COVERT ACTION INFORMATION BULLETIN CALLS PRESS CONFERENCE TO REFUTE ATTACKS BY MEDIA AND CONGRESS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 17
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 14, 2010
• Sequence Number: 69
• Publication Date: July 18, 1980
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
INFORMATION ERHJJ fl
Covert Action Publications, Inc.
P.O. Box 50272
Washington, DC 20004
[phone]
F O R I M M E D I A T E R E L E A S E
COVERTACTION INFORMATION BULLETIN
CALLS PRESS CONFERENCE
TO REFUTE ATTACKS BY MEDIA AND CONGRESS
Monday, July 21, 1980
10:30 AM, East Lounge, National Press Building
14th and F Sts., Washington, DC
This Monday the Editors of the CovertAction Information Bul-
letin, the Washington-based bi-monthly magazine which concentrates
on exposing CIA abuses, operations and personnel, will appear at a
press conference to respond to the recent upsurge of attacks against
their publication both in Congress and by the media, including edi-
torials in the New York Times and the Washington P-ewt; which the
Editors have described as "vicious" and "dishonest."
They will discuss specifically the situation in Jamaica and
their research and exposures there, as well as, generally, the work
they do and how they do it. In addition they will discuss the cam-
paign in Congress to ban their publication, which they view as a
dangerous and unconstitutional attack upon freedom of the press, and
the first step towards an Official Secrets Act in the United States.
There will be a question and answer session.
For further information, contact:
William Schaap or Louis Wolf
(202) 265-3904
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
CAWeCrk8qft*XM
INFt90AATION BTXJXrIN
Covert Action Publications, Inc.
P.O. Box 50272
Washington, DC 20004
[phone]
The Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
July 18, 1980
Your recent editorial (July 14) attacking us was so unusually
vicious and replete with misstatement that it requires a response.
First and foremost, you assert both that our work in exposing
U.S. intelligence abuses, operations, and personnel e,,dangers lives
and that we do not care. In the course of so doing, you misquote
not us, or an outsider, but your own reporter.
Not one of the several thousand CIA personnel exposed over the
past several years by many publications in many countries has been
harmed on account of it. Even Admiral Turner has admitted that "this
enterprise," as you put it, had nothing to do with the killing of
Richard Welch in Athens in 1975. As a number of publications have
revealed, Mr. Welch was killed by a group stalking his predecessor
shortly after he had moved into his predecessor's home, ignoring
cabled warnings from CIA Headquarters not to live there.
More significantly, you assert that Mr. Wolf expressed "indif-
ference," that "he doesn't care," and that, "As he told Philip
Taubman of The Times, he has no qualms about the fate of individuals."
As Mr. Taubman and his interview notes will confirm, if you ask him,
Mr. Wolf expressed quite the contrary, noting that he was against
violence and abhorred the inflicting of any injury to persons ex-
posed, and pointing out that it had never, in fact, occurred and in
any event was totally counter-productive, giving the CIA sympathy
and support it does not deserve. Moreover it diverts attention
from the real abuses we are criticizing.
Your outrage over our "mocking" of the First Amendment, even
stripped of its arrogance, is quite revealing. Your publication,
you assert, should decide what is "valid and necessary reporting"
and what constitutes "a legitimate study of the C.I.A." Why, though,
is it legitimate for your paper to expose the Pentagon Papers or
destabilization by the CIA in Chile, for example, but not legitimate
for the CovertAction Information Bulletin to expose destabilization
in Jamaica? As Ford Rowan testified before the House Intelligence
Committee in January, "The First Amendment wasn't designed to pro-
tect The New York Times; it was designed to protect people like
CovertAction."
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
The Editor, The New York Times July 18, 1980
We should point out that, for example, shortly after the
Jonestown events in Guyana we received a call from a New York Times
reporter who wanted to know whatever names we had of CIA officers
in Guyana. We constantly receive requests from the "establishment"
media in this and many other countries requesting such information
and research assistance. We have been hired by some of the most
prestigious newspapers in the world to do research for them. (We
have consistently refused, however, all requests relating to Iran,
which have come to us from every major media organization in the
United States, including yours. We have done so precisely because
of the possibility of physical harm in that unique situation.)
When you say "the United States needs spies abroad; every
country employs them," you misrepresent entirely the premises from
which we operate, premises which Mr. Taubman accurately reported.
We do not object to intelligence gathering; we object to the covert
interference in the affairs of other nations, the refusal to let the
people of those nations decide for themselves upon their leaders,
their systems of government, and the forms of institutions they desire.
Finally, when you call upon the Congress to look for laws that
might "get" us, without, of course, "getting" The New York Times,
your outrage blinds you. There is no such law. Our research in-
volves unclassified material, and no CIA "sources." As the American
Civil Liberties Union recently reminded Congress, "no bill which is
conceivably constitutional can, in fact, prevent the publication by
the CovertAction Information Bulletin ... of the names of CIA officers
who are assigned to positions in American embassies." They noted
the conclusion of the Church Committee that "Some forms of cover do
not provide concealment but offer a certain degree of deniability."
You believe that what we do is morally wrong; we believe that
what we do is morally right. If you want to urge the CIA to develop
better cover, that is your right. But you are asking Congress to
make it a crime for private citizens to publish unclassified infor-
mation obtained from unclassified sources. That you do not understand
the dangerous implications of that position is saddening.
Yours, etc.,
Louis if William Schaap Ellen Ray/
Co-Editors,
CovertAction Information Bulletin
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
THE NEW YORK TIMES, MONDAY, JULY u, 1980
Getting at the spy Hunters
Philip Agee and Louis wolf call themselves jour-
nalists, but the only thing they have done for journal-
ism is to create and corner a most ghoulish part of the
market. They are in the business of identifying Ameri-
can undercover intelligence agents and publishing
their names in books and bulletins. Their purpose is to
destroy the nation's covert intelligence operations. En-
dangering tI. lives of the secret agents may not be
their main purpose, but that Is one result of their labor,
a result about which they express indifference.
Because of that indifference, It is fair to tax this
enterprise with some responsibility for the assassina-
tion In 1975 of Richard Welch, the C.I.A. station chief in
Athens. The armed attack 10 days ago on the home of
-an American embassy official in Jamaica followed
soon after Mr. Wolf described that official as the
C.I.A.'s station chief in Kingston. Mr. Wolf suggests
without proof that the agency itself might have com-
mitted the violence, but the important thing is that he
doesn't care. As he told Philip Taubman of The Times,
he has no qualms about the fate of individuals. "C.I.A.
covert activities are inseparable from C.I.A. people,"
he said.
This attitude, like the project itself, mocks the
First Amendment guarantee of free speech and Ameri-
can respect for dissent. It invites retribution against
responsible as well as reckless critics of intelligence
operations. It sorely tempts society to curb these indi-
viduals in ways that curtail the liberties of all. One
such excessive response was the State Department's
lawless revocation of Mr. Agee's passport, an action al-
ready struck down by the U.S. Court of Appals in
Washington.
? We cannot match our outrage with a sailstying
solution. It should be easier to deal with Mr. Agee. a
former C.I.A. agent, than with Mr. Wolf, a private citi-
zen educated by Mr. Agee in methods of detecting
agents and their covers. Present and former Govern- .
ment employees can be punished for misusing informa-
tion they acquired in official jobs; perhaps the law can
even presume that a misused secret was one derived
from Government employment.
But it is not a crime, nor should it be, for a private
citizen to gather and to publish information from public
sources, however offensive to the Government and
society. A law that would punish Mr. Wolf for publish-
ing secret names in his Covert Action Information
Bulletin could also punish a newspaper that identified
an agent In the the valid and necessary reporting of
events or In the course of a legitimate study of the
C.I.A.
The United States needs spies abroad; every coun-
try employs them. Congress is reaffirming the n:.ed for
Intelligence and counterintelligence even as it strives
to write a legislative charter to curb the past abuses of
the C.I.A. Anyone is free to disagree with that commit-
ment to spying and to agitate against it. But the Agee-
Wolf publications exceed the bounds of dissent.
Threatening the safety of individuals ought to be
distinguishable from challenging a national policy. So
Congress is right to try to draw the distinction in law.
But we are not yet persuaded that it can be done with-
out jeopardizing the most precious liberties of speech
and press. This is not the first attempt to use the de-
fense of civil liberties as a shield, even for the most con-
temptible scoundrels. Let us look at laws that might
get at them, but let us not in the process compound the
damage they do.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
ENVI)RMATMN BULLETIN
Covert Action Publications, Inc.
P.O. Box 50272
Washington, DC 20004
[phone]
July 18, 1980
The Editor
The Washington Star
225 Virginia Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20061
Your recent editorial (July 17) attacking our work presents
a dishonest brief for the Central Intelligence Agency to which we
must respond.
Your assertion that the CIA is "long since officially declawed"
is ludicrous. For more than three years, the Congress labored with
no success to pass a charter for the CIA--not to declaw it, but
merely to minimize the possibility of the more blatant abuses for
which the CIA is noted. No significantly restrictive legislation
affecting the CIA has ever been passed.
And when you refer to the CIA's activities as "undercover
maneuvering_ ... strictly limited to collecting information," you
perpetuate the CIA's favorite myth, that it is primarily an intel-
ligence gathering agency. We have never objected to intelligence
gathering; we object to covert interference in the affairs of other
nations. We object to bribery, corruption, blackmail, arson, and
murder, all of which have been, and remain, the operational tools
of the CIA. There is no law which prevents the CIA from buying elec-
tions, operating phoney "news" services, arming "rebels," or bombing
buildings, for example, all of which it does.
At least you recognize that the Intelligence Identities Pro-
tection Act is a law aimed solely at the CovertAction Information
Bulletin. You do not note, however, that we are private citizens
who, having never worked for the government nor signed any agree-
ments, are researching unclassified material, and, with no inside
sources, carefully reaching our own journalistic conclusions. The
First Amendment does not allow such conduct to be criminalized, as
this Act would purport to do. That you, as a newspaper, do not
recognize this fact, is dangerous--to all the press. It is to your
advantage that the First Amendment protects us, as well as you. You
may disagree with our views on the CIA. You may even accept, as you
apparently do, the most blatant lies of the U.S.-supported opposition
party in Jamaica. But that you would welcome an official Secrets
Act in this country is frightening.
Yours, etc.,
Louis Wdlf William Schaap . Ellen Ray
Co-Editors, CovertAction Information Bulletin
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
THE WASHINGTON STAR, Thursday, July 17, 1980
:Another watchman to watch
The Central Intelligence Agency, long since
officially declawed and all but disavowed by the
government it presumes to serve, is still the tar-
get of irrational hostility in this country. In fact,
the Ayatollah Khomeini himself, crying "Satanic
CIA plot" every time his policies run into opposi-
tion from the Iranian people, is no harder on the
United states' foreign intelligence-gathering
network than certain of its home-grown
enemies.
The example of the moment is Louis Wolf, a
one-man crusade who boasts of having broken
the cover of some 2,000 CIA agents around the
world. He does it through books and through a
regularly published information bulletin. He
does it in the name of First Amendment rights
and the wrongness of American intervention in
the internal affairs of foreign countries.
When his work appears to get results, as it did
when, after he was named as a CIA agent in the
Wolf newsletter, N. Richard Kinsman had his
house in Jamaica shot up, there's a ready expla-
nation. According to Wolf, the CIA staged the at-
tack to give its agents martyr status.
Undercover maneuvering, however strictly
limited to collecting information, invites ques-
tionable behavior. Whatever is done in secret is,
by definition, hard to police from the outside.
Unaccountability is a great corrupter. Unac-
countability also inspires paranoia about what
other people are up to.
Thus there are legitimate reasons for worry-
ing about any nation's intelligence apparatus.
The unfortunate thing is that, in this country,
these legitimate concerns so easily become
entangled with the facile anti-Americanism of
certain social critics given to measuring what
our government does by utopian standards and
to evaluating what other governments do by
what they profess to intend.
This seems to be the case with Mr. Wolf, who
pursues CIA agents with the zeal of a Louis Pas-
teur trying to track down disease germs. The
situation in Jamaica, which he feared the CIA
was trying to "destabilize," includes such ele-
ments as the Labor party's charges that the gov-
ernment of Prime Minister Michael Manley is
collaborating with Cuba to arm and train an
extra-legal military force.
Happily, the intelligence-gathering function
still has a few friends in the United States. There
are even a few people who believe that those
who carry out that function should have what
protection is possible in their dangerous tasks.
There is even an Intelligence Identities Protec-
tion Act under consideration in Congress. Its
purpose is to rein in the anti-CIA ardors of a
Louis Wolf by penalizing the unauthorized reve-
lation of names and addresses of agents engaged
in secret work on behalf of the United States gov-
ernment. It's about time.
Happily, Mr. Kinsman and his family were un-
harmed by the attack on their house in Jamaica.
And if the episode draws attention to the need-
less peril they were exposed to by Mr. Wolf, it
may not be altogether negative in its impact. For
that matter, if it draws attention to what seems
to be going on between the governments of Cuba
and Jamaica, complete with the implications for
the United States, that might not be a bad thing
either.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
Covert Action Publications, Inc.
P.O. Box 50272
Washington, DC 20004
[phone]
July 9a 1980
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ................
--- ---------
In view of the events last week in Kingston, Jamaica, the Covert
Action Information Bulletin wishes to set the record straight and
clarify certain important issues regarding what happened.
After a week-long period of extensive investigation in Kingston,
we uncovered the presence there of 15 CIA personnel -- in CIA terms
a very significant increase from the 9 people there in 1976. This
included N. Richard Kinsman, the Chief of Station, who in fact we
had named over nine months ago in our October 1979 issue. That issue
of the Bulletin was widely distributed both here and abroad, including
in Jamaica, where we have a number of subscribers many of whom are
working journalists. So the press conference last Wednesday was by no
means the first time Mr. Kinsman's identity was disclosed publicly.
Moreover, on arriving in Kingston -- eight days before the press con-
ference (which we had at that time not planned on holding) -- no less
than three Jamaican journalists approached CAIB independently to dis-
cuss what they interpreted as being espionage activities on the part
of Kinsman. Only one of them had read about his identity in CAIB nine
months previously.
There are a number of sharp inconsistencies about the incident
leading us to question whether in fact the CIA may not have had a hand
in the shooting on the morning of July 3. The circumstances of the
incident require close attention.
As pointed out in the New York Times, Mr. Kinsman did not call the
police after the shooting, despite the fact that he has working rela-
tions with a handful of high police officials. According to journalists
in Kingston, he called the Daily Gleaner, the local newspaper close to
the opposition Jamaica Labour Party, which has openly called for the
overthrow of the government, and is in many facets of its content and
format strikingly similar to El Mercurio, the newspaper in Chile which
the CIA funded as its main propaganda instrument between 1970 and the
violent overthrow of the Salvador Allende government in 1973.
A maid working for Mr. Kinsman and living in the house where the
attack occurred, stated that she "heard a noise during the night" but
first learned of the incident only when neighbors showed her the bullet
holes later. How was she able to sleep through the noise of loud and
prolonged machinegun fire and a grenade explosion on the front lawn?
The position of the CovertAction Information Bulletin has always
been emphatic on the subject of violence. We are, and have since we
started publication two years ago and back to 1974 as well, been com-
pletely and unalterably opposed to violence against CIA personnel. We
did not just arrive at this position since last Friday's incident. To
physically harm CIA officers is definitely not an effective way to
oppose the CIA's covert operations. All it nth i PVP-_ i s to iri lro them
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
sympathy which they do not deserve. Further, all the CIA will do in
such a case is to replace the individual and then carry on its business
as usual. While obviously there are many people in Jamaica who are
against the CIA's destabilization activities in their country, their
call has consistently been for the CIA to leave Jamaica. What is more,
if the person(s) behind the shooting outside the Kinsman residence had
in fact wanted to kill him, they would have carried out the operation
in more than a half-hearted fashion.
There is now a chorus of voices trying to pin blame for the incident
on CovertAction Information Bulletin. There is as well the CIA's long-
expressed desire to obtain passage in Congress of a pending bill that
would make it a criminal offense for anyone, including other journalists
who, like us, never worked for the CIA) to name names of intelligence
agency personnel. The net result would be to totally stifle the voices
of potential whistleblowers in government, or others outside, from dis-
cussion of Agency activities. Given the current election-year climate,
this is precisely what those who seek to "unleash the CIA" desire.
The CIA has a lot to gain from this attempt to shoot up the home of
its top operative in Jamaica -- much more than the many Jamaicans or
Americans who stand against CIA covert operations and intervention.
Attached is the first part of the press release issued last week
in Kings-ton, Jamaica. For further information, please call the above
number.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
CovertAction
Information Bulletin
1018 National Press Building
Washington, DC 20045
(202) 265-3904
PRESS RELEASE............
Kingston, Jamaica
2 July 1980
LARGE CIA STATION IN KINGSTON
For two years the CovertAction Information Bulletin
has endeavored to expose the abuses of the United States
intelligence complex--onerations, "dirty tricks," and
personnel--especially oi the Central Intelligence Agency.
We have, in past issues, exposed several CIA officers
stationed in Jamaica, and carried articles about what we
believe to be a large-scale destabilization program in
operation here in Jamaica.
As is to be expected, the U.S. government periodically
issues standard denials of these allegations, suggesting
that there is nothing out of the ordinary with respect to
U.S. operations in Jamaica. We have decided that it is im-
perative during this most dangerous period in Jamaican his-
tory to challenge these protestations in the most effective
way we can. We have conducted an extensive and exhaustive
investigation into U.S. diplomatic personnel stationed in
Jamaica, and have confirmed that the CIA presence here is
on the rise.
In 1976, Philip Agee uncovered nine CIA members here;
we have uncovered to date at least fifteen, many recently
arrived. At least one senior case officer has an extensive
background in extremist, right-wing activities. Another
of the case officers here has even been assigned to work
with a Jamaican government agency. We list in this press
release all the particulars of these personnel we have been
able to ascertain, and we will elaborate in our press con-
ference.
We oppose most strenuously the unlawful interference
by the Central Intelligence Agency in the internal affairs,
of Jamaica--and all other countries, for that matter.
These people must leave Jamaica; there must be no destabili-
zation of Jamaica. The people of Jamaica rust openly and
in the democratic political arena determine their own des-
tiny, and not be bent to the wishes of the U.S. intelligence
forces.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
Philip Agee exposed the presence in Ja-unaica of the CIA
Chief of Station (Norman M. Descoteaux) , the Deputy Chief
of Station (Joel H. Beyer), as well as two operations offi-
cers, two telecommunications people, two secretaries, and
two other State Department officers whom he assessed as
being involved in some way with the CIA's operations in
Jamaica.
Between that time and 1979, the CIA has assigned-one,.
Chief of Station (Dean J. Almy, Jr.), and at least two
operations officers, three telecommunications people, and
two secretaries to Kingston.
At present, there has been a major increase in the size
of the CIA Station. The composition of the Station now is
as follows:
- The Chief of Station;
the Deputy Chief of Station;
five operations officers (including one former Deputy
Chief of Station here from 1976-78 who returned to
the island recently, and is now assisting in current
operations);
- two telecommications officers, plus one due to arrive
within the next two weeks;
- and five secretaries and record-keepers.
- In addition, there is one actual Foreign Service offi-
cer who performs some joint activities with the CIA
Station, though he is apparently not a CIA officer.
The total CIA complement at the Station then is fifteen
people, plus the State Department person who helps out on a
part-time basis. It must also be stated that this is,
unfortunately, only a partial list. Some may have suddenly
left Jamaica in the past few days in anticipation of being
identified -- most for the first time, a few who were pre-
viously identified for the second time. Additional CIA
personnel have in all likelihood come to Jamaica recently
to take over the operations of the ones who abruptly left.
Other CIA people may prove more difficult to uncover -- be
they business people, missionaries, tourists, retired people,
or under some other form of "deep cover."
There is in the Kingston Station, as in all CIA bases
under diplomatic cover around the world,.a division of intel-
ligence operations tasks along particular lines of specialty,
including labor, youth and students, media,'military and
paramilitary or police work, liaison with rightist groups,
etc. This division will be made according to the training
and experience of the personnel at the Station.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF
WITNESSES BEFORE THE HOUSE AND SENATE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES
Floyd Abrams, House Committee, January 30,'1980:
I appear before you for the primary purpose of urging
upon you that Section 501(b) of the proposed legislation--
the section relating not to disclosures by agents or the
like, but by the rest of us, including the press--is flatly
and facially unconstitutional; that it is, as well, unwise;
and that, on reflection, it should be rejected.
On its face, Section 501(b) would permit the criminal
prosecution of any newspaper, broadcaster, publisher, author,
journalist or a other citizen who in any way (and however
innocently) learns the name or other facts concerning the
identity of any agent, informant or the like, that the United
States is attempting to keep secret and publishes or otherwise
The effect of such a statute would be startling and
unprecedented.
At its core, Section 501(b) flies in the face of a
first principle of the First Amendment: While government may
try to keep information secret, the disclosure of information
which has already become public may not later be criminally
punished. Indeed, as phrased by Chief Justice Burger, "The
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
2
government cannot restrain publication of whatever information
the media acquires--and which they elect to reveal."
Beyond these objections to Section 501(b), I would urge
the Committee to consider this question: law aside, even
constitutional law aside, is it really necessary for the
first time in our nation's history to attempt to make criminal
the publication of material which is essentially within the
public domain? I would urge upon you that it is not and
that whatever you may decide to do with respect to the disclosure
:-)y CIA agents or the like, that you adopt no legislation
which bars the rest of the American people from disclosing
fully the activities of our Government of which they learn.
To do otherwise would not only deprive the public of informa-
tion: it would deprive us all of credibility as we deal with
each other--press with public, citizens with each other.
Ford Rowan, House Committee, January 30, 1980:
I have tried my best to avoid letting where I sit (in
the press gallery) determine where I stand on this issue.
But as a journalist I cannot consider this legislation without
becoming concerned about preserving First Amendment rights.
As for the second category of potential offender under
the legislation, the category which would include the press,
my objections are much more strenuous. First, unlike CIA or
military intelligence officers, reporters have taken no oath
to keep secrets. Second, reporters should not be forced by
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
Congress to--in effect--take a secrecy oath. That's what
this bill would do. Yet reporters violate their responsibility
as disseminators of information when they are forced into
keeping secrets rather than permitted to evaluate whether what
they have learned should be published.
I 'do not think that the inclusion of this second cate-
gory of individuals who would be subject to criminal penalties
for divulging the names of intelligence operatives will do
very much to prevent such disclosures. ... Look how un-
successful the federal go?ernment was when it tried to enjoin
publication of the Progressive magazine article on how to
build an H bomb. If you cannot stop disclosure of atomic
secrets I doubt if the government could stop disclosure of
the names of some of its spies. Spilling H bomb secrets
seems much more threatening to national survival.
The H bomb article was based in part on unclassified
information available in government libraries open to the
public. That factor in that episode could have relevance to
our discussion today, for this bill would punish a reporter
who combed through open sources such as biographical registers
to identify covert officers and agents. The government
extracts a high price from journalists when it seeks to
punish them for revealing what the government itself was
too inept to keep secret.
It is well known that for years it was possible to iden-
tify CIA personnel on embassy staffs by checking State
Department registers.... So before you try to punish the
outsiders I think you could tighten secrecy and use more
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
care in choosing those who will know the secrets.
That is the path I would recommend for you: strengthen-
ing the internal government process for these intelligence agen-
cies while avoiding new prohibitions which unconstitutionally
interfere with freedom of the press.
While First Amendment guarantees may not be absolute,
they should be tampered with very cautiously. This
proposed legislation is unnecessary, unworkable, and un-
constitutional.
American Civil Liberties Union, House Committee, January 30, 1980:
As Chairman Boland candidly stated in his remarks on the
floor of the House when introducing H.R. 5615, Section 501(b)
"could subject a private citizen to criminal prosecution for
disclosing unclassified information obtained from unclassified
sources."
We believe that this prohibition is unconstitutional and
unwise because it would chill public debate on matters of
great public importance. Recognizing the importance of public
discussion of national security matters, the courts have
found punishing dissemination or publication of information
in the public domain constitutionally defective.
In testimony before this Committee, Deputy Assistant
Attorney General Robert L. Keuch speaking for the Justice
Department accurately and succinctly summed up the decisions
of the courts as holding that no one can be convicted of
espionage or the compromise of information relating to the
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
national defense "if the information was made available to
the public, or if the government did not attempt to restrict
its dissemination or if the information was available to
everyone from lawfully accessible sources."
As far as we are aware, the Department of Justice has
never challenged this interpretation of the Constitution and
has never advocated the enactment of a statute which would
punish one who analyzes unclassified information and publishes
the result.
Any effort to do so would violate the First Amendment
right of all persons to engage in free and robust 3ebate on
public matters without the chilling effect which would come from
the fear of a prosecution under the proposed statute.
In our view, the inhibition on public discussion is not
cured by the requirement that the government prove from evidence
other than the disclosure itself that a person acted with
the "intent to impair or impede the foreign intelligence
activities of the United States." Would criticism of CIA
activities indicate an "intent to impair or impede?" What
if the foreign intelligence activity impeded were illegal? ...
Mr. Chairman, in our view this section of H.R. 5615 is
vague and overbroad and clearly unconstitutional. Based
on the examples, we do not believe that even limiting disclosure
to classified matters would cure the defect. As long as
this legislation includes any provisions which can reach those
who have not had authorized access to classified information
we would have no choice but to vigorously oppose its passage.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
American Civil Liberties Union, Senate Committee, June 25, 1980:
We would urge that any legislation be deliberately
considered and that the precise wording be subject to careful
scrutiny. Our own current views may be summarized as follows:
--Even a relatively broad bill would not be able to deal
with what is the main current concern, namely the publication
in the CovertAction Information Bulletin of the names of CIA
station chiefs and other prominent CIA officials. Those
listings derive from unclassified information. It is our firm
view that any statute which purported to punish private citizens
for using unclassified information would be unconstitutional. ...
No bill which is conceivably constitutional can, in fact,
prevent the publication by the CovertAction Information Bulletin
or by other publications in the United States or abroad of
the names of CIA officers who are assigned to positions in
American embassies.
The simple truth is that those individuals are only
under what is referred to as light cover. The CIA has never
had any real confidence that the identity of those officials
would be kept from foreign intelligence services, host
governments, or even from the local or American press. Anyone
who has traveled abroad or who now travels abroad to engage
in newsgathering activities or political activities of any
kind can tell you that the CIA officers at a particular
embassy are widely known not only within the diplomatic com-
munity but within the local and American press communities and
within the political community of the host country.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5
The individuals are not identified as being with the CIA
almost entirely for diplomatic reasons. That is, most governments
do not want to formally acknowledge the fact that the United
States or other countries have intelligence agencies operating
within their embassies and enjoying diplomatic immunity, but
they all know that is going on and anybody in the country with
an interest in finding out who the CIA station chief is can
readily do so.
We would urge this committee to look at the original,
uncensored Church Committee discussion of cover and to take
with a great deal of skepticism any assertion that these
names cannot be derived from a combination of public sources
and local gossip. In fact, manuals and directories published
by the United States government enable anyone using simply
public sources and publicly available methods of analysis to
deduce who is or might very well be a CIA agent. There is no
way we believe constitutionally to punish the disclosure of
such deductions. If that cannot be done there is no way to
prevent the publication of lists of names of CIA officers.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/14: CIA-RDP90-00845R000100160069-5