CIA DIRECTOR WARNS PRESS ON SECURITY LEAKS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00965R000504740002-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 9
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 24, 2012
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: May 21, 1986
• Content Type: REPORT

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000504740002-3
y
RADIO TV REPORTS,
4701 WILLARD AVENUE, CHEW CHASE, MARYLAND 20815 '[phone]
CBS Nightwatch
May 21, 1986 3:00 A.M.
STATION WDVM-TV
CBS Network
Washington, D.C.
CIA Director Warns Press on Security Leaks
FRED The government and the news media are
suppose o maintain an adversarial relationship. But now
there's an air of confrontation between the two sides. CIA
Director William Casey is seeking the possible prosecution of a
reporter because of a story on a current spy trial.
We get details now from CBS News correspondent David
DAVID MARTIN: Accused spy Ronald Pelton watched today
as jurors were selected to try him on charges of selling Moscow
secrets about American eavesdropping operations. Outside the
courtroom, a major clash is building between government and press
over whether some of the same secrets Pelton allegedly sold the
Russians can now be told to the American public.
CIA Director William Casey has asked the Justice
Department to consider prosecuting NBC News for reporting that
Pelton apparently gave away one of this country's most sensitive
intelligence operations, in which American submarines are
believed to have slipped into Russian harbors and listened in on
Soviet communications. Casey cited a 1950 law which makes it a
crime to publish classified information about communications
intelligence.
This latest battle between government and press, between
national security and the public's right to know is just
beginning.
GRAHAM: With us now, former CIA Director William Colby.
He served between 1973 and 1976, when the CIA and the press
clashed a number of times.
OFFICES IN: WASHINGTON DC. ? NEW YORK ? LOS ANGELES ? CHICAGO ? DETROIT ? AND OTHER PRINCIPAL CITIES
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000504740002-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000504740002-3
Mr. Colby, this is the first time in the long history of
the CIA that a Director has seen fit to ask the Justice
Department to consider prosecuting a reporter. And at the same
time, Director Casey has been warning other publications that
they too could be prosecuted.
Now, what could justify this change in the way things
havea been between the CIA and the press?
WILLIAM COLBY: Well, in the first place, the press for
many years was quite reticent. It didn't publish things that it
thought would injure our security, in some fashion or other.
That began to change in the mid-Seventies. The press took a much
more aggressive position.
At that point, the question was whether they had
transgressed any particular law. There are a very few statutes
that outline some very sensitive areas which they say should not
be published, in so many words. That's what the Congress
determined.
Now...
GRAHAM: Let me ask you about that.
COLBY: ...Casey has an obligation, established by the
law, to protect intelligence sources and methods.
And so, faced with a clear transgression ~f a clear law,
he had no alternative, I don't think, but to say, "This should be
brought to the attention of the Justice Department." That didn't
mean that he was out grabbing somebody and putting him in jail.
He was recommending that the Justice Department look at it.
GRAHAM: Surely, under your tenure there were clear
violations of clear laws.
COLBY: Not of communications intelligence. No, I don't
think you saw that kind of a problem.
GRAHAM: I remember a few years back when the story came
out that we were able to listen to one of the Russian -- a clear
violation, wasn't it?
COLBY: Perhaps, but really of no great significance, no
great importance.
GRAHAM: But why was this important? The Russians know
these secrets already. The spy allegedly told them.
COLEY: Well, but it's a matter of embarrassment. The
problem about the U-2...
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000504740002-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000504740002-3
GRAHAM: But that's interesting. Embarrassment?
COLBY: Embarrassment of the Soviets. This can be
GRAHAM: Explain that.
COLBY: The U-2 aircraft flew over the Soviet Union for
a number of years. Mr. Khrushchev knew it was flying over. He
finally shot it down.
GRAHAM: But are you saying...
COLBY: At that point, he was content to let the thing
GRAHAM: Mr. Colby, I think you just said that we should
prosecute an American reporter because he's embarrassed the
Russians.
COLBY: No. Because he's going to create an
international problem over intelligence matters, and because the
law is very clear as to the fact of what he should publish and
what he should not.
GRAHAM: Well, I find...
COLBY: This is not a business of disclosing all our
secrets or minor secrets, or anything else. It's a very narrow
category of secrets.
GRAHAM: Well, this is a statute that says that methods
of electronic surveillance...
COLBY: Right.
GRAHAM: ...shall not -- that it can be a crime to
disclose methods of elec -- but in recent years, more and more of
the information that this country knows come from electronic
means. We're in an electronic age.
Now, under your theory, that could close the window of
what the American public can know for such reasons as what you
just said, because it might embarrass the Russians.
COLBY: But you have an equal statute that says that the
Director has to protect intelligence sources and methods.
Now, if you don't like the statute, amend it. There's
no problem.
I happen to be for a shield law, which would say that
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000504740002-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000504740002-3
the newsman is free; the leaker should be punished. But that's
not the law. The law is very clear and plain.
GRAHAM: You know, our top leaders, including the
President -- the President goofed the other day and he let out
one of these secrets. Should he be prosecuted too?
COLBY: If you have the authority to classify, you
inherently have the authority not to classify.
GRAHAM: But I think you're trying to say that the
Director of the CIA has no discretion, that he should prosecute
anyone...
COLBY: No. He has discretion. He obviously is dealing
with -- and I don't want to talk about the specifics. But he's
obviously dealing with a very, very sensitive operation. And
he's very upset at the fact that this is coming out and becoming
an international issue, which can affect us not just in the past,
but in the future.
GRAHAM: Could it be this? See, it's hard for a person
who doesn't know all that you know about this to see why telling
the world secrets that the Russians already know is so sensitive.
Could it be this? Could it be that in this case what this NBC
reporter told was that our submarines were laying in the waters
close to Russia and surveilling them? I mean the Russians know
that. But maybe we're doing that to other countries, and they
didn't know it. Is it that kind of thing?
COLBY: I am not going to comment about the operation.
I'm not going to comment at all about it.
The fact is, though, that you can create a major
international issue by publicizing an event that the other side
may know quietly, but doesn't have to react to publicly. If it's
rammed down his throat and pointed out to the world, then he's
going to have to do something to demonstrate that he can react.
And that can hurt us and our sailors.
GRAHAM: So what you're really saying is that it's not
so much disclosing secrets here that's the harm, because they
know those secrets.
COLBY: No, they don't know all the secrets, in the
first place. In the second place, they don't know which things
they know are true and which are not.
They had a little character who was telling them items.
Now, how do they know that what he was telling them was true? If
you're going to confirm it, that's very valuable.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000504740002-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000504740002-3
If I had some confirmation of what some Soviet agent was
telling me, I would consider it a very valuable addition to my
information.
GRAHAM: But, really, on the Today Show?
COLBY: Yeah. Sure. If I could get a Soviet officer to
say that a certain agent of mine was a real agent and not a false
agent, that would be very valuable to me, because I'd go back
over his testimony and I'd say, "Well, I can believe it." Wheras
previously I couldn't.
GRAHAM: Thank you very much, former CIA Director
William Colby.
GRAHAM: We're back discussing the current battle
between the Reagan Administration and the news media.
With us now, Jack Nelson, the Washington bureau chief of
he Los Angeles Times; and John Grean_, a former CIA official,
ho now runs the Association of Retired Intelligence Officers.
Jack Nelson, if I heard former CIA Director William
Colby correctly a few moments ago, he said the two reasons why
this has come to pass is (A) he feels that there's an obligation
on the CIA Director to recommend prosecution of any journalist
who violates one of these statutes, clearly. And two, the real
harm here was not that the Russians were given any secrets,
because they already knew those secrets, but it might embarrass
the Russians.
Now, what do you think this means for the future of
relations between the CIA and the press?
JACK NELSON: Well, I don't think it bodes very well for
it, Fred. But I'd like to comment on both of the things he said.
I mean, number one, I think that is a major reason that
the government always gives, and particular the CIA. If it's not
a reason they give, it's a reason they have for not wanting
information out, because it's an embarrassment. Not that it's
really any real national security risk.
JOHN GREANEY: But Jack, that's what the statute says,
is that the Director protects sources and methods.
NELSON: Well, no. That's the other thing. You say
that, but now there've been CIA Directors -- this law was passed
when, 1950?
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000504740002-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000504740002-3
GREANEY: Right.
NELSON: Well, this is the first time in, what, 36 years
that any CIA Director has found it necessary to say we should
prosecute somebody. This is...
GREANEY: It's the only the first time that it's become
public knowledge what they've discussed with the Attorney
General.
NELSON: But this -- no, this is a change in policy.
This is definitely a change in policy by this Administration.
And I think it reflects this Administration's attitude...
GREANEY: On the contrary. You know, if Casey didn't do
this, he could be brought up for obstructing justice by not
following that mandate. That's a mandate, that's a statute that
says that he is responsible for protecting sources and methods.
NELSON: Well, how many CIA Directors have not followed
that mandate in the past. You know that's not...
GREANEY: I do know that it's true. And they have
referred cases to Justice for consideration of prosecution.
GRAHAM: Give us an example.
GREANEY: I can tell you a case where there was an
author that was writing things and quoting documents that were
classified. The CIA General Counsel...
GRAHAM: Is that Frank Snepp?
GREANEY: No. This is an author, a newsman who was
quoting classified documents in the press. And the General
Counsel went down to talk to the Attorney General about not
trying to get anything more than retrieve the things. And the
Justice Department refused to do it.
NELSON: Mr. Greaney, you've got to acknowledge that
this is a change of policy when CIA Director Casey makes a
public issue of it. They've never made a public issue before
now.
GREANEY: Well, I think he's gone to the press. He went
down to see Ben Bradlee to persuade him privately. I think it
came as a shock to him and a surprise that NBC broadcast this at
seven o'clock in the morning on their news show. I think it's an
element of surprise. If he had the opportunity...
GRAHAM: You mean he was still in a state of shock when
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000504740002-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000504740002-3
he put out the word that he was going to go and see the...
GREANEY: I think his reaction was that this was such a
sensitive piece of information, the only thing he could do was to
go to the Attorney General.
NELSON: -I can't believe that Mr. Casey was in a state
of shock. This is the kind of information that has been
published for the past 25 years, that submarines had been
intercepting message. You know that. I mean it's been in
newspapers, it's been on television for past 25 years.
GREANEY: As Mr. Colby said, however, the fact that this
is confirmation of an extremely low-level agent gives the
Russians such an advantage. When you get confirmation of these
things, that's the danger. It's not the embarrassment. I would
take umbrage with your statement of embarrassment.
NELSON: Well, that's what Mr. Casey said.
GRAHAM: I thought I heard Mr. Colby say that.
NELSON: I mean Mr. Colby.
GRAHAM: But didn't Mr. Casey highlight this when he --
I mean the Russians don't watch the Today Show, or certainly...
GREANEY:
television.
GRAHAM:
issue of it?
GREANEY:
requires him to do.
I'm sorry. They watch every piece of
But didn't he highlight it when he made this
No. I think he's doing what the statute
GRAHAM: Well, he didn't have to do it publicly. He put
out a press release saying that he was referring this case to the
Justice Department.
GREANEY: Because it ws such a serious, sensitive
matter, that he wanted it called to the attentionof the press, to
all the media.
GRAHAM: We have two minutes here. I want to ask you
each a question. First, Mr. Greaney.
Isn't Mr. Casey out to intimidate the press now? For
good reasons or bad, he's trying to.
GREANEY: I think Mr. Casey would go to the Attorney
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000504740002-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000504740002-3
General if it was his mother that was giving away secrets. He
wants to defend the Constitution and adhere to the statute. I
don't think he has a bone that is out to get the media. He wants
to stop leakers, is what he wants to stop.
GRAHAM: Jack Nelson, should the press take it upon
itself to decide when something harms the national interest?
NELSON: Well, I think the press has a duty to try to
find out what the government is doing, no matter what it might
be, and to report on it. And I don't think that they need to be
that concerned.
Look, if it's concerned about...
GREANEY: They don't have to be concerned?
NELSON: No, wait a minute. No. They do have to be
concerned about national security. And wait a minute. Katharine
Graham of the Washington Post, right now, and Ben Bradlee of the
Washington Post are taking into consideration what William Casey
has asked them to do about this particular article. They haven't
run it yet. And as a matter of fact, I mean the CIA, CIA
officials have told me that they believe the Post is in the
process of removing whatever damaging material there may be in
there.
So, I think to paint the press as somebody who doesn't
care about national security...
GREANEY: But I don't think anybody is doing that. I
think Casey would have -- if Casey had had the opportunity, had
been told that NBC was going to run this story, I thik Casey
would have talked to NBC, the same way he did to...
GRAHAM: Do you think the media should clear their
stories with the CIA? Is that what you're suggesting?
NELSON: That's the point.
GREANEY: When it's a sensitive matter, yes.
GRAHAM: A sensitive matter? So many things we report
important things, are sensitive matters.
GREANEY: I think that the Director of Central
Intelligence, who has the statutory control of the intelligence
community, is the one to determine whether material should be
made public or kept quiet.
GRAHAM: And not the press.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000504740002-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000504740002-3
GREANEY: That's exactly.
GRAHAM: The people who wrote the First Amendment might
wonder about that one.
Mr. Greaney, thank you. Our time is up.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000504740002-3