WHEN SPIES GO TO COURT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00806R000100200058-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 9, 2010
• Sequence Number: 58
• Publication Date: June 12, 1983
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/09/09: CIA-RDP90-00806R000100200058-5
ARTICLE AM--
ON PAGi 7
Jack Anderson
When -
.0
S pies
Go to
Court.:.
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
temerity to criticize them. Here's the i
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 knowledgei,of ;.
plans to assassinate Chilean exile..-
leader Orlando Letelier. The distin-.
guished former ambassador was killed:
by a bomb in 1976 as he was driving"
along Embassy Row in Washington. Atl'
young American -co-worker, Rorrnl-"
MMoffitt, was also killed in the bornb:.,
blast. `.
Phillips filed a multimillion-dollar...
libel suit against Freed for the accuser-_
tions contained in his book, "Death -jn;
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 agair}st ...
the libel charge.
The CIA has backed Phillips all.tlie
way. The agency even sent a lawyer"
and a -classification expert to Phillips?'.'
deposition to make sure he didn't an-.?
swer any questions that would ember.'
rass the agency. They hauled out itheZ.
Watergate-tarnished shield of "pa
tional security"-and 'U.S. Distr
Judge Thomas Jackson bought their'
arguments. He ruled that Phillipk~
didn't have to answer questions 'about-
his CIA work, even though that's whets
the libel suit is all about. :. 6 ,
WASHINGTON POST
12 June 1983
? -The decision in. the Phillips case bast
given civil liberties experts the chills..
They point out that Judge Jackson's,
decision, if allowed to stand, would of
fectively muzzle anyone who writes;
something the CIA or its former agents:
don't Eke. The threat of a libel suit,
which the -defense is shackled,*..
enough to were off all but the moss..,
reckless writers and publishers. yZ.
Phillips. was the logical choice to
carry the C14's banner in this disturb-.
ing case. After leaving the CIA in 1975,
Phillips. founded the.As,bcigtion of
Former.Intelligence Officers and later
a "legal action" ,groin called CHAL-
.LENGE.. According , to Phillips, A he
purpose of CHALLENGE was "to as-
sist former intelligence persons who
have beep libeled or slandered." ' __ I . r
Ina fund-raising letter, Phillips-ex
plained his plans this way. "It's time- td
challenge this malicious treatment9in
public print and public forums. A tesk
case should be mounted against writers
who defame ex-intelligence officers.""~ ~`
According to. court testimony, PhiL-.?
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 hup?
to presidential assassin Lee HarveyOs-
wald. The libel suit was thrown out icy;.
a Montgomery County judge. Phillips:
then used his CHALLENGE funds*
t*,
go.afterFreed. .' '`
Freed had charged in his book that'
Phillips was head of Latin.Americanr
operations until his retirement in 197N,,.
and thus was closely tied to DINA,.the. .
Chilean secret police, whose chief ,vaC;
later indicted for the Letelier-Moffltt''
murders.
But when asked about his CIA back.'
ground by Freed's lawyers,- PhiIIips,,~
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. disniis?j,
al. One judge did, in fact, order Phillips
to answer on details of his CIA w itlc''
But then the case 4 as . assignedt t
Judge Jackson, who reversed the Bar.
lier order and let Phillips keep mum;-;.,..
Phillips' deposition was taken ip
'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. Sr
what we have is a Plaintiff 'who can suO
with impunity and with no fear of em-
barrassment. He's eating his?ca&e and
L --.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/09/09: CIA-RDP90-00806R000100200058-5