WHEN SPIES GO TO COURT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00552R000403680001-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 27, 2010
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: June 12, 1983
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/08/27: CIA-RDP90-00552R000403680001-1
ARTICLE
ON PAGZ 7
Jack Anderson
When
Spies
Goto .
C
'-
The Central Intelligence Agency has
always played by its own rules. No-
where has this been more evident than
in the spy agency's guerrilla war with.
those who write about 'CIA deeds and
misdeeds.
Now a federal judge has given the
CIA and its agents a veritable nuclear
bomb to drop on anyone who has the-d
temerity to criticize them. Here's the s
appalling story:
David Atlee Phillips is a litigious for-
mer spook who was accused by author-`-
Donald Freed of trying to cover up-the"
CIA's alleged advance knowledgea-of
plans to assassinate Chilean exit ,,-
leader Orlando Letelier. The distin-: ,
guished former ambassador was killed.,.
by a bomb in 1976 as he was driving "
along Embassy Row in Washington.-A"
young American -co-worker, RoimV"
Moffitt, was also killed in the bormb_-
Phillips filed a multimillion-dollar,..
libel suit against Freed for the accuse=_
tions contained in his book, "Death ;in',-'
Washington." But Phillips has refused
to follow the standard -rules of legal'
discovery and answer questions asked
by the defendant's lawyer about CIA'>;
activities-which are obviously a vital
ingredient of Freed's defense against
the libel charge.
The CIA has backed Phillips all-tlie
way. The agency even sent a lawyer'
and a -classification expert to Phillipsa
deposition to make sure he didn't an
swer any questions that would embar
rass the agency. They hauled out ,they
Watergate-tarnished shield of 'jra-,,
tional security"-and 'U.S. District-
Judge Thomas Jackson bought their'
arguments. He ruled that Phillips-
didn't have to answer questions 'about
his CIA work, even though that's what;
the libel suit is all about.
WASHINGTON POST
12 June 1983
The decision in the Phillips case hasr
given civil liberties experts the chills.,
They point out that Judge Jackson's,
decision, if allowed to stand, would if- '
fectively muzzle anyone who writhes;
.something the CIA or its former agents
don't like. The threat of a libel suit, in.
which the ' defense is shackled,.Eis:-
enough to scare off all but the most..
reckless writers and publishers.
Phillips. was the logical choice to
carry the CIA's banner in this disturb-.
ing case. After leaving the CIA in 1975,
Phillips- founded the Assa4tion of
Former. Intelligence Officers and later
;,a "legal action" .group called.CHAL-
I.ENGE. According .to Phillips, :.the
purpose of CHALLENGE was "to as-
sist former intelligence persons who
have beep libeled.or slandered."
In a fund-raising letter, Phillips',_ex--:
plained his plans this way. "It's time.td
challenge this malicious treatmentgip
public print and public forums. A test.
case should be mounted against writers .
who defame ex-intelligence officers.''
According to. court testimony, PhiV
lips raised more than $30,000 for such-
a test-and the first one he brought,.
was his own. He sued Washingtonian
Magazine over a story that linked hn i
to presidential assassin Lee HarveyyOs-
wald. The libel suit was thrown out.l7y;
a Montgomery County judge. Phillips,
then used his CHALLENGE funds'to_
goafter Freed.
Freed had charged in his book that'
Phillips was head of Latin American..
operations until his retirement in 1975,'
and thus was closely tied to DINA,.the..
Chilean secret police, whose chief wa's
later indicted for the Letelier-Mo?fltt'',
.murders.
But when asked about his CIA back
ground by Freed's lawyers, Phillips,.
refused to answer, saying that to ' de
scribe his work for the agency would
violate his secrecy agreement. The CIA::,
gladly backed him in his refusal.
Freed's lawyers asked for a dismis? -,
al. One judge did, in fact, order Phillips
to answer on details of his CIA
But then the case was ? assigned -tb
Judge Jackson, who reversed the ear-
lier order and let Phillips keep mum;
Phillips' deposition was taken in
'March. Two CIA officials and a deputy"
assistant U.S. attorney were on hand to
screen the questions Freed's lawyers
asked. Phillips refused to answer any
questions on his CIA work or his con-
nection with Chile.
'In short, he refused to discuss the
details of the alleged events that
formed the entire basis of his lawsuit.
And the judge went along with it. Sa'
what we have is a plaintiff who can sue
with impunity and with no fear of em-
barrassment. He's eating his.calce and':
having it too. . - ~.?;
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/08/27: CIA-RDP90-00552R000403680001-1