POLITICAL AIM VS. SECRECY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96M01138R001200020009-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 17, 2005
• Sequence Number: 9
• Publication Date: December 16, 1982
• Content Type: NSPR

Approved Fo#lease 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP96M0110 001200020009-6
NEW YORK TIMES
GRT I C a-"~ 16 DECEt ER 1982
CSI PAC,F, A
Political Aim
Vs. Secrecy
Said to.Reflect Contusion The key difference between that
The annoyance of some intelligence
officials apparently reflected confusion
among national security officials about
the aim of the Defense Department
briefing and its format.
The idea of holding the briefing ac-
briefing and Tuesday's, according to in-
telligence officials, was the use of
photographs taken by satellite. The
Request to Reporters
At Briefing Explained
By PHILIP TAUBMAN
Speoal to The New Ya t Tlmes
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - The De-
fense Department's request Tuesday
that reporters sign a secrecy agree-
ment before attending a briefing about
Soviet military capacity added a new
twist to a familiar Washington phe-
nomenon: the declassifica-
tion of intelligence infor.
News mation by the Government
Analysis for political purposes.
Every recent adminis-
tration, after weighing
political interests against security con-
siderations, has selectively disclosed
intelligence secrets that it hoped would
increase public support for Administra-
tion policies. In such cases, the concern
of intelligence agencies that important
sources and methods of obtaining intel-
ligence might be compromised has
been swept aside by the White House.
The secrecy agreement proposed by
the Defense Department, senior Rea-
gan Administration officials said today,
was a flawed effort to reconcile those
differences by insuring that reporters
who received sensitive intelligence in.
formation did not disclose the means by
which the Government obtained it. The problem was that the informs- verbal understanding that some report-
As written, however, the agreement
would have prohibited any dissemina.
tion of the information, even to the re-
porters' editors, a blanket ban that
scme intelligence officials, irritated by
the Pentagon's handling of the issue,
said negated the point of the briefing.
"The idea was to get the information
out so people would understand how
serious the Soviet threat is," a senior in-
telligence official remarked.
Government has never made such
photographs public, the officials said.
One reason is concern that publica-
cording to both Defense and intelli- lion of such photographs would reveal
gence officials, was initiated by Secre- to the Russians information about the
tary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger capacity and targets of the satellites.
several weeks ago after reporters asked Another is a longstanding fear among ;
for information to support the Adminis- intelligence officials that the public dis-'
tration's contention that the SovietI closure of even one such photograph
Union posed a grave military threat to might open the door to requests for
the United States. A similar briefing on additional pictures under the Freedom
the Soviet military threat is often given of Information Act.
to visiting heads of state. To safeguard the security of the satel-
There appears to have been general lite photographs used in Tuesday's
agreement that one aim of Tuesday's briefing, the Central Intelligence Agen-
session was to show the correspondents cy, which controls access to the Pic.;!
who regularly cover the Defense De- tures, insisted that reporters sign a se.,
partment that the Government had crecy agreement, according to both: solid evidence of improved Soviet mill- Pentagon and C.I.A. officials.
tart' capacity posing a threat to the Concern on Sources of.Data
United States and its allies in Europe, i
"There really is an overwhelming
body of evidence that shows the Soviets
have pushed astride or ahead of the
United States in crucial military
areas," a senior intelligence official
hibit the dissemination of all the infor-
mation about the Soviet military
buildup but rather to insure that the
journalists did not publish or broadcast
said. "Everyone who sees the briefing anything that would pinpoint the
ends up saying, 'My God, they're doing sources of the information
a lot.' " A result, to the consternation of some
Both Pentagon and intelligence offi- inelllgence officials, was a blanket se-!
cials said they had hoped that the brief- crecy agreement that stipulated that
d might of the~~nisttrati more un- the reporters never oa's ing, broadcast or anyv disclose discourser'
charges about the Soviet Union, per. the information they would receive. The
haps producing over the long run more reporters refused to sign it.
sympathetic reporting about the in-
creases in military spending proposed After extensive discussions senior ions between
by President Reagan. the correspondents and sDefense
Photographs Especially Sensitive officials, the Pentagon agreed to pro-
ceed with the briefing on the basis of a
lion that officials felt was potentially ers initially interpreted as an agree-
most persausive was also the most ment not to publish the information.
sensitive: data, paricularly photo- But reporters who attended the brief-
y and
other graphs, highly secret by produced p electronic satellites systems. ing said today that the conditions per.:
A senior intelligence official today ' witted them to disclose information
equated Tuesday's briefing with one from the briefing, provided they did not
given earlier this year about Soviet and " specify where it came from.
Cuban involvement in Central America.
In that briefing, which was on the
record, intelligence analysts made pub-
lic photographs of new military instal.
lations in Nicaragua that the analysts
said had been constructed by Cuba and
the Soviet Union. The photographs were
taken by high-flying American recon-
naissa_nceaircraft.
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP96M01138RO01200020009-6