THANKS FOR YOUR HELPFUL AND EXTENSIVE REPLY TO MY LETTER TO ABE ROSENTHAL.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP99-00498R000300090011-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 27, 2007
• Sequence Number: 11
• Publication Date: August 24, 1978
• Content Type: LETTER

Approved For Release 2007/03/01 :CIA-RDP99-0(~~~0 0300090011-1
P1r, i~ax Frankel
Editor, Editorial Page
The ;leer York Ti yes 2 ~ AUG i97~
229 t~lest 43 Street
t~tew York, Pdet~~ York 10035
Dear t~lr. Franke't
Thanks for your helpful and extensive repay to my letter to
Abe F?osenthai. I appreciate the several ideas that you have put
forward. They al i have merit. Let me corzment on but a few.
Quite frequently e?~e do claim the privilege of retaining son*?e-
thing in a secret classification although it has already appeared
in the public domain. There is, hor~ever, a considerable difference
between a government agency officially acknowledging the substance
of a secret which has leaked and that sane secret information appearing
in a newspaper or a memoir. To begin with there is the fact of veri-
fication. Beyond that there is often a factor of reneging on an
agreement for secrecy with an intelligence agent, a foreign intelligence
service, or some other entity. In short, 4?ihile it may seem obtuse at
times for us not to release information .?~hich is in the public domain,
there often is good cause.
tlhile You have a good paint that no one should be subjected to
censorship for the rest of his life simply because he worked in an
agency like the CIA for a short period of time, all c~~e are real ly
asking is that we have a right to review any publication based on
information obtained during that period of en
are not empowered to pass judgr~ent on materia7lderived frJomcother~ly
experiences and even as to material derived fror~ CIA experiences we
assert only a limited right of review, the sole purpose of which is
to screen out properly classified information.
I, too, think there is some promise in Bill Colby's thesis, and
surely enough to warrant carefu' exploration. tte are indeed both
interested in tare same
l
resu
t: the preservation of truly vital
secrets, the downgrading of as navy "run-of-the-mill secrets" as