SHHH! DON'T TALK (MAYBE)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00965R000201830085-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 24, 2012
• Sequence Number: 85
• Publication Date: February 17, 1986
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

iSTATI 111 ' 1111 I ILI'Iill LILL f11L 1LI 19111 iJll l_ 11~1111JJ~_l JLLI I L_ ~ ..IJI..I . I . I I I
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/24: CIA-RDP90-00965R000201830085-8
I'1 w T Ilia i u'u .
ARTICLEA
ON PAGE 17 February 1986
.
Shhh! Don't "Palk (Mayo
By STEPHEN ENGELBERG
Special to The, New York Times
WASHINGTGN, Feb. 16 - The
head of the Drug Enforcement Ad-
ministration got himself into a bit of
hot water last week over an issue that
confronts Federal investigators
nearly every day.
John C. Lawn, the agency's club i in
istrator, was speaking at c
California and he could not resist the
temptation to talk about an agency in-
vestigation in which an unnamed air-
line in the "eastern" United States
was cooperating. He said as many as
50 employees of the airline could face
char es of cocaine smuggling.
It id not take long for reporters to
ferret out that Eastern Airlines,
.based in Miami, was the carrier in-
volved. Mr. Law had stunned some
law-enforcement officials, and they
anonymously accused him of "blow-
ing" a continuing investigation.
The Rules of the Game
The Washington ways governing
when, and whether, to discuss an in-
vestigation have always had an Alice-
in-Wonderland quality to them.
Roughly paraphrased, the rules of the
game go this way: You can't ever dis-
cuss investigations, except for when
you can, which turns out to be a lot of
the time.
Justice Department regulations
bar officials from talking about any
case that is still being actively inves-
tigated. But officials break this rule
regularly, both anonymously and
through veiled comments in "on-the-
record" statements.
There are a number of different
motivations for all this public talk
about' supposedly secret matters.
Sometimes, the investigators are
trying to force the hand of reluctant
prosecutors who may believe the case
is not solid enough to support an in-
,?dictment. Or, prosecutors may be
trying to build public pressure to con-
vince their superiors that a case
,should go forward.
On occasion, material from inquir-
ies finds its way to the press precisely
because the investigators cannot
make a court case - and they have
decided to bring the "truth" about a
particular individual to public atten-
tion in whatever way they can.
. A Way to Counter Criticism
And finally, the tendency to shine
the spotlight of public attention on
continuing investigations seems to
grow stronger both at budget time or
when a particular agency is. under
fire in Congress for not doing enough.
Joseph H. Sherick, the inspector
general of the Defense Department,
last year surprised some of his field
investigators when he gave Repre-
sentative John D. Dingell, Democrat
of Michigan, a list of 45 major mili-
tary contractors that were under in-
vestigation.
Mr. Dingell in turn made portions
of the document public, including the
names and possible offenses at 36 of
the companies; the remainder were
kept secret because the companies in-
volved had not yet been told they
were the subject "of a Pentagon in-
quiry.
A field investigator working on one
of the cases made public in this ex-
change said last year that he was
shocked that Mr. Sherick had sup-
plied the document to Mr. Dingell.
But the move was politically shrewd.
At the moment that Mr. Sherick and
Mr. Dingell were, in essence, tacitly
agreeing to release the list, the Penta-
gon was under sharp criticism for
what some members of Congress said
was a lackadaisical approach to com-
bating fraud or abuse by military con-
tractors.
Sometimes, even the most senior
law-enforcement officials walk close
to the edge when it comes to the rules
on discussing investigations.
'I'm Saying Too Much'
Last year, for instance William H.
Webster, director of the F eral Bu-
reau of i
in a corridor on Ca ital Hill b
group o reporters ease rn discuss
the case of Edward Lee Howard- a
-
former officer with the Central Intel
i ence Agency w o was suss= rte o
~r,vtn' QTor Elie Soviet union r H
and who is still at lar e, had fled the
count eva in bureau surveil-
lance. Some critics in Congress were
jjj tinnm whether the bureau had
hnneled the
Asked about the evidence against
smil and
Howard Mr Webster
id he could not discuss such things.
But he recounted an old sa in
amnno prosecutors t at i ht is o ten
n ' dication of guilt. The interview
wag abrunliv terminat a ti ht-
_+:i Hari F R i official who clam his
h^nd on M,r Webster's shoulder and
reminded him of pressing appoint-
men s.
That usually means in sa 'iog
too much " Mr We ster sat with a
grin.
11l bar against discussing the sub-
stance of continuing cases persists
after an arrest is made, primarily be-
cause of concerns about pretrial pub-
licity.
Rules on Pretrial Comments
Further, in some Federal district
courts, all parties in the case are
banned from making any public com-
ments before trial. The F.B.I.'s
Assistant Director for Congressional
and Public Affairs, William M.
Baker, learned the hard way last year
that such rules are in effect in Balti-
more.
Shortly after the bureau arrested
John A. Walker Jr., a retired Navy
man, in suburban Maryland, Mr.
Baker gave an interview describing
how bureau agents shadowed Mr.
Walker for more than six months be-
fore arresting him on charges of lead-
ing one of the largest spy rings in
American history.
All law-enforcement agencies,
from local police departments to the
F.B.I., like to reap the publicity har-
vest that surrounds a good case, and
Mr. Baker's story that was unfolding
gripping spy
around Mr. Walker, who later
pleaded guilty. But his comments
also ran afoul of the ban on public
comments before trial. Mr. Baker
quickly found himself the target of a.
contempt motion filed by Mr. Walk-
er's defense lawyer.
No 'Adverse Effect'
So, as the cloudburst over Mr.
Lawn's remarks about the Eastern
Airlines drug case was dissipating
last week, a spokesman for the
D.E.A., Robert Feldkamp, acknowl-
edged that the Administrator "prob-
ably inadvertently went beyond the
Department of Justice guidelines in
this instance."
The matter does not seem to have
harmed Mr. Lawn's standing in the
law-enforcement community.
"It should be understood that noth-
ing Mr. Lawn has said has had any
adverse effect on the case," said At-
torney General Edwin Meese 3d in a
statement issued Friday. "He retains-
my absolute confidence and admira-'
tion for the wbrk he is doing.' .
T-,_ Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/24: CIA-RDP90-00965R000201830085-8