SSCI STAFF STUDY ON LEAKS WASHINGTON POST - 18 JULY 1987

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP91-00561R000100140027-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 8, 2012
• Sequence Number: 27
• Publication Date: August 3, 1987
• Content Type: MEMO

PfUICTft-ITTAI
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/08: CIA-RDP91-00561 R000100140027-7
UDAC 87-127
3 August 1987
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
THROUGH: Director, Intelligence Community Staff
Deputy Director, Intelligence Community Staff
Director, Community Counterintelligence and
Security Countermeasures Office
Chief, Unauthorized Disclosure Analysis Center
SUBJECT: SSCI Staff Study on Leaks
Washington Post - 18 July 1987
1. This memorandum is for information only. An article in the 28 July
1987 Washington Post cites an unpublished study by the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence that concludes that two-thirds of classified intelligence
leaks come from the executive branch. The Unauthorized Disclosure Analysis
Center (UDAC) has a copy of the study and has attempted some analysis.
2. The study purports to cover intelligence leaks during the period
1 January through 31 May 1986, citing 147 leaks during the 151-day period, 13
of them (9%) from Congressional sources. According to the Post, the study was
confined to "intelligence matters" and defined a "leak" as any disclosure of a
government secret that was attributed to government officials and not
announced in a formal statement.
3. During the same period, the UDAC recorded 51 unauthorized disclosures
of classified intelligence information published by the news media, none of
them attributed to Congressional sources. The UDAC's criteria for "leaks" are
that the compromised information is related to intelligence sources and
methods, including analysis, covert action, foreign intelligence liaison,
etc.; that it is currently classified; and that it has not been subjected to
previous public exposure.
4. The Post story appears to place more credence in the study than is
justified by the facts. It is highly unlikely that the SSCI Staff was able to
find three times as many intelligence leaks during the study period than the
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/08: CIA-RDP91-00561 R000100140027-7
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/08: CIA-RDP91-00561 R000100140027-7
SUBJECT: SSCI Staff Study on Leaks
Washington Post - 18 July 1987
Intelligence Community found. It begins, therefore, with a greatly inflated
base. This apparently stems from counting items that had been published
previously, or which were not intelligence items but dealt with diplomatic,
military, or other issues. (One item, published on 25 April 1986, appeared
twice.) There is no indication that the authors of the SSCI Staff study made
any effort to validate with any department, agency, or substantive expert that
the information revealed in the media actually constituted unauthorized
disclosures of classified intelligence information. They appear to have
included as "leaks" most major stories during the period related to
intelligence, diplomacy, military matters, and policy formulation that were
attributed to government sources.
5. The study's conclusion that only nine percent of the leaks were of
Congressional origin is based solely on the attribution used by the
journalists who wrote the stories. The Post story would lead the unwary to
believe it had been firmly and factually established that two-thirds of the
leaks came from the executive branch and nine percent came from Congress. C
6. There are at least two major flaws in these conclusions. Although
the Post story said 19 of the cases listed were not specific enough to
determine whether the sources were Congressional or administrative, the UDAC
found that 35 of the attributions listed in the study were so completely
nondescript, e.g., "well-placed source," "secret report," "informed sources,"
"intelligence sources," etc., that it is impossible to tell whether the
information came from the executive or the legislative branch. These stories
comprise almost 25 percent of the study sample and could make a tremendous
difference in the origin ratio. Another major problem lies in assuming that
the stories' attributions were accurate. There is no reason to believe that a
reporter would not protect his source by employing totally misleading
attribution, including citing an executive branch source for a story actually
obtained from a Congressional informant.
7. It is interesting to note that among the 146 stories regarded as
leaks by the SSCI Staff and the 51 recorded as unauthorized disclosures by the
UDAC, only six coincided. In addition to the six duplications, the UDAC
recorded three of the SSCI Staff-collected items as follow-ons to previous
leaks. It is remarkable that only nine stories, from a total of 188
(discounting the duplications) were identified by both groups as "leaks."
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/08: CIA-RDP91-00561 R000100140027-7
 rnu.tnrurTA
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/08: CIA-RDP91-00561 R000100140027-7
SUBJECT: SSCI Staff Study on Leaks
Washington Post - 18 July 1987
8. As previously noted, some of the stories used in the SSCI Staff study
appear to be about leaks, but do not themselves appear to be leaks of
classified information with any impact on sources and methods. Some examples
are:
30 JAN 86 - Washington Times- Senior Administration Official -
Defection only conjecture
11 MAR 86 - N.Y.Times - Three anonymous American officials -
Ex-Senator Tower to resign
4 MAY 86 - N.Y.Times - Officials said - Pillsbury gets walking papers
27 MAY 86 - Washington Times - Times learned - Justice awaits good
test case against leaks
28 MAY 86 - Baltimore Sun - Administration sources - Proposal on leaks
weighed
30 MAY 86 - Washington Post - White House officials - plan to fight
official leaks put on hold
9. As an explanation for the large number of executive branch leaks, the
Post article quotes former SSCI Staff Director Bernard McMahon as saying that
T50,000 executive branch personnel have high-level security clearance, while
only 96 Congressional staff members have similar access to government
secrets. This statement, taken in conjunction with the SSCI Staff study,
however, would indicate that about .00064% of those with such clearances
commit a grossly disproportionate nine percent of the leaks, while the other
99.99936% of the cleared people commit only 66% of the leaks. This is simply
another example of how statistics can be used to demonstrate almost anything.
Incidentally, to set the record straight, 277,837 executive branch and
contractor personnel hold Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) access
approvals, to which Mr. McMahon evidently referred, and 475 Congressional
staff personnel have similar access. All members of Congress, of course, are
considered to be "cleared by the electorate" and eligible to receive
classified information, subject to the rules of the Senate and House.
10. A final point regarding the authenticity of the SSCI Staff study.
If it were an accurate compendium of intelligence leaks for the first five
months of 1986, it certainly should be classified. A substantiated document
3
CONFIDENTIAL
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/08: CIA-RDP91-00561 R000100140027-7
 rnkn TnruTTAl
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/08: CIA-RDP91-00561 R000100140027-7
SUBJECT: SSCI Staff Study on Leaks
Washington Post - 18 July 1987
of this nature would confirm the accuracy of the unauthorized disclosures it
lists, thus compounding the damage done by the original leak. The fact that
its authors failed to classify it indicates that they didn't give serious
consideration to its potential for damage to the national security or to
sources and methods.
11. The only conclusion that can be drawn reasonably from either the
SSCI Staff study or from the UDAC data is that nobody knows (except the
leakers themselves and the journalists who publish them) where leaks
originate. Cases in which the identity of the leaker has been established by
investigation are about as rare as snowballs in Managua. One must conclude
that the SSCI Staff study is a self-serving effort that does little to advance
the struggle to combat the illicit disclosure of classified intelligence.- It
is a "So's your old man" response to charges that the Congress leaks. We
would all be better off if both Congress and the executive branch would
provide the resources and the political will to investigate real leaks and
penalize those who commit them.
Attachment: News clipping
4
CONFIDENTIAL
25X1
25X1
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/08: CIA-RDP91-00561 R000100140027-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/08: CIA-RDP91-00561 R000100140027-7
Executive Branch Leads the Leakers
Senate Staff Study Challenges Claims That Congress Is to Blame
said. "This is a nebulous area where
ay marK Lawreo1M it's hard to prove anything."
WaeAington Pal Staff Writer r__`....?.?.'..1
i
i
t
ti
d ...1
m
n
s
ra
on
an
An unpublished study by the staff officials said a possible explanation
of the Senate Select Committee on for the large number of administra.
Intelligence has concluded that tion leaks is that the executhfW
about two-thirds of classified Intel- x? branch is much bigger than the leg
t3 ~ d Wiz:
ligence leaks come from the exec-> islative branch, with more peopl
utive branch, challenging claims by who have access to sensitive infor-"
some administration officials that mation. Bernard F. McMahon, for-
Congress is to blame for news re-tb mer staff director of the Senate in-
ports that spill government secrets. telligence committee, said th3?'
The study, which was based on X ` z >< 150,000 executive branch person-
an analysis of eight prominent nel have high-level security clear;,:;
newspapers in thr first six months ance, while only 96 congression*;
of last year, revealed that 98 of 147 staff members have similar access
disclosures of classified information to government secrets.
Intelligence committee staff wkou
were attributed to anonymous Rea-
gan administration sources. did the study examined only articles
The conclusions appear to contra- on intelligence matters. Holliday '
dict charges by fired White House said the researchers defined a;
aide Lt. Col. Oliver L. North and oth- "leak" as any disclosure of a governt
er current and former administration ment secret that was attributed tf
officials that Congress has been the Senate staff survey tends to back government officials and not an
major source of leaks of sensitive Durenberger, above, and Leahy, nounced in a formal statement.
national security information. below, an aide to Durenberger says. Newspapers examined in the in-
Administration officials have telligence committee study werw,
challenged the study, however, say- 3 ; The Washington Post, The NdC-
ing that all parts of the government York Times, The Washington ,
are to blame for what has become a Times, the Miami Herald, The Wallserious problem, and that leaks can-
Street Journal, The Christian Sci-
not be quantified. ence Monitor, the Los Angeles
Congress was responsible for 13 Times and The (Baltimore) Sun. ~+~?
leaks, or 9 percent, in the period Until this month, when adminis-"
studied, the results show. Seven- L K tration officials renewed charges
that Congress was to blame for se-
teen disclosures cited sources in
the military, outside the govern- rious unauthorized disclosures, t11 ,
ment or in a foreign government. In existence of the committee study`,
19 cases, the words used in the ar- was not widely known. Allegations in
titles to describe the sources were the Iran-contra hearings prompted
not specific enough to determine Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson's (I)-
whether they were administration, Calif.) office to distribute copies.
congressional or other sources. North told congressional invee4
Pentagon spokesman Robert B. tigators earlier this month that bC
Sims said the study appeared to had lied to Congress about cove
make "a lot of assumptions that one operations and charged that legit;
can't have too much confidence in." . lators could not keep secrets.
"I don't think that any part of the Newsweek reported last week,
government has a patent on however, that North had leaked in-;
[leaks]," Sims said. "Generally we intelligence oversight in an "off-the- formation about the U.S. intercep?,
don't find out who the source is. cuff' manner that had resulted in tion of a plane carrying the sus-,
Our own investigators hardly ever serious intelligence disclosures. Du- pected hijackers of the Achille Lauro.
can nail it down." renberger and Sen. Patrick J. Leahy White House spokesman Marlin;
David Holliday, special assistant (D-Vt.), who was vice chairman at Fitzwater this month criticized.
to the chairman of the Senate intel- the time, charged that administra- House Armed Services Committee
ligence committee, said he asked tion leaks were creating a national Chairman Les Aspin (D-Wis.) for
staff members early last year to security crisis. revealing information about reflag-
research the sources of leaks at a ging in the Persian Gulf.
Durenberger's press secretary, Former national security adviser
time when the leadership of the
committee was feuding with CIA Lois West, said that the survey sug- John M. Poindexter backed off from
Director William J. Casey over a gests that Durenberger and Leahy sharp criticism of Congress, hoW,
series of intelligence disclosures. were generally correct in last ever, telling the Iran-contra com
In a heated exchange, Casey at- year's confrontation. "We don't mittees that claims that legislators
tacked then-chairman David F. Du- take it to be necessarily the last are solely responsible for leaks are
renhrriZer (R-Minn.) for conducting word, just to he an indication," West "pure nonsense."
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/08: CIA-RDP91-00561 R000100140027-7
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/08: CIA-RDP91-00561 R000100140027-7
SUBJECT: SSCI Staff Study on Leaks
Distribution: UDAC 87-127 w/att
Orig-DDCI
1-D/CCISCMO
1-D/ICS; DD/ICS
1-D/OCA
-D/PAO
1-UDAC Chrono
1-UDAC Subj
1-ICS/R
1-ER
UDAC/ICS
~-07/29/87)
STAT
STAT
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/08: CIA-RDP91-00561 R000100140027-7