LETTER TO WILLIAM CASEY FROM PATRICK J. LEAHY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP83M00210R000300060006-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 28, 2007
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: May 12, 1981
• Content Type: LETTER

1-rW OJIVIUUL I UI CUUUJUUUDUUUD-L
. - COMMITT .
VERMONT AGRICULTURE. NUTRITION. AND
FORESTRY
ZCn feb zfafez , ienafe
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20510
APPROPRIATIONS
JUDICIARY
INTELLIGENCE
May 12, 1981
Re
Mr. William Casey
Director of Central Intelligence
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, D.C. 20505
Dear Mr. Casey:
I want to thank you again for your most helpful testimony
on S. 391, the Intelligence Identity's Protection Act of 1981.
I would like to get your response, for the record,, to three
additional questions which time did not permit me to ask at the
hearing on Friday. They are as follows:
1) You have testified that you have a preference for
the "reason to believe" language of Section 601 (c)
contained in S. 391, as opposed to the "with the intent
to impair or impede" language of Section 601 (c) contained
in H.R. 4. I understand that the Justice Department is
of the view that this element of the crime would be easier
to prove under the language of the Senate Bill than that
contained in the House version. My question is, do you
know of actual circumstances where the names of agents
were disclosed with reason to believe that disclosure
would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities
of the United States, but the person did so without any
intent of neutralizing a covert agent or impairing or
impeding our intelligence activities? (I understand that
you may not be able to submit the answer to this question
for the public record.)
2) By letter dated April 29, 1981, to the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, you suggested a technical
amendment to H.R. 4. You suggest including the offenses
contained in H.R. 4, the offenses listed in the Privacy
Protection Act of 1980, the Stanford Daily legislation,
which would give rise to a newsroom search and seisure.
You did not raise this amendment in your testimony before
the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism. 1) Is this
because you have changed your position? 2) If you have
not'changed your position, why do you believe it is
necessary to expand the list of exemptions to the subpoena-
only standard set up in the Stanford Daily legislation?
3) Have you consulted with the Department of Justice
about seeking this amendment to H.R. 4?
VERMONT OFFICES: 135 CHURCH STREET. BURLINGTON 863-2525
FEDERAL BUILDING. ROOM 340. MONTPELIER 229-0569
OR DIAL TOLL FREE 1-800/642-3193
lease 2007/03/01: C1A-RDP83MOO210R000300060006-2
 Approved For Release 2007/03/01 : C!A-RDP83M0021OR000300060006-2
Mr. Casey - 2
May 12, 1981
3) In reporting the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, the
Senate Judiciary Committee recognized a legal controversy
concerning 18 U.S.C. 793, which covers the espionage
offense of gathering, transmitting or losing defense
information. The controversy concerned whether that
statute required proof of intent to injure the United
States or give advantage to a foreign power. There is
a conflict of judicial authority on this point. The
Committee-stated in its report on the bill:
-Obviously, the Committee does not attempt to
settle-this controversy in this bill. However,
to the extent that S. 1790 provides a suspect
exception related to the national security statutes
which-are stated, it is the intent of the Committee
that with regard-to 18 U-.S.C. 793 the suspect
exception to the-ban on searches would apply only
if there. was an allegation of an intent to injure
the United States or give advantage to a foreign
power. For the purposes of this Act, the govern-
ment shall recognize the higher standard, the
requirement of intent, before utilizing the suspect
exception for searches for materials sought under
18 U.S.C. 793.
S. Rep. 874, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 12 (1980).
S. 391 presents a similar problem to the Committee if
it is to consider a simultaneous amendment to the Privacy
Protection Act of 1980. Assuming the Committee considers
some amendment to the Stanford Daily legislation, would
you support including only section 601 (a) and 601 (b) in
the list of exempted statutes, that is, would you support
elimination of section 601 (c) which presently does not
contain an intent to--injure standard?
I look forward to receiving your responses to these
questions.
PJL:kmp
ATRICK J. LEAHY
nited States Senator
Approved For Release 2007/03/0-1 : ClA-RDP-83M00210R000300060006-