "They i understand India and Pakistan, a high.
Japanese attitudes. very well." i:anking aide for the Senate
The diplomat said he was Foreign Relations Committee
especially concerned by refer- said "I think that's fine."
enccs in today's Anderson Sen. J. W. Fulbright (D-
column to growing interest! Ark.), chairman of the corn-
in Japan in a revision of the mittee, was in the Caribbean
American-Japanese security;on vacation and could not be
treaty, reached for comment.
Assistant White House press Fulbright staff aides direct-i
secretary Gerald Warren con- ed attention, however, to a ,
tinued to refuse comment on' report issued by the Foreign;
any of the disclosures in the' Relations Committee on Dec.
Anderson columns, and Kis -I 16, which said, "The problem'
singer, who is in San Clemante: for Congress in the foreign
with the President, refused to affairs field . . . goes beyond
discuss them. "'reducing unnecessary .classi-
In response to a question" fication."
about Kissinger's earlier corn- The report added, "It in-
ment to reporters that Ander- volves finding a way for Con-
son had taken comments about gress to make certain that it!
India and Pakistan "out of con- receives the full information'
text," Warren said, "I am sure necessary for exercising its
Dr. Kissinger stands by what war and foreign policy pow."
he said. . . . The President is ers, including information
aware of the matter." which most people would
Anderson said Tuesday that agree should be kept secret
he was releasing the full texts I from potential enemies,
of the three documents to re-, "It may also involve finding
Lute Kissinger's claim.
There was a run on Ander-
1
son's Washington office yes-1
terday for copies of the secret!
documents which had ap-
peared in The Washington
Post.
By day's end, a member of
his? staff said, 18 news organi-
zations had picked up copies
of the three memoranda and
another nine had asked that
they be sent in the mail.
'R?OPliicago un- imes, . e
a way for Congress to share,
In determining what informa-
tion is classified and thus
kept secret from the Ameri-
can people."
That appeared to be the
focus of the upcoming loves-
Itigation by the House Armed'
Services Subcommittee. Nedzi:
said that it might not be'
"appropriate" to look into Kis-;
singer's activities, but said;
the probe would focus on the
amoAffelmaiion is harOle&
within 'tile'
Francisco Chronicle sari The, 0011t1=11.ed
WAS13INGT011 STAR ?
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 ...CIA-RDP80-01601
6 JAIJ 13/4
STAT
R000400030001-7
a m Curb$-. Sn
.
Aistan Papers
' By LYLE DENNISTON
Star Staff Writer
; The government apparently
will take no legal steps to stop
further disclosures in the
newspapers Of secret docu-.
ments describing White House'
Meetings on foreign policy.
An official investigation of
the leak of classified papers to
Washington columnist Jack
Anderson is aimed primarily
at stopping the leak, govern-
ment sources said.
It is possible, they added,
that the person or persons
who passed out the docu-
ments could face criminal
prosecution. There is no sign
of an early move on a criminal
case, but it has not been ruled
out.
However, neither Anderson
nor any newspaper which pub-
lished documents he had sup-
plied to them is in-legal trou-
ble now, and probably will
not be later, it was indicated.
Anderson has been publish-
ing materials out of the minuteS of White House strategy
sessions ? mainly dealing
with the India-Pakistan war
for more than a week. The
passage of that much time
without a government court
challenge was interpreted as a
strong sign that there will be
no such challenge.
Anderson published material
today from other documents
showing deterioration of U.S.
relations with Japan.
Official sources recalled that
'the Justice and Defense de-
partments acted within a mat-
ter of hours in June to try to
.stop the New York Times from
disclosing the contents of the
-so-called Pentagon papers ?
the- 47-volume study of the ori-
gins of the Vietnam war.
At that time, officials were
asked to make quick assess-
ments of the possible threat of
disclosure to national security,
and research was done swiftly
on the legal remedies availa-
ble if such a threat were
deemed to exist.
' There is no indication that
any such activity is no gq'
on about Anderson's
sures.
Court Ruling Cited criminal case like the one it
'
is pressing against Daniel
Part of the reason for this, Ellsberg, who admitted leak-
efficials indicated, was the dif- ing the Pentagon papers, and
iic...ulty the Supreme Court has against ii;llsberg's close.
posed for any atttempt by the friend, Anthony Russo Jr.
government to stop news me-
0:a digclosures of classified
documents. By a 6-3 decision
cs June 30 permitting publica-
tion of the Pentagon Papers,
the court said:
"Any system of prior re-
straints of expression comes
to this court bearing a heavy
presumption against its consti-
tutional validity . . . The gov-
ernment thus carries a heavy
burden of showing justification
of the enforcement of such a
restraint."
Apparently, officials have
made up their minds that the
kinds of disclosures being
made by Anderson do not
raise enough of a threat to
security to justify a court
challenge.
The main threat officials ap-
parently see at this point, it
was indicated, was to the se-
crecy of White House meet-
ings on sensitive issues of di-
plomacy and military policy.
Revisions in Works
The discloSkire of the new set
of secret papers came after
the government had begun
taking a series of steps to re-
\ ise its document-classification
procedures.
.
Existing law needs revision,
Hebert said, to "strike a prop-
er balance between the right
of the public to know and the
indispensable ability of our
government to function effec-
tively." But abuse of the clas-
sification..system doesn't give
bdividuals the right to ignore
classifications, he said.
It is clear, however, that the
altered system of security v
classification is far from fully
developed at this point.
For example, an interagency
committee . which has been
meeting since last January to
plan a complete overhaul of
classification methods is still
at the job, but has recently
lost its chairman ? Asst. Atty.
Gen. William H. Rehnquist,
who is about to become a Su-
preme Court justice. He has
not been replaced yet. .
In addition, a long-dormant
Pentagon board which gave
guidance on classification has
been "revitalized," and has
started taking some action,
First Objective but apparently has not issued
Thus, the first object of the broad new directives.
current investigation is to find Efforts to keep up the pros-
out how the minutes of those sure on the government to
sessions could get past the reduce the number of docu-
controls the government main- ments that are classified are
tains over classified docu- expected to resume in Con-
ments. gross this year.
If that leak is not shut off, A House Government Opera-
one source suggested, it could tions subcommittee, which last
force officials holding strategy year took seven days of mostly
sessions to alter the way such critical testimony about the
meetings are conducted and extent of classification, is
the method of communicating planning to hold three or four
their results to other officials' months of hearings starting in
who neeed to know what was March on the over-all issue of
discussed or decided. "freedom of information" in
Viewed in that light, the in- the government.
vestigation appeared to be pri- Rep. F. Edward Hebert,
manly a security study, rath- D-La., chairman of the:House
er than an attempt to lay the Armed Services Committee,
basis for criminal action said yesterday that soon after
against the source of the leak. Congress reconvenes a sub-
However, officials said it committee of his panel will
would be wrong to conclude open an inquiry into the clas-
sification of government
fivy 03c z ea I A-RD ROO -0160 IR.000400030001-7
to6. thot4e *ailment
Ji 4
VITISEI,c;174.Cii DA!'
5 JAN 1972
Approved For Release 2006/01/03: CIA-RDP80-01601R
Jock Anderson: A funny story
00400030001-7
, -
- By TED KNAP
Scripps Howard Staff Writer
: .The Justice Department has directed the
'FBI to investigate who leaked highly embar-
rassing classified documents detailing White
"House policy meetings on the India-Pakistan
var. to columnist Jack Anderson, administra-
-tion.sources said today.
A Justice Department spokesman ended sev-
eral days of "no comment" by admitting for
the first time that the matter was "under
Investigation."
? Earlier reports were that a search for the
source of the leak was being conducted only
within each of the departments which had offi-
'cials at the secret meetings. Government
sources said the probe now has moved to a
'higher level with the calling in of the FBI and
'also the Internal Security Division of the Jus-
tice Department, which would handle any pro-
secution.
NO MUZZLE
But the government has not tried to sup-
press further publication of the Anderson col-
umns, as it did after ,initial publication of the
Pentagon papers last year.
' 'The Washington Post today said Mr. Ander-
son gave it the full texts of three of the secret
documents. The Post, which carries Mr. An-
derson's column, said the three documents
/Swere on the letterhead of the Joint Chiefs of
taff and of Warren G. Nutter, assistant secre-
tary of defense for international security af-
fairs.
The Post quoted Mr. Anderson as saying his
. sources for the papers hold high positions in
, the Nixon administration.
?
"If the sources were identified," the Post
quoted Mr. Anderson, "it would embarrass the
administration more than it would me. It
would make a very funny story." ?
Mr. Anderson said the documents show that,
contrary to the administration's professions of
strict neutrality, Mr. Nixon sided strongly with
the military dictatorship in West Pakistan
against the world's largest democracy in In-
dia.
?
" !GETTING HELL'
Dr. Henry Kissinger, Mr. Nixon's chief ad-
viser on national security, was quoted as say-
pig in a Dec. 3 strategy session, "I am getting
Jack Anderson, left, and henry Kissin-
ger.
hell every half hour from the President that
we are not being tough enough on India."
Mr. Anderson said the documents disclose
that Dr. Kissinger sought to get around the
ban on U.S. arms shipments to Pakistan by
having them sneaked in thru Jordan or Saudi
Arabia
"Dr. Kissinger asked whether we have the
right to authorize Jordan or Saudi Arabia to
transfer military equipment to Pakistan," 'Mr.
Anderson quoted from the Dec. 6 minutes.
"Mr. (Christopher) Van Hollen (State Depart-
ment Asia expert) stated that the United
States cannot permit a third country to trans-
fer arms which we have provided them when
we, ourselves, do not authorize the sale direct
to the ultimate recipient." -
'OUT OF CONTEXT' -
Dr. Kissinger said yesterday in San Cle-
mente, Calif., that Mr. Anderson quoted "out
of context" from the documents, but refused to
elaborate. In response, Mr. Anderson told
Scripps-Howard newspapers he would make
the full memoranda available to the public.
Mr. Anderson wrote that a cable from Ken-
neth Keating, U.S. ambassador to India,
warned that "any action other than rejection
(of the plan to ship planes to Pakistan by way
of Jordan) would pose enormous further diffi-
culties in Indo-U.S. relations."
The documents indicated the United States
was considering sending eight F104s via Jor-
dan to resupply the Pakistan air force, which
had been crippled by initial Indian attacks.
The war was over in two weeks, before any
such shipment was made. Mr. Anderson said
the documents indicate that a final decision
had not been reached.
Mr. Anderson said the President overrode
the advice of State Department senior officials
to appeal to the West Pakistan government to
atop persecuting Bengalis in East Pakistan,
and to remain neutral between West Pakistan
and India. One of those participating in the
secret meetings wrote this report, according to
Mr. Anderson: ?
Dr. Kissinger said that we are not trying to
be even-handed; The President does not want
to be even-handed. The President believes. that
India is the attacker. . . .
"Dr: Kissinger said that we cannot afford to
ease India's state of mind. "The Lady' (Mrs.
Indira Gandhi, India's prime minister) is
cold-blooded and tough and will not turn into a
Soviet satellite merely because of pique. We
should not ease her mind. He invited anyone
who objected to this approach to take his case
to the President."
STATE LEAK ?
Speculation here is that the leak came from
the State Department, which has .had its ego
bruised lately by Dr. Kissinger's emergence as,
the dominant foreign policy figure in the ad;
ministration. Mr. Anderson refused to pinpoint
his source.
The minutes described meetings in early De-
cember of the Special Action Group, com-
prised of State, Defense, CIA, and WhiteA.
House officials. The papers were variously
classified, including "secret sensitive." Mr.
Anderson said he has received two calls from
"friends" in the government warning that he
could be indicted.
Government officials said that altho classifi-
cations were violated, the substance of the re-
ports indicates they would not be covered by
laws against sabotage or espionage.?
When several newspapers published excerpts
of the secret Pentagon papers last year, Atty.
Gen. John Mitchell asked the courts to sur-
press further publication. His request was re-
jected by the U.S. Supreme Court. Following
an FBI investigation, the government is prose-
cuting Daniel Ellsberg for having leaked the
papers to the press.
Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7
WASHING:1W 1_OS1
Approved For Release 2006ktigl: M-RDP80-01601R0
Xish?:'
Bell. ..Fro
Fotiounng IS a typescript
of the secret documents
Milted over to The Washing-
ton Post yesterday by Syndi-
cated columnist J.ack. Ander-
son.. ?
SECRET SENSITIVE
-ASSISTANT SECRETARY
. OF DEFENSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301
" Refer to: 1-29643/71
DOWNGRADED AT 12
YEARS INTERVALS ?
(Illegible)
Not Automatically
Declassified
INTERNATIONAL
SECURITY AFFAIRS .
MEMORANDUM FOR -
RECORD
SUBJECT: WSAG Meeting
on India/Pakistan
Participants: Assistant to
the President for Nation-
al Security Affairs?
henry A. Kissinger
Under Secretary of State--
John N. Irwin
Deputy Secretary of Defense
?David Packard
Director, Central Intelli-
gence Agency?Richard
? M. Helms
Deputy Administrator (AID)
. Maurice J. Williams II
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of
?-. Staff?Admiral Thomas
Moorer
Assistant Secretary of State
(NEA)?Joseph J. Sisco
Assistant Secretary of De-
fense (ISA)?G. Warren
Nutter
Assistant Secretary of State
(I0)?Samuel DePalma
Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense
-(ISA)7--Armistead. I. Sel-
- den" jr.
Assi s t nt Administrator
(AIDINESA)?Donald G.
MacDonald
Time and Place: 3 December
-1971, 1100 hours, Situation
Room. White House.
SUMMARY:
Reviewed conflicting re-
MIAs about major action in
V the West Wing. CIA agreed
to ' produce map showing
areas of East Pakistan oc-
cupied by India. The Presi-
dent orders hold on issuance
of additional irrevocable
$99 million, aria, a .h&PRIEOVLideFbtaReleatibis21106/01/Okadt144/144QAPJA000400030001-7
letters of credit involving
Bush. Corit.thIled
further actiOn'implementing
the $72 PL 480 cred-
it. Convening of .? Security
Council meeting planned
contingent on discussion
with Pak Ambassador this
afternoon plus further clari-
fication of actual situation
in West Pakistan. Kissinger
asked for clarification of
secret special interpretation
of March 1359 bilateral U.S.
agreement with Pakistan.
KISSINGER: I am getting
hell every half hour from
the President that we are
not being tough enough on
India. He has just called
me again. He does not be-
lieve we are carrying out
his wishes. He wants to tilt
in favor of Pakistan. He
feels everything we do
comes out otherwise.
HELNS: Concerning the
reported action in the West
Wing, there are conflicting
reports from both sides and
the only common ground is
the Pak attacks on the 'Am-
ritsar. Pathankat, and Srin-
agar airports. The Paks say
the Indians are attacking all
along the border: but the
Indian officials- says this is
a lie. In the East Wing, the
action" is becoming larger
and the Paks claim there are
now seven separate fronts
involved. ?
KISSING-ER: Are the In-
dams seizing territory?
HELMS: Yes; small bits
territory, definitely. .
SISCO: It would help if
you could provide a map
with a shading of the areas
occupied by India. What is
happening in the West?is a
full-scale attack likely?
MOORER: The present
pattern is puzzling in that
the Paks have only struck at
three small airfields which
do not house significant.
numbers of. Indian combat . take action. inc President
aircraft ? . is blaming me, but you
HELMS:. Mrs. - Gandhi's j people are in the clear.
speech at 1;30 may well an- SISCO: That's. ideal!
nounce recognition of Ban- - KISSINGER: The .earlier
gla Desh. draft statement for Bush. is
MOORER: The Pak attack too evenhanded..
is not credible. It has been SISCO: To recapitulate,'
made during late afternoon, after we have seen the Pak
which doesn't make sense. Ambassador, the Secretary
We do not Sea:nn to have suf- will W '
m Lie ]ria
the Preside
sy: ?
KISSINGER: IS it possible KISSINtiER: We can say
that the Indians attacked I've favor political accommo-
first, and the Paks simply dation but the real job of
did what they could before the Security Council is to
dark in response? . prevent military action.
MOONER: This is certain- AISCO: We have nevar
ly possible. ? .
KISSINGER: The Presi-
had a reply either from Ico-
Oent wants no more irrevo-
sygin or Mrs. Gandhi.
y::1)1e letters of credit issued WILLIAMS: Are we to
::,aler the $99 million credit. take economic steps with
wants the $72 million Pakistan also?
? .44) credit also held. KISSINGER: Wait until
I rf.,1 AMS: Word will talk. with the President.
.
soon et around when
He hasn't addressed this
i! we
problem in connection with
do !hi ?? Does the. President
underst Ind that? Pakistan yet.
KISSI.NGER: That is his SISCO: If we act on the
order. but I will check with Indian side, we can say we
the President again. If
are keeping the Pakistan sit-
?
as.ked, .we can say we are uation "under review."
reviewing our whole eeo- KISSINGER: It's hard to
nomie program and that the tilt toward Pakistan if we
granting of fresh aid is being have to match every Indian
suspended inview of condi- step with a Pakistan step.
tions on the Subcontinent. If you wait until Monday, I
The next issue is the UN. can - get a Presidential de-
IRWIN: The Secretary is cision.
calling in the ? Pak Ambas- ' PACKARD: It should be
sador this afternoon, and easy for us to inform the ?
the Secretary leans toward banks involved to defer ac-
making a U.S. move in the tion inasmuch as we are so
U.N. soon. ? near the weekend.
KISSINGER: The Presi- KISSINGER: We need a
dent is in favor of this as WSAG in the morning. We
soon as we have some con- need to think about our
firmation of this large treaty obligations. I remem-
scale new action. If the bee a letter or memo inter-
U.N. can't operate in this preting our existing treaty
kind of situation effectively, with a special India tilt.
W
its utility has come to an When I visited Pakistan in
end and it is Useless to Jannary 1962, I was briefed
think of U.N. guarantees in on a secret document or oral
the Middle East.
understanding about contin-
SISCO: We will have a gencies arising in other than
recommendation for you the SEATO context. Perhaps
this afternoon, after the it was a Presidential letter.
meeting with the Ambassa- This was a special interpre-
tation of the ? March 1959
dor. In order to give the bilateral agreement.
Ambassador time to ?wire Prepared by:
home, we could tentatively is/initials
plan to Convene the Secu- James H. Noyes
rity Council tomorrow.
Deputy Assistant Secretary
KISSINGER: We have to for Near Eastern, African
and South Asian Affairs
Approved:
Illegible signature
for G. Warren Nutter
Assistant Secretary of
fense for International
curity affairs
D'e-
Se-
WASHINGTON LOSI
Approved For Release OIS/C111/1V319/11A-RDP80-01601
ecret
?
By Sanford J. Ungar
? Washington Post Staff Writer
-.Syndicated columnist Jack Anderson, in a
major chalienge to the secrecy surrounding
;U.S. policy in the Indo-Pakistani war, last night
'gave The Washington Post the full texts of
'three secret documents describing meetings :i..t. ,,, i ? ? --?_.?': -1
of
:.i
.of the National Security Council's Washington - - - ? ? is
.Special Action Group (WSAG). want to honor. ihose requests: dors to.hidia and Pakistan, ast
The documents indicate that Henry A. Kis- The matter has not been well as numerous other docu-
'singer, President Nixon's national security ad- brought to Presidential alien- ments bearing on American
viser, instructed government agencies to take tion but it is quite obvious that policy.
a hard line with India in public statements and the President is not inclined to He showed this reporter a
:private actions during last month's war on the let the Paks be defeated."
briefcase' with about 20 file
Indian subcontinent, . After getting the documents folders, each containing some .
1 Anderson released the documents after Kis-' froni Anderson, ?The Post de- of the documents.
singer told reporters Monday during an air- cided to print the full texts in Anderson declined to name
borne conversation en route to the Westerntoday's editions, his sources, but suggested that
White House in San Clemente that the cot- ' Anderson said he would they occupy high positions in
pmnist, in stories based on the materials, had make the documents avail. the Nixon administration.
taken "out cf context" remarks indicating .that able to other members of the "If the sources were identi-
the administration was against India. press today, and he invited fled," he said "it would em-
Among the significant statements bearing' Sen. J. W. _Fulbright, chair- barrass the administration i
man of the Senate ' Foreign more than it would me, It j
:on U.S, polity in the documents were the Relations Committee, to - use ' would make a very funny
_following: them as the basis for an in- story."
- ? "KISSINGER: I am getting hell every half vestigation of U.S policy in Since the controversy last
'hour from the President that we are not being south Asia, year over release of the Yenta-
lough enough on India. He has just called me Fulbright, out of Washing- gon Papers, a top-secret his-
again. He does not believe we are cauying out ton during the congressional tory of U.S. policy in Vietnam,
his wishes. He wants to tilt in favor of Pakis- recess, could not be .teached Anderson said, his sources had ?
tan. He feels everything we do comes out f or comment, become more, rather than less,
'otherwise." The columnist also suggested willing to disclose classified
t .? "Dr. Kissinger said that whoever was put. that other members of Con- material.
ling out background information relative to the gress might wish to investi-
The texts obtained by The
current situation is provoking presidential gate government security etas- Post provide substantial de-
wrath. The President is under the 'illusion' sification policy, tails of the back-and-forth
that he is giving instructions; not that he is Most of the significant state- at Special Action Group meet-
Merely being kept apprised of affairs as they ments in the three documents ings among representatives
progress. Dr. Kissinger asked that this be kept released last - night had al- of the White House, State
Jim mind."
ready appeared in Anderson's and Defense departments, Coll-
- ? column, which is distributed to tral Intelligence Agency, Na-
? "Dr. Kissinger also directed that hence- 700 newspapers, including The. tional Security Council, Joint
forth we show a certain coolness to the In- Washington Post. . Chiefs of Staff and the Agency
-dians; the Indian Ambassador is not. to be The Justice Department ac- for - International Development.
treated at too high a level." knowledged yesterday that the The throe texts are:
7 ? "Dr. Kissinger . . . asked .whether we FBI Is investigating the nature ? A "memorandum for rec-
have the right to authorize Jordan or Saudi of the security leak that, led ord" about a WSAG meeting in
Arabia .to transfer military equipment to Pak. to the disclosures. the Situation Room of the
istan. Mr. (Christopher) Van Itollen (deputy But Anderson, who said he White House on Dec. 3, by
,assistant secretary of state for South Asian will write several more col- James H. Noyes, deputy as-
affairs) stated the United States cannot permit umns based on the documents, sistant secretary of defense for
a third country to transfer arms which we pointed out that no govern- ?Near Eastern. African and
have provided them when we, ourselves, do ment agent had visited him South Asian affairs. it was al)-
not authorize sale direct to the ultimate re- and that he had received no proved by G. Warren Nutter, as-
cipient, such as Pakistan." request to halt publication. ' sistant secretary of defense for.
L. ? "Mr. (Joseph) Sisco (assistant secretary of The Post has not received any international security affairs,
such request either, and was printed on his station-
-:state for Near Eastern and South Asian affairs) Pentagon sources said an- ery.
suggested that what we are really interested in other investigation is under-
are what supplies and equipment could be way ? A memorandum for the
by ?
military security . Joint Chiefs of Staff, on their
made available, and the modes of delivery of agents. They said the scope of ; stationery: concerning a meet-
this equipment. lie stated from a political their investigation would be ing on Dec. 4, by Navy Capt.
point of view our efforts would have to be narrow because "very few peo- 1 Howard N. Kay, a JCS staffer.
directed at keeping the Indians from 'extin- pie" have access to minutes of ? Another memorandum by
guishing' West Pakistan." the meetings.
I 'Kay on JCS stationery about
? "Mr. Sisco went
Paks increasingly fee PIMP VrwtblOSRLiV6M11101.,: NIMPhcil Mt* fgc104#A9 irjet-
l' ?
getting emergency requests from them . . . had copies of cables to Wash.' ings was held on the opening
pr. .Kissinger said that the President may. ington. from the U.S. ambassa-J day of full-scale hostilities be-1
n *
WASHINGTON STAR
Approved For Release 2005/QJIAV 19A-RDP80-01601R000
.7. ).37-ystf ? I
arson
ecret
-,
By ORR KELLY
Star Staff Writer
-Syndicated columnist Jack
/ Anderson has made public
v "SECRET SENSITIVE" min-
utes of three White House
meetings dealing with the In-
dia-Pakistan War.
The documents show the
government was secretly fa-
voring Pakistan in the war
while saying publicly that it
was not taking sides.
Anderson used extensive
quotations from the docu-
ments in recent columns and
then released the dull text as a
deliberate challenge to the
government's system of classi-
fying information.
After the Anderson columns
appeared, the White House be-
gan coordinating a broad-scale
investigation to learn who
leaked the documents to him.
Material Confirmed
The White House today re-
fused to say whether the pub-
lished material is authentic.
/
But a State Department offi-
cial who asked not to be identi-
fied said there is no question
of the authenticity of the docu-
ments.
Anderson released the docu-
ments after Henry A. Kissin-
ger, , presidential adviser for
'national security affairs, told
mewsmen yesterday he was
'quoted out of context in ex-
cerpts from the documents
:printed earlier by Anderson.
Anderson gave the docu-
ments to the Washington Post
last night, and the paper print-
ed them today. The Star ob-
tained its own copies of the
ilocuments.
Anderson said in an inter-
yiew last night that his column
prepared for release tomorrow
would carry excerpts from se-
cret documents dealing with
relations between the United
States and Japan. The column
will appear on the same day
President Nixon meets with
Japanese Prime Minister Ei-
saku Sato in San Clemente,
Calif.
i 11 Am ....Getting Hell"
I
, One of the documents re- .
elease's
5. P?llicy,
,,??,....
- "I am getting hell every half
hour from the President that
we are not being tough enough
on India. He has just called
me again. He does not believe
we are carrying out his wish-
es. He wants to tilt in favor of
Pakistan. He feels everything
we do comes out other wise," Eastern, African and South
The documentsprovide Asian Affairs, and approved
more detail on the meetings by his boss, G. Warren Nutter,
than had been made public assistant defense secretary for
previously, but many of the international security affairs.
essential details had already The minutes of the Dec. 4
a
been used by Anderson in his and 6 meetings were prepared
syndicated column. by Navy Captain H.N. Kay,
He did not release what he who works in the office of the
said were "dozens" of other
Joint Chiefs of Staff at the
.
documents giving what he Pentagon.
called a complete picture of Government sources said an
the government's de c is io n-
invetigation of the source of
making process during the In- the apparent leak to Andetson
dia - Pakistan War. was being coordinated from
the White House and , in-
Meetings of WSAG ' volved security agencies at the
The -papers released by An-
State and Defense Depart-
'
mcnts as well as the Secret
derson covered meetings o:.
the Washington Special Action Service. Contrary to earllier
Group at the White House oon reports, the Federal Bureau of
Dec. 3, 4 and 6. The WSAG is a Investigation has not been
top advisory committee to the callied into the case so far.
National Security Council. Officials at the State and
All the documents are Defense Departments seemed
marked "SECRET SENSI- to be most concerned about
TIVE" and one paper, cover- two aspects of the case.
ing the Dec. 4 meeting, says:
"In view of the sensitivity of The Concern
The papers published by An-
derson, on the other hand, cov-
er a current international cri-
sis.
The minutes of the meeting
of Dec. 3 were made by James
H. Noyes, deputy assistant
secretary of defense for Near
information in the NSC (Na- Several officials called at-
tional Security Council) sys- tention to a column published
tern and the detailed nature of by Anderson on Dec. 28 de.
this memorandum, it is re- scribing a secret intelligence
quested that access to it be report in which Emory Swank,
limited to a strict need-to- U.S. ambassador to Cambodia,
know basis." gave an unflattering assess-
The documents appeared to ment of top Cambodian offi-
have come from two different dais. Publication of the re-
offices in the Pentagon? port, the U.S. officials said,
although it is quite possible will greatly complicate
that copies of the minutes also Swank's task in dealing with
would be available in the other the Cambodian government.
areas of the government. Anderson acknowledged that
Anderson says he has even an argument could be made
more such documents. The
disclosures amount to a major
leak of 'sensitive government
papers?in some way even
more disturbing to high gov-
ernment officials than the re-
lease of the Pentagon Papers
earlier this year.
In that case, the documents
leased by
Anderson qvtkilffitc594Wht
Kissinger as telling a White oYfire fl
story en
louse meeting on Dec. 3 that:.
that the cables of an ambassa-
dor to his government should
be classified.
"But I think I had a duty to
report his warning that the
country (Cambodia) is about
to collapse," he said.
Two Key Disciepancies
1/h dackl-RIERN4101111
about the :Anders9n, papers is
that a pattern of leaks now
may make government offi-
cials reluctant, in the future,
to offer proposals that might
be embarrassing if they were
published, or to be candid in
their comments on policies un-
der consideration.
The Anderson documents re-
veal what ?appear to be two
major discrepancies between
what the administration was
doing ? or thinking about
doing ? at the height of the
India - Pakistan crisis and
what it was telling the public.
Anderson suggested a com-
parison be made between the
minutes of the sessions ? par-
ticularly Kissinger's comment
that he was getting hell from
the President for not being
tough enough on India ? and a
Kissinger "background" brief-
ing for the press on Dec. 7.
Anderson said the comparison
would show the government
"lied" to the public.
In that backgrounder, Kis-
singer . denied the administra-
tion was "anti-Indian."
Arms Transfer Suggested
The other major discrepan-
cy noted. by Anderson arises
from the minutes of the Dec. 6
meeting in which Kissinger is
said to have asked whether the
United States could authorize
Jordan or Saudi Arabia to
transfer American military
equipment to Pakistan.
Two State Department offi-
cials responded that such a
transfer would be illegal and
that the Jordanians would
probably be grateful if the
United States "could get them
off the hook" by denying au-
thority for such a transfer.
The government said public-
ly at that time that it was not
providing aid to either coun-
try.
Assistant Secretary of State
Joseph Sisco said that "as the
Paks increasingly feel the heat
we will ?be getting emergency
requests from them."
"Dr. Kissinger said that the
President may want to honor
emwovottig7 minutes
matter has not
terra-Um nil