I M NOT ONE TO TAKE ISSUE WITH INDIVIDUAL EDITORIALS, YET

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP99-00498R000300090013-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 27, 2007
• Sequence Number: 13
• Publication Date: July 17, 1978
• Content Type: LETTER

Approved For Release 2007/03/01 :CIA-RDP99-00498
The Director of Central Intelligence
i7 July
STAT
Dear Abe,
I?m not one to take issue with individual editorials, yet
The Times had one on 25 June concerning the Snepp case, "tJhy Censor
Non-Secrets?'?, which raises a very substantial issue. Specifically,
it gets to the heart of ~vhether and how I'm going to be able to
maintain the modicum of secrets which our intelligence agency must
maintain if we are to be effective. I fully recognize that any right
of pre-publication review has the potential far abuse. Yet there are
existing safeguards against abuse and in addition I have difficulty
finding a satisfactory alternative that is likely to keep our secrets.
One of my staff, after reading your editorial, wrote the following
comments to me in a memorandum. I'd like to pass them along as grist
for your mill. I genuinely am seeking an answer to this difficult
problem.
"As I see it there is not much disposition to quarrel with the
idea that the Government has a right if not a duty to protect its
secrets against disclosure, and that it is legitimate to apply some
sort of restraint to former CIA employees who undertake to write books.
The reality that escapes the critics is that it is impossible to
separate the secrets from the non-secrets without having pre-publication
access to the book, unless one accepts the proposition that ex-employees
can make the final judgments, in which case there are no real secrets
because the employees can simply rationalize them out of existence.
And it. does no good to suggest, as The New York Times tivould apparently
have it, that breach of contract suits are appropriate only when it can
be sho4vn that classified information in fact was disclosed. In the
first place, this notion misapprehends the objective, which is to
prevent the publication of secrets rather than to have the satisfaction
of a legal remedy once they have been published. Secondly, a scheme
requiring it to be shown that a book contains classified information
would not afford much of a remedy at all, because the necessary proof
would often cause more damage than the book itself. These considerations,
plus the absence of any applicable or effective criminal sanctions,
explain the reed for the pre-publication review feature of Agency secrecy
agreements. They also explain, and I believe justify, the decision to
pursue Snepp. The central purpose of the suit aras to vindicate our right
of prior revietiv. it was never contended, nor could it be, that our right