WHY ISN'T FBI TREATED LIKE CIA?

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-01208R000100230104-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 22, 2011
• Sequence Number: 104
• Publication Date: April 18, 1977
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/22 : CIA-RDP90-01208R000100230104-3
AR IC/.N API'EARLD
O,v JA GE _/O
18 April 1977
Bob Wiedrich.
NY h Y kn't
STAT
THE JUSTICE Department has a dou-
ble standard on prosecuting federal
agents for opening mail that' may be
well founded in law but. will ma'l a no
sense. to Americans who -want their
country defended against all comers.
In one breath, the department says It
will not prosecute Central Intelligence
Agency personnel who opened letters in
search of foreign intelligence plots
against the United States in the two
decades. that ended in 1973.
But in the next breath, the department
Indicts a retired Federal Bureau of In-
vestigation supervisor on charges of
having directed mail openings and wire
tapping in the search for radical terror-
ists who were trying to blow up, the
government between 1970 and 1972.
The fine line between the two opera-
tions appears to be the kind of mail that
was involved-foreign as opposed to do-
mestic..
And the second determining question
appears to be whether CIA agents were
protected from being accused of lawless-
ness by an Implied presidential authori-
zation that did not extend to the FBI
men also working to defend their coun-
. try against violent subversive activity.
t KEEP.IN MIND that during the perl-
od for which CIA agents-have been giv-
en anjustice Department absolution-1953
to 1973-foreign spies may have stolen
American secrets. But it has not been
recorded that they blew up buildings
and jeopardized lives.
Quite (he - reverse applies to the
Weathermen faction of the radical Stu-
dents for a Democratic Society, whose
fugitive leaders - were being hunted by
? an FBI squad in New York City headed
by John J. Kearney, the retired supervi-
' sor indicted last April 7.'
The Weathermen were an -admitted
revolutionary group dedicated to the vio-
lent overthrow of a constitutionally
elected government.
Some of, their literature had been pre-
pared in Fidel . Castro's Communist
Cuba. Some of the group's leaders were
known to have received ideological
training in Cuba. They were a clear and
present danger to the country.
Today, by interpreting the law, the
Justice Department has decided the CIA
i mail snoopers could not be successfully
prosecuted because the rules were dif-
ferent when they operated and Ameri-
can Presidents from Dwight D. Eisen-
hower on down
probably
knew
about
their activities.
.
,
WE'RE NOT
suggesting
that
they
should be. prosecuted. But" eye don't think
the FBI agents should be, either.
Both bands of- men were. -acting in
behalf of their country and presumably
under the orders of superiors.
Besides; we find it hard to differenti-
ate between the opening of foreign and
domestic mail when the quarry being
sought was equally dangerous to the se-
curity of the United States.
In fact' it could be argued that the ti
Weathermen with their nitroglycerin and
dynamite were a far greater immediate
threat to the country than the foreign I
agents with their secret cameras and
bribe money.
Regardless, both mail opening opera-
tions were conducted during periods
when there was grave national concern
for the internal security of the nation.
And, as a 57-page report of the Justice
.
p
ep
explaining the decision not to prosecute
CIA men:
"Interviews of individuals w no served
as members of the President's Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board during the
Kennedy and Johnson administration in-
dicate these individuals were aware of
domestic mail openings by the CIA and.
FBI."
? A PRESIDE1IT would have to have
been "in a fog," one board -member told
the Justice Department, not to have
known that mail openings were being
conducted. .
In Its report, the department declared
that opening foreign mail would be ille-
gal under present law and that it would
not hesitate to prosecute future viola-
tors. ?.
However, it explained that the law
was not always as clear and that it
would be-"unfair" to prosecute defend-
ants today who believed their actions to
have been presidentially authorized.
14 in
ointed out last Jan
artment
D
The report leaned heavily on what it
termed "the well observed, but seldom
discussed" doctrine of .plausible denia-
bility or presidential deniability in intel-
ligence matters. .
.. The report defined those terms as
meaning that rarely were presidential
authorization; of sensitive Intelligence
operations reduced to writing.
. The device was one used to shield a
President from the consequences of hav-
ing possibly authorized unlawful acts.
ON FEB. 18, 1976, the White House
issued an executive `order withdrawing
f
any prior authorizations-for CIS. mail
openings. After more than 20 years
ambiguity, the rules about opening for-
eign mail for intelligence purposes final- I
ly had been made clear.
Legal authorities, however, maintain
that a judicial warrant is required to
open domestic mail and that presiden-
tial approvals of the past never did le-
galize such FBI operations. Following
the letter of. the law, that probably is
true. =
Nevertheless,-the domestic. mail open-,
ings were in search of fugitive terrorists!,
dedicated to destroying the . United
States"government by violent means.
. So while prosecuting former Agent
Kearney may satisfy legal purists,. we
believe the action qualifies as a gross i
injustice and a perversion of the law.
No man should be indicted for defend-
ing his country. ? -
W. Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/22 : CIA-RDP90-01208R000100230104-3