SOVIET ESPIONAGE SIPHO[ ] U.S. KNOW-HOW

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 28
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 24, 2003
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: January 31, 1982
• Content Type: NSPR

Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R00050026000441
J I ATI NTL
Soviet es
By Walter Taylor
Washington Bureau of The Sun
Washington?As a target for es-
pionage, William Holden Bell was
; textbook perfect. . ?
Then 59 years old and trying to
keep pace with anew wife 25 years
his junior, he was bitter about a rela-
tively unrewarding career- and des-
perately in need of Cash to support a
life-style of travel and leisure. .
In short, Bell, a radar technology
expert for Hughes 'Aircraft Compa--
ny, a major U.S. defense contractor,
was ripe for the picking. And picked
he was. -
; Before the- FBI caught up with
him last summer, Bell, in exchange
for about $110,000, handed over to
;Polish government agents classified;
information. regarding some of the
West's most closely guarded weap-,
ons systems, :including the Stealth'
'bomber and several others designed
to offset the Warsaw Pact's numeri-
cal superiority in Europe -
The Bell case is the stuff of spy-
drama in an era in which mercenary
interests have come to outweigh the
First of three articles
political motiVations"-, of earlier:
times. Today, espionage coups can be
scored through. :acquisition of. the
technology that. goes into child's
electronic
dummy corporations- play as great-a'
Tole as do secret-letter drops and
;midnight rendezvous..
1 More significant,--thecase
Antes what law enforcement offi
,cials in' the United States?including
'Attorney- General William:- French
?Smith and FBI. Director. Williany
?
Webster?see- as a change in tactics,
...by the Soviets in a concerted effort
to obtain data about American 'ad-
vances in military , and industrial;
technology.
While espionage.. the United'.
States certainly. is nothing new:
the Soviets, the law enforcemenin
1-ficials see the Kreiniiramslintitirp.
, than ever....tei-clindestiiiir -means-of
;gall:rink scientifies!,liardware and
know-how, since; ban.s.- on .ovei-the-:.
BALT DIORE SUN
31 January 1982
age si hoi
0 L/ ?Axial" TY -.1.11.9
' 1
invasion of Afghanistan. Last month,
President Reagan sought to toughen
the embargo following the military
crackdown in Poland, which he has
:said was inspired by the Kremlin.
The Reagan administration's ac-
tion, federal, law -enforcement offi-
cials believe; is -likely to spur the
KGB and the GRU, the two Soviet in-
telligence 'agencies operating-is-this
country,_to,ever-greater' efforts to
;obtain secretly- and illegally what
Moscow once might- have acquired
openly. - '
Some experts,_but_byi no means
all, see , the acquisition ?:of outside
technology as vital to Moscow's
hopes of continuing its military com-
petition with the United States and-at
the same time addressing its own in-
ternal economic problems:
; .?If they were not able to utilize Western know-
how as a sort of "quick fix," some of these experts
believe, the Soviets would confront a continuing Se-
ries of difficult trade-offs, particularly: in allocat--
ing precious research and development resources,
in trying to meet,both their defense-and domestic
needs. ?
The West !Is, virtually subsidizing Soviet mili-
tary power,"' says Dr: Miles Cos4k, who runs the
'Washington-based Institute for Strategic Trade and
'Occasionally serves as a congressional consultant
on East-West trade-zi-;;;;::,
There are some, including a few members of
Congress, who believe the extent to which- the
,Kremlin relies on Western technology is greatly ex-
aggerated by a Reagan administration that tends to
'view most foreign policy questions in East-West
,terms. This would seem to be a minority view, how-
ever.
; Representative Jonathan B. Bingham (D, N.Y},
.chairman of the House-Foreign Affairs subcommit-
tee that oversees U.S. trade policy, asserts flatly
:that the Reagan administration has overstated the
seriousness of the problem to the United States,
particularly the contribution the West has made to
the Soviets through over-the-counter sales of know-
how.
17; Others, including Some top policy-makers in the
;executive branch i question Washington's ability to
`_choke off such exports, even if such a goal is war.
;ranted..:- ,
f; ? ("There Is no doubt that Western technology has
had some impactr;says William A. Root, director
r Release 200 ?
0
nfalftfinAImb'youvtre- el -4
thine that any trade
frees resources for military production, that basi-
cally is a formula for a total embargo, and this is
, - -
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R0005
ARTICLE APFEA-aSD
ON PAGE
WILIATNaTON NEWS JOUTIAL (DE)
31 January 1982
EDERAL OFFICIALS want tO know exactly
what 25 scholars visiting from the People's
Republic of China are doing at the University of
:Delaware. ? - ' se; ' .
The White House has declared a campaign against
calls a 'hemorrhage" of technical national
;security researChsfrcms. being published; by the aca-g.1
demic cornmunity,and leaked from its own agencies.
- ?
The key battle with.the-ecademiecornmunity may
isome over the. government's decision; to step up a
%fan:warn to monitor visiting scholars from the Soviet:
:kJnion and People's Republic of China.-...ee
-: A consortium of government agencies, conipOsed Of.
?..!".the.Deferise, State, Commerce and Eneruedepart-
enents, has already distributed forms to at least.-600
- .
;icholars visiting from 'the Chinese'mainland.'e-e.e.-; .?7
? !!'" l'?
i?!?. The effort to monitor thework of Visiting cOmMunist _
ei'lationals in the. university; community. ' is- Part. of a
ttmprececlented attempt by the Reagan administration-
1, to tighten up access to the-potentially-sensitive Work ofe
-academic, government and business researchers-,'..-:;:,
So- fareno one- frozrt the-tniversitY of Delaware has
;received theforrns, according to Dean C.Lomis, inter-.
tOational. student 'adviser:- But a spokesman ,for: the-
State Department said the d epartm ent his Mailed only:
ibout percent of the forms' it plans to send
Although top C.& iifficials have been 'Crinductirig
:eanipaign against loss of technology expertise through
!Yeaks in university research', it is not clear whether-the
1-!pIA is involved in -the current investigation. _CIA
tespokesman Dale Peterson would neither confirm nor
:Oeny any .agency-involvernent in the monitoring, of,,
r scholars.
? Bobby RsIninarn the-NO:7-2 official in the CIAalled
4V70 weeks ago for AmeriCan and foreigrr researchers
to let the-governrnen-review their work to determine
ivhether the -iesults cansbee published. oc,s should; be
eblassifiedsse-es-;'.
see
?He warned that, athe scientific communit3i'does not
voluntarily submit to the CIA's request, the agency
;.Fvould pus& for' Congressional legislation.. making it
:mandatseye. . ,
!! James Oliver, a political.: science professor at the
:University of Delaware, agreed with other professors'
'.assessment that the federal government is determined
..to.classify much more research than it does now. ---
either by assigning most of its research to secret work
Or bY making "revi, WPfniNetilisaVYRdIeStie'92014,3/11/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
?? Oliver said the government's emphasis is Part of the
Reagan administration's efforts to stop high-lev
national security secrets from getting into the Sovie-
4-tion's hands. .
- ?
The content of the forms, being sent to universitieel
depends on the government agency. They delve into
tile nature of the research and the scholar's compe-
tence, and ask if the research will be published_
The government agencies said they expect to mail up
to 6,000 more forms soon.-. .
State Department spokesman James- 'Adana' rd sale
the government has a great interest in learning the
specifics of what visiting_scholars working on classie-i
lied research are doing,e_eseee- - - esee'eveese`.
Manard said a key area Of interest is whethereth
United States may be losing its technological edge lee
exposing visiting scholars to the development of "trade
secrets," even in privately financed works'-e: '
. -- He said Chinese nationals are being singlecVout
:because the flood of Chinese applicants has prevented
. the U.S. government from taking an extensive look inte
their research backgrounds.ese.e '
Mallard said the Chinese scientists are being asked to
provide up-to-date and moresdetailed informatior.
which then willte fowarded to the appropriate govern:
ment agency s: ". -
Officials said each agency will determine whether b.)
' fake action-to remove scholars from research projects,-
or force them to apply for a special Commerce
, Department agreement that protects U.S. interests.
-, The Commerce Department said it has sent out ques-
tionnaires to 30 institutions so far -
? s? At least one University of Delaware official queeS.
fions whether the school has to turn over any informe-
r,' tion on the visiting scholars there_ : -
Lomis said the Educational PrivaCy ACt' of 1974
-protects all students and professors from outsider:.
-.asking questions. The law, Lomis said, applies even to -
the State Department. - . -
Lomis. said that when the forms arrive, the univer-
sity will have to decide whether it will claim protec
tion under the law".
Mary Hempel, a university spokeswoman-, said the
school had no comment on what action it intends to
-
? The Defense Department declined to elaborate on
'how it follows up on the questionnaires. -.
The controversy over the monit b
oeine of the scholars
heated up last year when a professor at the University
of Minnesota refused to fill out the form, saying that
the federal government had no right to even ask-the-
-questions-. ee, , ,e.reee
...The 'professor went to the-local media, which, Man-
hard saide"made a bigger issue out of it-than it is." The i
State Department eventually was able to find out that
:the student was not involved in any high-technolov2
research, he said, -.1=1 ;
"
;?JanmeJaquetl
"
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260
*AF_TI OLE APPEARED THE WASHINGTON POST
ONPAGI,La2-0 29 January 1982
More Science, N
Deputy CIA Director Bobby R. in-
man's fear of our providing new critical
scientific and technological concepts to
. the U.S.S.R-undoubtedly is a genuine
concern abOut.AanAmportant problem.
. However, his solution.?the prior sub-
..'
mission of research for examination, by ?
intelligence-:-atitli,dritig2Lii7 really -a
poor idea, for there- is no science with-'? ?
out the freeinterplay of ideas,- espe-
cially those in the'open literature.
Weapons systems demand Secrecy.
To extend this approach elsewhere on
the grounds of national security would '
be terribly wronFejf it turned out that
the so-called threat was really Political:. ?
.; (or, evelf:.Worse, economic). To what-
extent do-we withhold scientific break--;
throughs? Arguments can be made in
each of these cases as why it is impor--
tent for our national security.lo be in
the lead and to maintain it.
Let me suggest another approach for-- -
. the CIA-If-leaders such as Adm. Inman
truly recognize the increasinglytcriticaV
. impact of Science and. technology on our
-national security,', they should: urge the
- administration and Congress into a mas-
? sive expansion- of this country's science
' base; provide more dollars for research
,:?,;4 :?? - ? =.
?
STATI NTL
ot More Secrecy
? and development in our universities, in
our national laboratories and in the form
of tax incentives or direct grants to in-
dustry; turn around the declining output
of PhD? scientists and engineers and
make sure that these people are fully
recognized (and compensated) for their
'IiriPortanei to iociety;' ens-nre'tharbitr
schoolchildren get early science training
and, further, that physics and mathe-
rnatics and computer sciences are part of
everyone's high school education.
If we .were to move aggressively in
these directions, we might not prevent
research advances from :leaving our
shores, but we, would at least be as-
sured that we remained well ahead of ,
everyone else.
AI R. LIBOIT
Rochester,
? ? _.?. - ? I; ? ?
? . .?-
? Adm. Inman stands as."Exhibit .
of the myopia and paranoia now grip-
ping our top military and intelligence ,
leadership ("Scientists Urged to Sub: .
.mit Work for U.S. Review," Jan. 8). He
*ants the golden egg 80 much that he
is willing to kill the goose that laid it:
There is no question that he is right:-
military. censorship of academic and
private, sector research, will certainly..
shut off the flow of valuable technology
and scientific- insight from the .Rus-
shins. It will also shut it off at its
source. How-can he be 80 blind to the
fact that itis our very cultural. and aca----
demic, freedom that produces- :such
creativity in the first place?,..:
? Put a. few more Inmans
and the Russians will never :need. to"
drop the bomb...We will conquer Oar- .
selves by imitating their .strangidated-
society.. ?,. '
Yes, Admiral, there will be a tidal
vave of public outrage.' Have you buil
your ark?--' ? ?
HOWARD E. BALL
McLean vi.. to .. ?
?
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4 STATINTL
ART ICL APPE4ED
OF AGE ? 4
BOSTON GLOBE
28 JANUARY 1982
Hobbling science
Citing cases in which the Soviet Union sup-
posedly gained militarily by acquiring US high
- technology, either equipment or information,
the Reagan Administration seems headed to-
ward more comprehensive controls over the sci-
entific community. .?
While the country obviously protect genuine
military secrets,, Congress and the public
should be wary of secrecy policies that will hob-
ble scientific research and undermine further
technical advances that build a significant
American leadership. ? -
The alarm was sounded earlier this month
by Adm. Si? R. Inman, deputy director of the
Central Intelligence Agency, .in an address to
the annual meeting of the American Associ-
ation for the Advancement of Science: he cau-
tioned scientists on the need for more stringent
security reviews of their work to prevent exploi-
tation by the Soviet Union. It was echoed two
weeks later in an essay by Caspar W. Wein-
berger, Secretary of Defense, published in the
Wall Street Journal. ,
.3,
In each case plausible arguments were of-
fered- for-increased awareness of the issue by
academic and corporate scientists and engi-
neers, especially in the fields of weaponry and
communications: In Inman's address, the field
was broadened ? somewhat to include cases
where "certain technical information could af-
fect the national Security in a-harmful way. Ex-
amples include computer hardware and soft-
ware, other electronic gear. and techniques, la-
sers, crop projections, and manufacturing pro-
cedures."' . ?
Much of the information to which they al-
lude appears In scientic journals pr is built into
equipment available on the open market. It is
- read and purchased not only by the Soviet
Union, sometimes through straws in other
countries. but is also read and purchased by
Americans for., their own use - and growth.
Weinberger in particular has been actively
urging American allies to take seriously the
dangers of allowing the Soviet Union accss to
such information and products. The idea is ap-
parently to construct a technological in em-
brane through which no sensitive material
might pass.
. .
Given the enormous numbers- of cha --inels -
through which such information and products
pass all over the world, the task seems impossi- ?
ble without sharply curtailing both legitimate
communication within the scientific communi-
ty and interfering with normal commercial ac-
tivities -,to the detriment of both.
. It is iinportant to bear in mind that the In-
man-Weinberger proposals are not directed pri-
marily at information about such long-stand-
ing secrets as thermonuclear weaponry. They
are directed at discussioni at.the fringe of com-
puter development and use; at manufacturing .
techniqtles for miniaturization that has led to
the explosion of Computer-on-a-chip technol-;,-
ogy; at programming for a host of applications.
All of them are Widely nsed in commercial ap---
plications as mundane as elaborate computer
war games.
Such developments flourish in an a am--
sphere that combines. competition with free_
flow of ideas and Information. .The world pro-
posed by Inman and Weinberger; although :hey
promise no excesses, has a decidedly different
cast one of self-policing if possible and bu-
reaucratic policing if necessary. If the latter de--
velops, as will almost surely be the case, then
penalties will attach to those deemed 1n
Scientfsts and engineers will undoubt.tdly
spend (waste?) some of their time looking river
their shoulders for the censors.
Creativity may not dry up In such a we rid,
but it impossible to believe that it will not be
diminished. "Secrets" will still not 'be I, ept;
much better than they are today, in all likeli;
hood. In that event, we will have the- worst of'
ebotyt.h cases...to the detriment of the most dynam2-
ic sector of our scientific and teChnolOgiCal sad-.
. ,
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901M60-05
ARTICLE APPEARED FOREIGN REPORT
PA.G.E (Published by The Economist Newspaper Limited)
'28 January 1982
TATI NTL
00260004-4
King Hassan in trouble
The Reagan administration is concerned about the deteriorating situation in
Morocco, mainstay of American policy in the 'Maghreb, and is taking action to help
King Hassan. A remarkable series of high-level visits to Rabat, the Moroccan
capital, by American officials has underlined this concern. Among the visitors have
been the defence secretary, Caspar Weinberger; the agriculture secretary, John
Block; the commerce secretary, Malcolm Baldrige; the administration's trouble-
shooter, Vernon, Walters; the deputy director of the CIA, Bobby Ray Inman; and
the deputy defence secretary, Frank Carlucci. The secretary of state, Alexander
Haig, postponed his planned visit after the military takeover in Poland, but is set to
come in February: _ . .
King Hassan has two serious problems: a drought which has left Morocco very
short of grain and meat, and the military successes by the Polisario guerrillas in the
Western (formerly Spanish) Sahara, which Morocco has occupied.
Morocco will have to import about half of its grain needs this year and urgently
needs imported meat, now being sold locally at exhorbitant prices. Fears are being
expressed in Rabat that the high food prices could undermine King Hassan's control
and strengthen the hand of his low-lying but formidable opposition. The Reagan
administration is likely to give the king much of the food aid that he needs.
Morocco's fight with the Polisario guerrillas for control of the Western Sahara goes
mainly unreported, and information, about. what is happening remains sketchy. The
Moroccans say that they fought off two- attacks on their positiOns-north of Smara, one
near _Khreibichet and the second near Abbatih. There are reports that the isolated
Moroccan garrisons at Guelta Zernmour and Bir Enzaran have,been abandoned and
taken over by Polisario forces. ,Guelta Zemmour was fought over in mid-October;
then, while the Arab summit was holding its all-too-brief session in Fez on November
25th, the news came through that it had been overrun by Polisario.
The Moroccan army remains in control of the coastal garrisons of Bojador and
Dakhla (but the taking of Bir Enza.ran puts Dakhla at risk) and the heavily-guarded
triangle between El Aaiun, Smara and Bou Craa (which King Hassan has called "the
useful Saharan triangle").__The Moroccans. say they have lost two F75 fighters and a
C-130 Hercules transport,,aircraft, which, they claim, were shot down by Sam-6
?Saudi Arabia, a close ally of Morocco and King Hassan's, chief financier, is alarmed
and the deputy interior minister, Prince Ahmad bin Abd al-Aziz, has said that a draft
security agreement with Morocco is under urgent consideration in Riyadh.,According
to some reports, the Saudis are already giving Morocco up to $,1 billion a year.
President Reagan has lifted an American ban on. the sale of.;-6O tanks to Morocco
but King _Hassan has appare.ntly not?yet_ raised the money to ,buy, them. American
sources say he may-receive military aid of about $100m including 20 F-5s. He already
has about 48.F-5s. .211 ],i
..!1,TheAmericans.hav not received any 'confirmation of Morocco's claim that the
Polisario is using Sam-6 missiles, for the first time, in the desert war.
The Americans have not .yet_seen the flight recorders of the .downed planes which
would show their altitude whewhit a.nd therefore give a clear indication of the range
of the missile. Diplomats in Rabat say that there is no evidence that Polisario has
Sam-6 missiles., i ?
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R0005002600
HOUSTON POST
27 January 1982
l
en.soring researe.
?
?
, One of the toughest security problems facing the
United States and its allies is how to keep our high
technology with potential military applications from
reaching the Soviet bloc. Two recent initiatives by
the Reagan administration indicate the seriousnesSof
its commitment to tighten control over the transfer of
our most advanced, technology to the Soviet Union
and its satellites. . s.
At a meeting in-Paris-last week, the .United States
' won an agreement by our Western Burn Man Parrs
and Japan to redefine guidelines. for technological ex-
ports, ranging from ball bearings to -metalurgicaI
processes, behind the Iron Curtain. Though the 'meet-
ing was termed a. success, many differences report-
edly remain over how strictly, the 30-year-old guide- ?
lines should have been redrawn. s ? ? ? ' ? s
Shortly before the Paris meeting, a top Central
Intelligence Agency official proposed that U.S.' scien-
tists working in-certain, sensitive fields voluntarily
submit their research for censorship by intelligence
:= agencies: Adm. Bobby Inman, deputy CLIA director,
told a convention of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science- that there?rs a "hemor-
rhage" .of this cotintry's ;,.technology and that Soviet'
military advances of recent years. have been based
largely on the work of U.S. scientists. Inman suggest-
ed that scientists in certain fields submit their work
. both before research begins and before publication.
The reaction of the scientific-- community to the
censorship idea ranged from' skeptical to . hostile.
"What alarms' scientists about the (Tartan propos-
al)," said William Carey, executive officer of the
AAAS, "is that. once science', accepts the govern-
ment's ? right of prior restraints_ the programs. are
carried out by Andiv.iditais in the-national. security
establishment. They resolve questions, where there is
doubt, on the side of censorship rather than the fr.ee--
dom of scientists." - s;-ssss ?. ?
STATI NTL
A White House 'spokesman said the administration
is not considering a mandatory government review of
scientific papers. But Inman wants scientists working
in computers, electronics, lasers, crop projections
. and various manufacturing processes to submit their
work to intelligence agencies.
The Soviets and their allies have engaged in a long,
intensive campaign to obtain the cream of Western
technology through outright purchases, heft or sim-
ply by reading scientific journals and government
documents that are open to the public in free .soci-
eties: But while the openness of our system makes
accessibility to much scientific data easy for Soviet
espionage agents, it also facilitates the exchange ofinformation and ideas within the scientif,c communi-
ty. It is that freedom of communication that has
helped make our technology superior to the Soviet
bloc's. . ? .-* - . ?
Classifying scientific material on the basis of its
national security value would mean psssing judg-
ment on a huge volume of research. While there are
Certainly legitimate uses for the top seer( t classifica-
tion for some sensitive material, an extessive review
'program by intelligence agencies could slow, and, in
some cases, stifle potentially valuable research. The
Soviet Union haspa id a far higher price for its patho-
logical practice of secrecy than we have with our
-openness. If we' adopted overzealous practices to.
'keep our high tech research 'out Of their hands, we'
,could ultimately become the big losers,
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
ARTICLE APPEARE'D
ON
. .
iioray m
4
.?,??":,;(*????? . . - ?
40%
32;TON GLOBE
27 January 1982
4 ? .
Mission sought POWs say ex-Green Berets
? By Ben Bradlee ? ???'''
Globe Staff ? ? -
LOS ANGELES Two teams of
Laotian resistance Soldiers, orga-
nized, equipped and financed by
the United States. crossed:into.
Laos from Thailand .on Nov. .15.
seeking to obtain photographic evi-:
clence that American prisoners of
war are still alive and being held in
Laos, according to two ex-Green he:,
rets who supported the operation.:
The operation, of which the:
Pentagon said it had no knowledge,
was at least the second such secret
? foray by American,-backed Lao-.
tia.ns in the last year.- It is not
known whathappened to the :re-
connaissance teams dispatched in:
November. ' A ;?.:
, The two nine-man guerrilla:
units, participating 1n..what was ?
code-named "Operation Grand Ea-.
fr,le," were bound for four camp
sites where recently gathered Intel-:
ligence reportedly? showed at least
-.39 Americans are being held. The
? teams left Thailand from different
Jocations and intended to meet. in .
? Laos-.
.; The Laotians were made avail-
able to the United States by yang
a former Lao major general
who, during the height of US In-
volvement in Southeast Asia, corn-
inanded some 40,000 anticommun-:
1st tribesmen who served as a se-
cret army for the CIA.'
? In arranging the November foray, Vang?
Pao. who today lives on a ba:rley ranch? in
Montana, collaborated with James ?G:'
'Gritz. a 43-year-old retired Green Beret
lieutenant colonel and much-decorated
:Vietnam veteran who lives in Los Angeles.
Gritz and yang Pao first discussed the
mission last July in the Los Angeles office
of Rep. Robert K. Dornan, a conservative
Republican from Los 'Angeles who is an
announced candidate for. the US Senate.
yang Pao, in a telephone interview, de-
nied entering' into arApgremithEavi lease 2
Gritz. But Gritz possesses a letter of Intro-,
:duction signed_by the Laotian asking his
Iva ?T'1,..-At1.,,,A'hsneknrac.vn I. ea ?tri
STATI NTL
training mission. In , addition, Rep.; Dor-
nan confirmed that one of his aides was
present when, Gritz and yang Pao- were
discussing the plan..: - .
Deputy CIA Director Bobby Ray Inman,
who met with Gritz in December to dis-
cuss the reconnaissance plan and the
prisoner-of-war isSue, denied "to the best
of my knowledge" that any government
agency was involved in supporting the No-
vember mission. He did not deny that the
mission took place, and acknowledged
that government intelligence agencies
have had contacts with various private
groups concerning POWs over the last sev-
eral years. Inman said, however, that
these contacts had not-yielded any2,'solid
information." . .. .,-
? Adm. Allan G. Paulson of the Defense
Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Pentagon's
intelligence arm and the group charged
with official responsibility for investigat-
ing reports of missing POWs, declined
through a spokesman to comment on the
November mission.. A Pentagon spokes-
man said the Department of efense had
no knowledge of it. . ?
In a series of interviews with The
Globe, Gritz said he hAd been contacted
last June about the POW situation by a
secret military intelligence agency- that-
was created in the aftermath of the failed '
ref . le of American hostages in Iran In i
iii30. Gritz would not reveal the agency's i
name or whom it reports to. - ? ? ?
The elite unit,. Gritz 'said, is patterned
? after the British Strategic- Air Service and
: similar organizations in Israel and West
Germany, and is designed to transcend an
often-cumbersome :Joint Chiefs Iwof Staff
? bureaucracy and take direct action in sit-
.: uations where Americans abroad find
, themselves in life-threatening situations.
: The organization generates its own intern:.
gence and has a .Special Forces unit as-'
.. signed to itAlaccordIttig to intelligence.
sources. Dornt)an, in an interview, said he'
, knew of the group's .existence but had not.
. been told its name. -'.. .. , , . , - r.
'Gritz
.
; ? ;? Gritz said the government agency gave
t him $40.000 in -several caaiyVi
W/ 0004-4
4,14/04 kredfidWeattiV9
equip yang Pao's Laotians and send three
. retired Green Berets and an ex-military in-
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-TATINTL
?
LONDON 1.")."-JTY LPH
25 January 1932
?
r ? -.
om.rat ?E3
r ? -
1
:3 .-.?:,-..;-,1,. i---:,--,,,,:--...-i-,-,-,-:,-,-...---=,.
9- ,_?:`,".,;_r,:i e.:.,:i,?? '',..).: ,':: :;-.. -,.. : .. ? -3 ".,-1- : '-';:-., -,---:4 i ' ? -- ; 1. ??
A S the` .Nato
about. sauctiOns...
-agaist
Russia', th6?1y.Trea.14:sation
is beginning .to ihwy).-,tltat':.it is
Western technology;;Pirrcliased
a s el a s ? oirtedi.7; sby- the
u ss i a ris-, ..tha eriabled
them.-3to'fconstrilci4-ftlie-!'redoubt,
able -War a -
threatens...boat- -Poland j.'arricl.'lhe,
West.
Red Army tanks Milk'. guns,
Soviet aircraft, missiles-- and-.:cvar-
ships were --created,
help of: our ,researclt.and7develOp-
merit, our prc>ject-deigns7:and--bur,
industrial ?know-how:4?:Th.SS18.:
guidedpointings.::*estwartrzi.;hre.:-
by 'a an cro-prbeesSor taken-
from an. Am eriCan-ifstand"-..at a
trade -fair: -Soviet-heavy? artillery
is built With madrines boughtfrora
West:, iGerrnanyThe:?;.sale:: of.
A rri erican.-.'.-..rnachinery7; ? for?... pro;
clueing; minute. ball-bearing.T has
helped Make- ::Soviet;
adly
These are jiistfeW'Ctie?cainples;
adding substance the,.recent
statement of AdmrBobloy.:.,Iriman,;
deputy :director of:- the; C IA that
most of .-the military technology.
'whieli since 1964'
RusSian armed forces, so-formid-
able came-- from-America' and her.
closest -
Yet Nva.5.4- the,
invasion AfghanistarC that
I Ainerica7,;imposed-:?a, ? technology
embargo- whicItsucceeiledln:-hurt-
ing the SOviet-Computer? indristry:
The :.Erissien
series: had; been..basethin:lthe firstl
Place 'on -.an': I B M.;:?360:spiritecli
away from West Germany-in-the
'sixties:, Since. then, :?the:Sovits-
have-tried to -Iceep..Up--layr.huying
their way- into European computer
firms on the ?Trojan
; *
? !
IT is 'the Polish -Crisis:' and the
? urgingof President'.-Rea:gan
which have alerted lerfeclithe ErirbPeariS.
to the danger' of technology:seep-
age. Las-t -week: Cocorn , !commit...
tee; of- -Nato-:nations
met- in Paris 't& disCus rffeans of
limiting the' .export:t6Cthilitark,
technology:, toRussia,:-; though'
France, who- nail- Degick.awm Uj
selling stratec goorIVrilit116'?Ms't,
has already.. Announced that she
has tighten!d_th.,. jssc:cew-17-Z4.7-;Jet
Not b ef ore, tim fr. e..Etir op e an 5.1
are to -revise their 30-year-old list"
of material:classified. os-strategic
which :may5 not be exported to
Ru3sia.:-It-has.?breerr largely ignored
for years and is hopelessly : out: of
date. The West. Germans are still
responsible- for- .seriousleaks
selling. American high technology
productswel?as-theirowu on American work
.E'er since the.-19345-war when
Lease 1,end -:..sapplies:...to. Russia
were used-- as?-..a-: basis-- for-.setting
up modern Soviet. industry.; Russia
has been allowed to 'exploit West-
ern technology t6 builditswar
-
machine: 'Paper:: :recently:..made
. .
;
CITRISTOPTIER
DOBSON and
RONALD PA
-_,? show how Itussia:uses--
technology to
theslay in arms:race-,
'avai1ablbY7-.- 'the- Public Record
Office- 'show, that everr.after the-
war ?Stalin was allowed to import
_the-latest, Rolls-lioyce jet' engines,
copies-of--.which ',powered , the
MiGS.:rised against us-intRorea. :
That was lust the-. egirming.
i.1;.'Sfrice-i4-then.'Soviet- military scieni4
tistsshave 'devotedgreat. effort- to.
clancleStine'aCiluisition-". of f-thei;
-know-how and; teehnologY_ to conj..;
1,struct,T militaryquiprment ,betterf,
..-,:than Our own.
:Directorate T, .the"--scienee arid!:
.,:.technology branch of G
thousands :of. 'technical:1. and
seientifre officers trained at its oWn
academy.'.. In theT. field '-their:s 'coven
35 to- appearrat:diploniatsp';,:: trade'
raissicin,-.T'.1-j-pernbers.717.-,?for epre--1.
f "sentatiies;,.2: of ..-',:the;-Acaclemy-, of;
Sciences4A.-1.-third those who
"have lealings with ;',....Western
? sbientisfs- ar i?
4.irectorate."merr Or- from" military-
-
Re I ggg4ittiV3142Y-Cid: f'-etAlkIJP91-009
country.:-.there ; ,Y1
onlyaIarge:Soviet ernhas._
also a.;.7.trade? mission in .1114'
_.with:astaff - of 50., In- addit., a 30
inspe.ctors:are attached to I i':s11
"-_factoriesostensibly7 for -
control 4:1f "" gocids-7.being 1 to
- ._"""
It is-estimatecr. that--thel
Sovie ss
:atioriaL in- the West and.
Ti F-constantly ? searcne ? ;ut
`military:high- tf_-chriology fo
ci-
:?likepurpose.s? This isthe.tru, a
rate11:s". task' is "to amass .Elf
lfSiducnir apouc'- -nuclear oi el' ,0-
'ment,-7lasers," aerospace, ikla-k,
optics, metallurgy, eneati:iti
'1PrOdUcticid.:-.processesZMicr
rand-Ern ti'eapthis. is a: .subje 1:
on their,probe list_ ..?,?.
"...--.i?Although_AMenica still ,l d ii
computers' land?electronic :hi
Russians-are.Catchini!;.up w he.
aid. of -other- peonle2s,,,exi
American,-. officials suggesi 1..:! at
;1.
_years-L-behind: it.. has now- 10 ..e0
the-gap :toai mere three, o ii..
-sorne-fields
? i;The:directonite _also. take
interein..energy
deep - "drilling at 1:gb
temperatures, because .the t. :1;
nologyp:.qaas":. :ramification' t o
ar!nour-niercing
A courageous Norwegian c(
named Arnei. who was apor cc- ? e(
;.-IDY-K-GB; men when wad,jr
the...oil -industry and then eEL
Tto-work:.2as?-? a -"double " , I
ownI m told - u'
'.theS.7pun-iped him;fory info:: on
controlled- by ."a.",
-iiished:".Soviet scientist, Dr
)3elozerov,'Secretary of:the 1.r
natiOna.1-,- Institute:- for "-
Systenis;.Analysis in Nierm.hr
was forced to resign whE hr-
,affair_ came to light.: _
'Ante provided the -;",
swith. information _ freely av
iii.n.tcoMriany nublication 1 ta
.'aslced."Icr have- it -typed on ?1::, La,
Tap.er-rmarlced Secret". -P -1 he -
Iltif,..sians;. infon
iwiasjoo:easy-to get, and to
tthemotiey- spent- they wan c tc:
-make-)its.; acquisition .look m re
.difficult-, their-masters.-
.
01R000500260004-4
,Go,
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-0090
COMPUTERWORLD
25 JANUARY 1932
ACM Head: Consider Govetn
Review of Research
4NAMb
Dr. Peter J. Penning
By Jake Kirchner
WASHINGTON, D.C. ? The
- CW Washington Bureau
, scientific community should!se-
k riously consider Central Intelli-
gence Agency .suggestions that
? DP and electronics research done
in the private sector undergo a
formal government review pro-
CeSS the head of the Association
, Inman noted the existence of
the Public Cryptograph Study
I Group, representing the intelli-
gence agencies and the academic
and scientific communities,
'which reviews cryptography re-
search findings. He suggested
the same process should be ex- ?
tended to other fields, including
"computer hardware and Soft-
ware and other electronic gear
and techniques."
Denning said that "at the very
? Ieast I think his proposal de-
serves discussion" because "it is
basically compatible, with the
idea of openness!' He noted that
the review committee's opinions
are advisory and researchers and
editors are free 'to publish no
matter what the committee finds.
'Most scientists are concerned
that their work ... not interfere'
with national security," accord-
ing to Denning, chairman of the Pur: ,
ship, De, he prefers to thin", of it asn,ning said. But, "I eing an
,
due University computer science de- . optimist'
partment. He "wolild probably be- Inman's attempt "to find so:ne kind
very cooperative" with government of middle gr'Ound" between the two?
"extreme positions" of complete sci-
entific freedom and government
censorship.
Inman's plan' for a "co,
agreement" between go,.
and the scientific communit
"a reasonable solution- to. t
lem," according to Denn
said "there are possibilitie
promise" between the two ?
"Inman's proposals have
tential," Denning said.
i.nu manufacturing techniques that
? would be most helpful to th ? Soviet
? Most technology transfer pi obl ems,
. ? "can be handled without choking off
the bulk of scientific publT cation,"
Denning said. He suggested that an
open discussion of the issues, per-,
haps in a public congressional hear-
ing, could make the situation clearer.
II there really is a national security
problem resulting from the aublica-
tion of electronics research, he said:
Inman's idea is better thar "more
Draconian measures" of secrecy that
might be imposed by Congrt ss.
Inman's- suggestion that s ientists
risk a backlash of public and ongres-
sional opinion against the r work
will be seen by. some "as a kind of
veiled threat" of governmen? censor-
for .Computing Machinery agencies if they were to suggest ways
(ACM) said last week. : -- to publish his work that would .not
If the government can prove damage national security. .
; contentions that the publication Denning noted this is "a very, very
I " -
, - and there are "very,
i of' ;research results is jeopardiz- sensitive issue
ing national security, most scien-
I
very strong fe,elings on both sides of
.
i
, -
t. He himself is "committed to the .
? . tists would agree to some correc- I
tive measures, Dr. Peter j. ! principle of openness" and feels "we
- : shouldn't tamper with" scientific Denning, ACM president, said in!
g freedom. Therefore, -he said, he
' a telephone interview. Den-
would like to see more data to prove
nin's remarks were in response
or disprove Inman's supposed "hem-
! to a recent speech by Deputy CIA orrhage" ,of U.S. technology to the
USSR. ?, ?
-Right now there is a certain
amount of fuzzy thinking in govern-
ment circles about technology trans-
fer mechanisms," according to Den-
I Director Adm. Bobby R. Inman,
I
,?who -said national security con-
siderations should be routinely
IConsidered in the peer review
process when research papers are
i- being prepared for publication ning, who said that Americans have
, [CW, Jan. 181. ? ? indeed come up with the short end
in scientific exchange prog, rams with
i:
Approved For fitioassaQ03/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
,perative
-,-rnrrent
y may be
he prob-
lg. who
of corn-
-ides. 1
that p0-
-
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901
NEWSINTli
25 JANUARY 1982
ARTICLE APPEARED
ON PAGE ?6
STATI NTL
R0130500260004-4
Bruce Hoene!
?
a 1931 Clayton J. Price--Western Elecitic
Weinberger, a microchip circuit, Inman: Warnings that Moscow intends to use the West's own technology as a weapon
ast summer a fisherman off the North
Carolina coast hauled in an unusual
catch: a Soviet sonar buoy. Inside, Pentagon
experts found a sophisticated electronic
package that could transmit information on
water temperature, current speed and salin-
ity?all of great value to Soviet submarines
at sea. More disturbing was the discovery
that the electronic chips guiding its opera-
tion were replicas of circuitry made by RCA
Corp. in the United States. That and many
similar incidents have convinced the
American Government that the leakage of
Western technology to the Soviet Union has
grown to alarming proportions. Using the
Polish crisis as its rallying point, the Reagan
Administration has launched a determined
effort to persuade U.S. specialists and the
Western allies to staunch the flow. In a
bellwether speech last week, Assistant
Commerce Secretary Lawrence J. Brady
recalled the prediction attributed to Lenin
"that the capitalists would gladly sell the
rope with which they would be hung."
The Uni ted States took its case to Brussels
last week at a special meeting of the NATO
alliance to discuss Western responses to the
military repression in Poland. The NATO
ministers agreed that "Soviet actions to-
ward Poland make it necessary for the allies
to examine the course of future economic
and commercial relations with the Soviet
Union." That examination will begin this
week under the aegis of COCOM, the Co-
ordinating Committee for Multilateral Ex-
port Controls, an obscure organization in
Paris that regulates Western sales of mill-
goods and technologies. "We will present
new evidence to our allies on how the Soviet
Union and Warsaw Pact are using Western
technology to strengthen their offensive
military capabilities," Defense Secretary
Caspar Weinberger wrote in the Wall Street
Journal last week.
Specifically, the United States will be
pushing for strict new curbs on goods that
can be used for both civilian and military
purposes?and a total embargo on equip-
ment needed by the Soviets to build their
3,600-mile natural-gas pipeline from Sibe-
ria to Western Europe. Such proposals have
Washington launches
a drive to cut
the flow of valuable
Western technology
to the East bloc.
already raised protests in West Germany,
where the Soviet trade is particularly lucra-
tive. Faced with an unemployment rate of
7.3 percent?the highest level in two dec-
ades?West German Chancellor Helmut
Schmidt has been telling audiences that an
American grain embargo would be a more
effective sanction against the Kremlin's
misbehavior in Poland. And besides, insists
'a spokesman for the West German econom-
ics ministry, "the East bloc has the raw
tary, nuclear and sensitippirtavaddf etruFjoleaseal114.12/0aliaqihal41111
ment to the Communist world. The U.S. know-how. It's a state of affairs which cries
delegation will be pressing for much tighter for cooperation."
ri.ctriink-L-svia est"
e,!
1.7g1
Larrt powning?Nrorsvemt
its
restrictions that the Reagan Administra-
tion hopes to impose at home. Warning of a
public outrage against any further "hemor-
rhage of the country's technology" to the
Soviets, deputy CIA director Bobby Ray
Inman recently warned American scientists
to voluntarily submit their wc rk for review
by intelligence agencies. The alternative, he
asserted, would be "a confrontation be-
tween national security and ,cience" that
could lead to repressive laws restricting the
publication of any scientific findings that
the government considered 'sensitive" to
national security.
Such a confrontation has already oc-
curred between Washington a nd some ma-
jor research centers. Last till the State
Department sent letters to ;.ca,lemic re-
searchers across the country 1.Auesting in-
formation about the study programs of for-
eign science students. Many scaools bristled
at what they felt was an intnision on aca-
demic freedom. "Our respons was to send
the State Department a copy of the physics
department's catalogue describing the
courses," says Edward Geduoy of the Uni-
versity of Pittsburgh. "These are our pro-
grams and all of our graduate students are
treated the same way." The Massachusetts
Institute of Technology also refused to c?-
operate. "We do not do any classified work
here, therefore I do not find it necessary to
fill out the form," says Herman Feshbach,
chairman ofMIT's physics department.
Cryptography: Many ur,iversity re-
searchersdo cooperate with tin government
in sensitive fields like cryptography: a study
R11941.1.WANgtlioitacademici Ins and gov-
ernment intelligence specialists screens
cryptography manuscripts before publica..
STATI NTL
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R00050026
NEWSDAY (NY)
22 JANUARY 1932
0004-4
Thkre fftav tr6 e-t*cit414-0,,n9d4cleam.,
- ,
a rather 'ragui proposal maits?recently by
Bobby Inman, the Cial.;depLity 'director.
-It's aimed at demtilrgilostile-foreign Pow-
ers access te-scholarlyres4.?arch.tbat could
help.Asp, iciyance. hhtary ,technol-
ogy._Biii it Heeaslo otrt
More careful.
: We; cail-N-see .the:s.ialOa4fagk_01.17f4.1*ig;.,
sCie3tiiite that-pitblietiii34c,41--s4iiie of the
research might threaten the nation's secu-
rity in ways .they hadn't -anticipated.
Yet we're also deeply troubled by any
plan that would involve Sending scientific
?periiii"gvir?Wasiengt0;1100-i*N.S01
publicaUnless
tary,? itivould:put at risk Americans' rights-
-to speak ancr:Print-whatever"they?virisb. By.
ha mpeffing,ScIplaiiy? disFussien;it,might
do flit more hark 4tairt,gto0c-T.0
:.'researik-.1t.iikukl'require7ei:riey .bureau-
racy of -ienceinonitors. Ad-eiren if it 6?
,yetem,
develntut thaTwo-41,nudge.it,
along, a step at a tinie,t94riarel COmptilSory":-
censohipft f .1 ---
SeN;eral. of the Reagan administration's.
actions _also suggest, th_at skepticism is
- haf(-500g)it best new cent:mg-on official
contacts Nvith the press, proposed curtaill-.
?
mg accest.49 gpvernment files and suggest-
ed barring' foreign situlentS -from- researc
projectirthat'raight reit4t3n_ 'tehnolo&
lealieliaieir" home cqUnt-nei. Taken
g4t.herwitlarinian'iPr0p0sal;.alithli sug-
gests an nistratioi with "abud
? fetish
for ,the:iiiite. .
we can easily imagine -art hide.-
pendent researcher unknowingly turning
out a paper on some subject?laRers, say?
that ,would_help an enemy develop a new
weapons system or counter an American
one. Inman claims that upcoming congres-
sional testimony will reveal shocking in-
stances of just such inadvertent exposures.
If those examples do indeed demand
some corrective, then it might be accept-
able to set up a screening bureau and ask
that research in specified areas be sent,
:Nohmtarily, for advisory review.
- But -the safeguards would have to be
clear: The subjects covered would have to
be inextricably linked to security concerns
Submission would be up to the researcher
review would be prompt, and?to avoid
conflict with First Amendment guaran-
tees?researchers would be free to reject
any suggested changes. 1
And"even then we'd be none too corn 1
fortable. Whether the discomfort would be
-worth living with depends on how convinc
ing a case can be made for any kind of
security 'review.
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
STATINTL
,,,,,,,r:T.F.ArifinkiVed-T14r Release 29%/10p9AiDipA1r00901R0005002600044
ON ?AGE 21 January 1982 ? min
f? Scienhsts
esInelions on
By Philip J. Hilts
Washington Post titartWriter
University scientists ande admin-
istrators, backed by the..-rNational
Academy of Sciences', areqesiSting
efforts of the federal government to
further restrict soviet scientists' ac-
cess to technological information
during visits to Americaa'citnpuses.
The Reagan administration has
become increasingly concerned that
much of the Soviet .Union's military
strength is based. on its :acquisition
of U.S.- scientific and technological
knowledge and developthents.
The confrontation was joined Dec.
14 when Stanford ? University re-
ceived a routine letter from the Na7
tional Academy about -a, SOViet ro-
botics specialist, NikolayN...Uninov,
who wanted to visit .four, U.S. uni-
_versifies, including. 'Stanford. The
letter said that, i'trie State Departs .
merit orders, Umnov would have to
be put under Certain -restrictions if
he were to visit. .
Stanford refused to go along with
the restrictions, and Stanford Pres-
ident Donald Kennedy expressed his
"grave concern" over' federal at-
tempts to apply restrictions to aca-
demic work. .
Robert McGhee, ?a professor at
Ohio State University who was ex-
pected to host the Soviet scientist
for the longest period while he .was
here, has also called the State- De-
partment to back out of the arrange-
ment. He said he had no means of
policing the activities of. Umnov for
the six weeks he would bein Colum-
bus, Ohio.. e ? ,
On Monday, the., National:- Acad-
emy of Sciences, which runs the ex-
change program through. which the
Soviet scientist would visit, backed
up Stanford's position. A spokesman
:said the academy will stop acting as
.a middle man and will no longer
pass on .State Department orders to
'universities.
The academy no longer will help
enforce reStrictions on the scientists'
activities and access to information,
at least until its officials can nego-
tiate the matter with the State De-
partment; Academy' spokesmen said
this stance has been taken because
reeent restrictions are "stiffer than in
,years past" and in Some cases "dif-
ficult or impossible to enforce."
, A State Department spokesman
? conceded - that the restrictions may
indeed 'be tougher than they have
been in, the recent past.
'It has a lot to do with the atmos-
phere in-Washington, and the worry
about what we. are leaking away to
the Soviets," he said. ee
The academy's sudden action this
:week quickened the duel between
,academics and the government over
questions of intellectual freedom and
national security. Two other recent
incidents and, statements. have
struck sparks between academics
and the government.
- Late last year, the State Depart-
ment sent out. about 600 letters
questioning universities about the
activities of Chinese scientists on
their campuses. In a half. dozen
cases, the . State Department esti-
mated, -univerSities were- asked to
restrict what- the Chinese could see
and do. Some universities, including
Stanford and the University of Min-
nesota, refused to comply, and. the
matter is not yet settled.
Two Weeks ago, Adm.: Bobby
Inman, deputy directorof the CIA,
told scientists:- that they, should
voluntarily submit their work for
government review and possible(
sorship on national security grounds
because much of Russia's- military
power is built. on U.S. science.
In, the latest incident, Umni v's
request to visit four U.S. universities
was relayed by the National Aced-
emy to-Stanford, the University of
Wisconsin, Ohio State- University!
and Auburn University; r.
Umnov specializes in: building -o-
hotic walking machines-that trave?se
rough terrain, and he was not to be
shown any details of the computer
programming that.run.s 'such devi--es
in this-country.
The government specified that he
was to speak with scientists only at
the theoretical level. He was not to
be allowed any visit to industry. -le
should have no access, "visual, oral,
or documentary," to production -e-
search or any classified or unclessi-
fled work that might be funded by
the Defense Department.
Researchers who expected to I ost
Umnov at the four schools all qt,es-
tioned the restrictions, partly be-
cause the work going on at the fa'.,
cilities is not classified and is-p tb-
lished regularly in international jour:
nals.
Andrew Frank, a professor at Wis-
consin, said that the Russians krow
so much more- about the field, -it
would be to our advantage,_ -tot
theirs, to have Umnov visit.
Asked about the possible military
sensitivity of robotic machines that
can move over rough terrain, he S iid
the field is still at; the. most basic
level of research and for decades to
come, "anything you can do - wth
walkers, you can do better withTnio-
torcycles and cars." :
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R00
C:E1.1).1L-ARED
SCIENCE NEWS
16 January 1982
Science for Security
?
During the next decade, scientists may
face greater restrictions on the dissemina-
tion of research results, said Admiral
Bobby R. Inman, deputy director of the
Central Intelligence Agency, last week.
Inman suggested that one solution to the
problem of balancing the needs of national
security and science lay in including
within the peer review process the ques-
tion of potential harm to the nation..
The threat to scientific freedom may
come from growing congressional and
public awareness that the bulk of the new
technology used in the buildup of Soviet
defense capability was acquired from the
United States or its allies, said Inman. "It is
not easy to create workable and just so-
lutions that will simultaneously satisfy the
wide-ranging needs of national security
and science, but I believe it is necessary
? before significant harm does occur, which
could well prompt the federal government
to overreact," he warned.
? Inman presented his personal views
during a panel discussion- at the annual
meeting of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science. He said this
symposium is an appropriate place to
"remember that national security and sci-
entific interests can best be advanced
through a joint effort."
However, many. scientists have been
concerned about possible restrictions on
publication of their results. The day after
the symposium, the Council of the A AAs
adopted the following resolution as policy:
"Whereas freedom and national security
are best .preserved by adherence to the
principles of openness that are a funda-
mental tenet of both American society and
of the scientific process, be it resolved that
the American Association for the Ad-
vancement of Science opposes govern-
mental restrictions on the dissemination,
exchange, or availability of unclassified
knowledge."
Leonard M.Rieser,chairman of the AAAS
Committee on Scientific Freedom and Re-
sponsibility, told SCIENCE NEWS, "What we
see is the risk of stifling the scientific and
technological community, with a certain
objective in mind, and through the proc-
ess weakening that community and
weakening national security."
At the symposium, panelist Peter J.
Denning, president of the Association for
Computing Machinery, said that if the
United States lessens its free flow of scien-
tific inforMation, economic losses will
greatly outweigh reductions in national
security risks. "The export control laws
Apirt"da ItOftkiiggeOgnitri
government s .c i
cause it is easy to argue that publication in
I international journals is a form of export,"
STATI NTL
0500260004-4
The administration is very concerned \
about the loss of technology to the Soviet ,
Union, and the matter is being addressed
by a number of departments and agencies,
said George A. Keyworth II, presidential
science adviser. "There is no considera-
tion being given to any mandatory pro-
gram. of government review of scientific
papers," he said.
As a model of a "reasonable and fair"
approach to the problem, Inman gave the
example of the voluntary review of cryp-
tologic research (SN: 10/17/81, p. 252) that
was established while he was director of
the National Security Agency (NsA). Re-
searchers working in the area of cryptol-
ogy send manuscripts to the NSA for pre-
publication review. So far, 25 papers have
been submitted, and none has caused the
NSA any security concerns.
Scientific societies should follow the
lead of the American. Council on Educa-
tion, which proposed the Public Cryptog-
raphy Study Group, Inman suggested, and
establish dialogues with pertinent gov-
ernment agencies to define problem areas.
He listed examples of other fields where
publication of technical information could
affect national security in a harmful way:
computer hardware and software, other
electronic gear and techniques, lasers,
crop projections and manufacturing pro-
cedures. He added that basic research has
rarely presented problems for national se-
curity like those posed by applied science.
Rieser, however, was concerned "about
the way one thin leads to another and
finally develops into inappropriate scien-
,
Lille censorship." He said' it is very difficult
to keep scientific breakthroughs secret,
and worried about4he tendency to lump
science and technology together.
Legislated solutions are likely to be
more, rather than less, restrictive than the
suggested voluntary review systems,
- Inman said.
One example of restrictive legislation is
H.R. 109, a bill introduced a year ago in the
, U.S. House of Representatives that
amends the Arms Export Control Act to.
authorize the Secretary of Defense to pre-
scribe regulations that specify informa-
tion to be protected from disclosure. The
Council of the Association for Computing
Machinery argued that the Legislation'
would threaten to silence or inhibit re-.
search and development of computing
technologies.
Mary M. Cheh, a George Washington
University law professor, concluded her
presentation on the issue: "Suppression
AwnWikancilAsitiesittsdatasr
? conception of national security which
recognizes that unfettered scientific re-
r? _Iv
Qv-
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4 STATINTL
MEMPHIS PRESS-SCIMITAR
18 January 1982
?Can Science Be Censored? \
Government officials have start-
ed sounding a tocsin. about a dan-
gerous drain of U.S. and Western
technology to the Soviet Union.
According to Defense Secretary
Caspar Weinberger, "the Soviets
have organized a massive, systemat-
ic effort to get advanced technology
. from the West," particularly com-
puter and electronics technology, to
support, their military build-up.
When they cannot buy the actual
hardware, either openly or clandes-
tinely, they try to acquire it through
bribery or theft
' As for information about the lat-
est advances, they merely have .to
read Western scientific journals.
Adm. Bobby Inman, deputy direc-
tor of the CIA, calls the publication
-of scientific work a. "hemorrhage of
this country's technology.' _ He
.warni-thit unFess scientists volun-
tarily cooperate with the govern-
ment in keeping some of their, pa-
pers secret, an alarmed public will
demand laws forcing them to do so.
.The scientific community has
reacted with its own alarm. Publica-
tion is one of the most important
ways scientists communicate with
each other. By .attemiting to deny
_
_
the 8--oviets our best science by not
publishing it, we would lose the sci-
ence ourselves, says Robert Rosen-
zweig of Stanford University.
Requiring . scientists to submit
their research to government agen-
cies for censorship would be a
"nightmare," says William Carey,
an official of the American Associ-
ation for the Advancement of Sci-
ence. -
. Yet last year, when he was head
of the National Securi y Agency, In-
man initiated a Voluntary system
under Which researchers in the
mathematical theory of codes sub-
mit their papers before publication.
Since then, about ZN papers have
been reviewed and cleared, with no
apparent problems.
We don't know if th same kind of
system could be exter.ded to every
other sensitive field of technology,
but the NSA program SlOW3 that it is
possible and need not be a "night-
mare."
Scientists, who are zts patriotic as
anybody else, should at least open a
dialogue with the government
about this problem, lest they bring
about the very kind of clampdown
they rightly fear:
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R00050
.T. 111=1-.)E11,11ED compu
18 January 1982
Deputy ,C1A Director Wants
Reviewed
By Jake Kirchner
CW Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON, D.C. ? Results ,
of advanced research in computer ;
hardware, software and other ar-
eas of electronicsshoUld be subject
to U.S. intelligence agencies' re-
view in order to restrict Soviet ac-
cess to. technology critical .to na-
tional security, Deputy Central
Intelligence Agency Director
Adm. Bobby R. Inman said recent-
Unless researchers 'submit to a
voluntary review system, they
may be faced with more stringent.
legislated measures, Inman told
the annual meeting here of the
American Association for the Ad-
_ vancement of Science (AAAS) ear-
lier this month. ? . ? -
Inman noted the National Secu.
rity Agency (NSA) last year devel-4
aped a voluntary review process
for cryptographic research- with i
the private sector. The process was!
initiated by Inman when he was 1
head of NSA,
That process consists of Submit-
ting research findings to the Pub-
lic Cryptography Study Group;
formed by the American Council
on Education and representing I
NSA and the U.S. scientific and
? academic. communities. The coin-
? mittee's recommendations. are ad- '
visory, and researchers are free to
publish their work as they see fit.
"There ? are, in ,v,iditiatif other
fields where publication of certain;
technical information could affect
the national security in a harmful
way," Inman told the AAAS. Ex-
amples include "computer hard-
ware and software, other electron-
ic gear and techniques, lasers, crop ,
projections and manufacturing
procedures," he said. -
-
Opinion Backlash
Inman warned of a backlash of
public and congressional opinion
against the free access of foreign
governments to U.S. technical ,
knowledge. This could result in a '
wave of restrictive measures im-
posed on scientists, he said, claim-
ing much of the Soviet military
technology is already based on
U.S. research. . ?
Reaction to Inman's remarks
among scientific and DP profes-
sional organization S has been gen-
erally negative, although repre-
sentatives of several such groups
contacted last week pointed out
that Inman was not specific about
how this ? voluntary censorship
should be handled. They uniform-
ly, suggested that while technol-
ogy diversion to the Soviet Union
is a recognized problem, such cen-
sorship could have a chilling ef-
fect on the U.S. scientific commu- ?
nity and hurt the U.S...more than
the Soviet Union. - , ?- -
But, according to Inman, "scien-
tists' blanket claims of scientific
freedoms are somewhat disingen- 1
uous in light of the arrangements
that academicians routinely make
with private corporate sources of 1
funding." National security con-1'
cerns should be above "corporate, '
commercial interests."
STATI NTL
esearc
Moreover, Inman told the associ-
ation meeting, "much c f the stim-
ulating effort for computer sci-
;
ence in this country -ame from.
government sponsorec and con--
trolled classified act) vity." He
maintained that "science and nal
tional security have a symbiotic,,,,
relationship each benefitting-
from the interests, coAcerns and 1
_contributions of the other. I
"In light of the long history of
that relationship, the suggestion is -I
hollow that science might be ? or,
should be ? kept apart from na--1
tional security concern; or that na-
tional security concerns should
not have an impact o-1 'scientific
freedom;' He said.
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R0005
JTICLE APPEARED
0N. PAGZ_FILD
THE WASHINGTON POST
18 January 1982
errery, ecuriti
SIMMERING CONFLICT between the in-
telligence and defense branches of govern-
ment and parts of the scientific community be-
came several degrees hotter at a session of the
American Association for the Advancement of
Science. Adm. Bobby R. Inman, deputy director
of the CIA and former director of the National Se-
curity Agency, challenged scientists in a wide
variety of disciplines to accept a system of volun-
tary regulation, including pre-publication censor-
ship, or be "washed away by the tidal wave" of
public anger.
The controversy has its origins in the obscure
field of cryptology. In the past decade, rapid devel-
opments in computer technologies, including the
development of microprocessors, have led to aca-
demic and commercial interest in a field that was
once the sole province of governments. With such a
large fraction of commercial and financial transac-
tions being conducted through computers, there
were new reasons to fear industrial espionage, large-
scale embezzlement, the invasion of private medical
records and so on. The need to develop secure com-
puter codes, coupled with the newly available tech-
nologies, brought many people into the area of re-
search that underlies the making and breaking of
secret government codes and ciphers.
? Exactly how much of a security threat such re-
search poses can be fully answered only by someone
with access to the classified material. Experts in this
type of research and in the history of cryptoIog,y dis-
pute the degree of danger claimed by Adm. Inman
nncl others in the government. But the country's
ability to intercept other countries' communications
and to keep its own messages-secure is undeniably
vital, and intelligence agencies are obviously pre-
cluded from presenting evidence to support their
claims. The most prudent. course may be, therefore,
to accept the government's assertion& that at least
some public cryptology, research would harm na-
tional security, while keeping an ear tuned to those
who warn of governmental excess.
Adm. Inman, however, went further. He stated
ant'
STATI NTL
czenC8
the government's desire to restrict research el a
number of other fields including "computer herd- ;
ware and software, other electronic gear and tech-
niques, lasers, crop projections and mended:trine;
procedures." This sweeping but vague list would
af-
fect dozens of scientific and engineering discipliees.
Justifying it, he said a "hemorrhage" of U.S. tr ch-
nology is heavily responsible for major improve-
ments in Soviet defense capability. ;
Just how widespread that anxiety is in this ad-
ministration was evident from the brochure, "Soviet
Military Power," issued last fall by the Pentagor. .
. described the opportunities provided to the Soviet
Union by Western scientific methods; including i ree !
communication, detailed ,publications, conferences !
and symposia and international exchanges. These, it I
was noted, provide information ? valuable to ;;he
Soviets and therefore damaging to the UM red
States. The trouble is, however, that suchpractices ;
are also an important means by which U.S. sci en- !
tific preeminence has been achieved. To place 00
many restrictions on our successful system hecal Ise
it helps a system; crippled by comparable resti-ic-
tions Would be foolish. . ;
; , -
-The openness of American society is ;a source ofl
both weakness and strength, and always has been. i
We have not been terribly geed at protecting tech-
nological secrets that can sometimes provide a ;
major security edge for many years at very low c( St.;
But . the same openness has been responsible or;
producing those technological advances. The cost of
an over-cumbersome system of secrecy restrictiens
in slowing U.S. scientific and technological progr
could turn out to he far greater than the. advanti
denied to our enemies. Moreover it may simply be
impossible to impose?modern science is a tie 'r-
oughly international endeavor. -. !.._ .
This is not to deny that there are valid secur ty!
concerns that could and should be met. But they
seem to us narrower than Adm. Inman and the I e-
fense Department have suggested. If a more plau si-
ble case for severe restrictions exists, the govern- !
ment should make it. s . . ?
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R
ARTICLE APPEARED
ON
JOURNAL OF COMMERCE
19 JANUARY 1982
STATI NTL
The CIA Man's Formula -
?For Smotherm.P. Scaence .
-----
By DANIELS. GREENBERG
WASE-IINGTON -.Are the Soviets
really dipping into this country's vast
output of scientific and technical
knowledge?
No question about it ? indeed they
are. But there is a serious question
concerning what we should do about
it. A resolution of that question is
becoming more urgent as senior
defense and intelligence c"..sefs inten-
sify demands for important segments
of 'American science to curtain them-
selves off from prying eyes. If science
doesn't voluntarily censor itself, Ad-
miral Bobby Rzlfirnan, deputy direc-
tor of the Central Intelligence Agen-
cy. warned last week, its traditional
resistance to "regulation of any kind"
will be "wiped away by a tidal wave"
of public and congressional concern.
When it comes to pressuring sci-
ence into trimming its ancient prac-
tice of unrestricted communication,
the admiral already has a historic
scalp in his belt. For it was under his
prodding, while he headed the super-
-secret National Security Agency, that
university-based computer scientists
agreed to a voluntary system of
government prepublication review of
research papers of possible value for
making and breaking codes. That
reluctantly taken step, even with its
voluntary feature, represented an
unprecedented surrender in the
peacetime history of our scientific
community. Now Admiral Inman and
hiS- national security colleagues,
backed by approving statements from
the White House, want to extend the
principle of voluntary collaboration to
most, if not all, of American science
and technology. Is that a good idea?
To the tunnel-visioned bureaucrats
of national security, it's obviously a
splendid idea. But their embrace of
its reflects a medieval grasp of the
workings of 20th century science and
technology ? so much so, that it is
reminiscent of perpetual-motion engi-
neering. leech medical therapy, and
alchemy.
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
TICLE
ON PAGE
Scientists':
By JOE SHAPIRO
The Reagan administration has told U.S.
scientists to cooperatein the new cold war or
This message Was delivered by .Adm.
Bobby R. Inman, deputy director of the CIA,
to the annual meeting; of' the prestigious
. American Association for the Advancement
of Science (A AAS) in Washington last Week.
In a panel discussion on Scientific
Freedom and National Security, Inman
advised scientists to establish a voluntary?
system by which research in' sensitive areas '
would be reviewed . by -security agencies..
before reSearCh,..proPOsal.Were funded and ?,?:
before; reSult?verePtiblisi4d?-li thIS- system ?.?
wnOret Inman 'Threatened that. a
"tidal wave" of public ontrage would force ?
Congress to enact measures to prevent the
leakage of security-related Information to
the Soviet
Inman later .Said he was? 'expressing a!?,
personal view and not that of the
Nonetheless, it is clear that his talk iS part of
a long-term strategy to increase Department
of Defense control over scientists, especially ? ,
those at itniversitie: ? - ?
.:?,, OvEr :the;:laSt- year, scientific eXchange
programs with, the Soviet Union have been
reduced drastically. In a letter published in
:6TATINTL
promd For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
GUARDIAN (U.S.)
20 January 1982
' ? ';`1-?
hreaten.e.,d
... ur. ploy.
the AAAS journal Science two weeks in, an attempt to al1a3 the fears of
Deputy Secretary of Defense Frank C.. .scientisr?'-with,o_ty losing tfteir support.;
Carlucci attempted to justify this by arguing, r White House deptierpress,secretary Larry'
'The Soviets exploit scientific exchanges as Spcakes stated Jan. 8, "ThtIrrtittration
well as a variety of other,means in a highly ? . is very eoncerned about the idKs--..of
orchestrated, centrally directed effort, aimed technology to the Soviets. It is ? matte
at gathering the technical inforniationbeing seriously addressed by a number of,
required to enhance their military posturel!' :departnients and agencies. There is no
In addition, the sale of high-technology ' ? consideration being given u.? ally-mandatory
equipment to the Soviet Union has been.. , program for review of scieutifie
?
curtailed.. , . ? ? . .. At the same time an official displayed p;
These developments are causing concern circuit board claimed to be from a .Sovief -
among scientists. William Carey, executive,? buoy fished, out of the watt- off the North
directot- of the AAAS. said that Scientists did. Carolina coast 'about six months ago. This
iint want to be subject "to the whiins of buoy, he said, measures ocean currents ad
ri-
,
unknown People inside the walls of the temperatures and radios this information
military, not just about iMmediate PrOblem's...11:+back to. the SoViet Union fizy.- possible use in
but potential ones. I- . ." ? antisubmarine. warfare. Tile circuits, he
Even some scientists with .close tics to the,, ',..;1?Said;,are?"direct copies of U.S. circuits.**
military arc upset. Marvil L.. Goldberger, '? Inman 's ;proposal has a precedefir,?in.:!
president of the California institute cif". Which he. himself was involved; a voluntary.:
'Technology, said he would go slowly on system, has been establi ,hed in which
-restricting the . exchange of knowledge . or truithernalicians:working inxodernaking and
ideas, because such restrictions simply drive' ebdcbrclikin'g submit their papers ? to';ther-
the best scientists away from doing: 7:- iNational Security Agency . for clearance;
important research. Goldberger, a. beforepublication:However. Inman's speech
known theoretical physicist, was a founder of ? is alitajor escalation, to include such areas.'
JASON, an elite group of academic scientists '?? - as computer hardware and software, other,,:.
that designed the automated battlefield used electronic gear 'and techniques, crop pro-,_
in Vietnam. I ? j
? ections, and manufacturing procedures.. ,
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260002?4ATINTL
R K OAF7YVEPV
THP FOiic4i1Hi; CORn MFYFR COiliNN IP rOPYRIf;HTPon Aiin FAR i;PP ANi?
RPNPPPRPRP THRT HfiVP AR4-Pww--A FOR ITE PUBIURTIOR WITH Fltin
NPNPPAPPR CiYRAICRTP. fINY OTHER: USE IP PRORIPITFAi
14 Jdnuary 1982
21 Ifl.I I 111.11.1
tKiOnlf
EY iAKU fir"0-r.
!nn !nn
S1PPRIRN FITPiINF
fl;i1.7)r: I ?AFT-cf*OKPR RNn rPNTIMP r PAPP:ri-
----------
ImMA;.-T3 APPUTY niRPFTOR AF THP Cifi3 JOiTPn P RPFPNT MPPTTNP OF T..?,
aMPRIrEiN FiPs'OrERTIAN FAR TRP finVENrPMPHT AF RriPN(P.rERARNPA
4kiY THAT THFRP pi= Fi "TIOFti ORVF" OF FUP.iTr oiiTRi=tf;',7 HEN
liPCOilEN;; c.:ESS!ONFtL HPARINGP REVEAL HOP THP SOVIETS HPVP
EARROHPA ANn *:;TALPN RHPRIrAN Hi6E TPI-HRAiOGY TO PPTRPAIPR THPIR
RAVRNTA4Pt
DPFPOE SPrRPJARY CRPFAR 'ePIN;tPRPR RRS rONFEESPD IRIS 'REEK TiT
CV NRP RSiPPR VEIHP THP RUSSIANS IPGRi;Y f4.ND
IiAJEinFiL; Y Ti4E TECNICFIL SECRETS NvEni7
THEI ELECTROHECE :ND;)ETRY FOR E?IWJ:NCED i4Ef42ONE
DETERKINED TO CLOSE THE 000F. DOOR E;EFORE Fin THE HORSES PRE
CONPTTHP RFRPR ARHIMIPTRATION IP HOH MOVIHn RN hRMY FRANTP T?
PRATFrT RPNA7NIN(.4 PPrRPT TPrRNIAUPP RRn 8in-INA 14 THP.
MORAL PVUIP4ON PAPINPT THF SRVIET-DIRFrIEn rRArie.nOHN IN Pc;i4E
OFFIrlPic HRwp TtVELY IMPOSER POW-TIONP nN RuPP.TA 'RRT
PRP APPTc;RPn TO (UT PArv. '7,WAPreiY FiiTURF SHIFT FXFinTTET7nN n377
Ki1T-i7Fiq;RfiLLY ;iiirir.:R'7,Trii-ir; Ti-IF THRT P
HAP PATPA RP R rRTRiYST RTTETR THP RE-PARR AnNINTPTRATIAN. IT Ri.P
FORCEDR nPrIPION NOT TO SELLRI4PRTrRN OL Rti.ri
rPri-iNbiOOY TO THP.SOVIFTP TA RP;i7-' THPN 1i-017 YAMAi f%::
FROil !--;IPPRrA TO
PY eRNrPiIRA THP PRAAOPPA c-Air TO RUPPTR BY f:RTPUliiRR TRRrTR OF
r._,
HPFIVY PIFF-LAYING POUIPRERT?Atiti?EY 4ENERAI tLELJR1r OF rOMPRFPAR
CONFORPRTP, PRESIDENT REAGRN HRS DELIBERATELY THRONN A nIR4T NEY
RRPNril INTO WPPTERN EUROPEAN PLANS TO LEND THE SOVIETS-- $4,5BILIOH IN
RETURN FOR Arrpcs TO SIBERIAN ERS. IN THE OPINION OF THE EXPPR7P,
;::\?
/53
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R0005
ARTICLE APPEARED THE WASH I N GTON POST
ON P.P, GE
- 13 January 1982
Corrections
,
?
Last Friday it. was re-
.toried that ,Adm. Bobby12..;
jnmari, deputy director
'the CIA, asked scientists to
*Bow intelligence. agencies to.
"screen-their work- prior to
:imblication, for possible cen-
sorship of. militarily "sensi-
4iven. material. Inrniadid not
limit the reviewing' to intel-
.9.igence agencies; he also sug-
Igested- that other government
-:agencies, for commercial as
?-'well as military reasons, ,
!-niight.screen scientifiework.
ATI NTL
0260004-4
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R00050026
ROANOKE TIMES & WORLD NEWS
13 January 1982
STATI NTL
A ]ad on scientific information?
HE RUSSIANS are get-
ting a lot of technical in-
formation from the
United States and putting it to
use in their military buildup,
says Adm. Bobby R Inman. The
deputy director of the CIA thinks
a key means of stopping tErs is
for scientists to let U.S. intelli-
gence agents examine their pa-:
pers. before -:they're published.
They should' do. this voluntarily -
-- or else.
That was the message Adm.
inman 'delivered -recently to a
panel-session, at the- annual-
meeting,, of the-American Asso-
ciation -for thewAdvaneement of
?Science:Ile said. congressional
investigations now in progress
will demonstrate that as the So-
viets have, expanded their:mai-
tary, "the bulky of new-
technology which they have ern-. .
ployed has been acquired from
the United States:.'??..
Part:of his remedy would be
an intelligence review of scien-r
Lists' work to. see if any of if
d be stamped ...secret...Ill '
scientists don't agree to this, he
? predicts a "tidal wave" of public
outrage and of laws restricting
their work.
Apart from his blatant at-
tempt to throw fear into the
scientific community, the ad-
miral's approach is wrong on a
couple of counts. For one thing,
it .implies that scientists. are
somehow responsible for what
he calls 'a "hemorrhage of the
c.onntry's4technology." They're
not.'.
The _Soviets get technology
from :the- West mainly by pun::
'chase of-'our goods and by read-
ing ()lir technical publications. In
most instances there's no way to
'predict-iv- control use. A corn-
puter and its programs can be
employed in many ways, in both
Military and civilian sectors.
Maybe the United States 'would
want to choke off sales-of- such
equipment although- that
seems doubtful ? but could a
free country' effectively- police
all of the hundreds of publica-
tiOns in which technical infor-
mation is printed? Would it want
to?
Another problem is that
keeping scientific knowled,e ,..e-
cret for very long is virtually
impossible. No country las a
monopoly on brains or re-
sources. It frequently happens
that scientists in different coun-
tries, who don'tleven know of
each other's existence, arri .re at
similar findings near the :.ame
time.
It-can make-sense nt)t to
broadcast information on
sp?
cially sensitive matters w;th a
strictly military application,
like the -H-bomb formula; but
even data in so narrow an area
as this cannot be. indefinitely
bottled up. The kind of lid Adm.
Inman wants to clamp on sien-
tific information could never
spread wide enough or hold -ight
enough to be effective. It L un-
dignified and inappropriate for
him to threaten scientists with a
backlash in public-opinion. The
public understands this situation
better than he thinks. -
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
11 January January 1982
STATI NTL
200004-4
?time flow ofcJific ideas vital At
Science, in its purest form, is:the sys- vital for the nation's economy arid se-
tematic acquisition, analysis and dis- curity.
semination of knowledge.:,It . is best ._._. Scientists do-not work in a vacuum-A
served. by the free flow of information -:--Their work depends on knowledge and
within the nation and the global corn- ;:techniques acquired from many 'I
rinfrifty, and any attempt to censor or sources, and their work is given validi- I
control this knowledge would inhibit ty under a system known as -peer re-
the work of researchers and the ad- :view," in which the published findings.
yancement of science in the world. ? , .of scientists are tested and analyzed by
?' ? ? z?';':? - ?
The deputy dir others
ector of the CIA Adm. ? -
Bobby It: 7-
true that. a. totalitarian police,
Inmarr,---concernOut the :
flow of scientific state such as the Soviet Union enjoys
and technical knowl----
edge 'from the United States to the Sovi-
certain advantages: It can share the
et Union,recentry warned U.S..
knowledge of the Free World without
blic' having to share advances made within
scientists of a "tidal wave" of pn
;
outrage and legal restrictions-if
its borders. But this advantage is ;
throu g_l rfiethod4that .the
, tists do not agree:to vlisluntar3rkii;view.?L.
United States. and free societies cannot
of their work by U.S. intelligence agen,-. S: 7
? -
ciespr afford to emulate. ior to. the start of research and -
prior to publication of the findings., The deputy director of the CIA is
-
professionally occupied with the securi-
, ,
Scientists-?working on secret defense ? ty of the nation, but to place the work of
projects are already subject to normal 'researchers in the fields of "computer
security and classified information 'science, electronics, lasers, crop
procedures, but to place the flow of all ?projection and manufacturing proCe-
sCientific publication under the control:: ,.dure" under an inhibiting system of
OtilieCIA and other secret intelligence censorship would be more damaging to
agencies, voluntarily or otherwise, the cause of national Security and pros-
. would. seriously damage the quest for - perity than the sharing of non-Classi-
k_noledge and inhibit.-scientists. from fled U.S. technical knowledge and pure
piirSVing projects in fields that are? research with the world. ' -
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R00050026060TO4TINT!?,
ARTICLE liFFEARFsD
ON PAGE 9 ?02/
GIBBS BEING TED-
ON DATA TO SOVIET'
U.S. Officials Fear Unclassifie.d
. Scientific Information May
Help Russian Military
By PHILIP rd.BOFFEY ?
?
High Pentagon and intelligennesofai
dais are urging that action be taken to
stein the flow of unclassified scientlirc
communication that might be of ? M1114
tary value to the Soviet Union. .;"*...o.
Their increasingly strong exhorla4
tions are causing concern among lead-
Lig scientists who consider an. irrifet.
tered exchange of ideas and informatiah
essential to the further progress of SOL-
ence arid to American technological arid
military power.
"Frank C. Carlucci, Deputy Secretary
of Defense, recently warned the Ameri-
can Association for the Advancement'of
Science that "the Soviets exploit scien-
tific exchanges as well as a variety,. of
other means in a highly orchestrated,
centrally directed of tort aimed at gath-
ering the technical information required
to enhance their military posture.'". ?os
In a letter published in last week:9
issue of the association's journalo:Sci-,
once, he voiced concern over the disclo-
sure of sensitive information. through
exchanges of scholars and students:
joint conferences, publication of articles
in the open scientific journals and the
Government's own depositor'.es of teelq.-
nical data.
Failure to Provide Data
s
Mr. Carlucci said the exchange deli;
formation under bilateral ageement
was often "one-sided," with the Soy*
Union acquiring information from. the
United States but failing to provide 444
requested in retunn. - - '
. He also Said the Russians were
using" an exchange program for young
scholars. Be said the United States was.
sending young students, mostly :in- the,
humanities, while the Soviet Union Was
?? sending senior technical people, soinitt,_
from militaryinstitutions. . . Annse.
NEW YORK TIMES
10 JANUARY 19B2
Mr. Carlucci said Soviet excliange.1
scientists were often involved In applied'
military research. As an example, he;
cited the case of a Soviet scientist.whoi
studied "the technology of fuel-airnexri
plosives" at a leading American unives-'1
sity in 197647, under the tutelage oi.Si?I
professor who consulted on such devices
for the Navy. . ?
He said the Russian also order,edi
numerous documents pertaining to fuel-
air explosives from the National Techni-
cal Information Service, an unclassiffed
technical depository operated by the
Commerce Department. Then, Mr. Cari;-
lucci said, "he returned to his work In
the U.S.S.R. developing fuel air expici:
sive weapons." -
,ss" n?,f,7
Pentagon Is 'Alarmed' r
Mr. Carlucci offered no suggestions
on what should be done, and his office
said he did not wish to amplify his letters
In the letter, he said that the Defens
Department "views with alarm" sue
"blatant and persistent attempts" to s'
phon away militarily useful information
and believes it is "possible to inhibit this
flow without infringing upon legitimate
scientific discourse."
Mm. Bobby R. Inman, Deputy Direc-
tor of Central Intelligence, went a-stenp
further in a speech to the science associ-
ation's annual meeting in Washington:
last week.
He suggested that a voluntary systetn
might be needed in which national se-
curity agencies could have some voice,
in reviewing research proposals bef
funds were provided and in examining.
research results before they were pita
lished. He expressed particular concern
over "computer hardware and soft-
ware, other electronic gear and tech-
niques, lasers, crop projections, Mill
manufacturing procedur." , ? .??
Admiral Inman later said in a telti"-.,
phone interview he was expressing a.
personal opinion, and not the agenc:/..':1'
views. He said he was not concerned
about any areas of basic research, thei
? kind of research that academic scien;
tists are most involved in, but he ,was,1
concerned about some fields of applied"
research and technology.
Pressure for Curbs ?
Government officials have larig
sought to curb the export of devices-and-
technical plans that can quickly be ap--?
plied to military or industrial purposes:'1
In recent years, the Government NO-
also sought to stem the flow of sensi ?
scientific information and ideas. Under
one
mat
pap
Nati
fore
lievi
used
was
on w
Inn
lion:
W.
the .5
men
Inns,
cern
intentions ana 1 can't take it iignsuy. w.r
,
will not let the matter rest." ? ?
? He said that Mr. Carlucci's "letter fo--
cused mainly on half a dozen bad cases
including some exchanges that were
continued because they were so one :41
sided" and that "he barely touched or
the problems of .the open literature ant.
international conferences." ?..
Frank Press, president of the Na
tional Academy of Sciences and former
science adviser to President Carter.4
said that official exchange progaras?1
were of mutual benefit, not cne-sided,- I
and that individual scholarly exchar.gt
few scientists. "The big leakage is lathe:,
trade journals and the open literaturo:i
and we're not going to stop that,"
said.. "It's the price we pay for a frteel"
society."- ? ?
Marvin L. Goldberger, president o fr!
the California Institute of Teel:mole&
said he would "go slowly" on restrictine?s:
the exchange of knowledge or idess-.""o
He said such restrictions simply drive';
the best scientists away frorndoing im
portant research.
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500
i? I I caw, leVIDZA.RED
Oil
mentis
THE WASHINGTON POST
9 January 1982
h
eseare. {ens
I
ntmare9
? By Philip J. Hilts
Wastungton-Post Staff Writer
Skeptical and openly hostile scientists ar-
gued yesterday that submitting 'their research
for censorship by intelligence agencies to pre-
vent it from being exploited by the Soviet
Union would be an unworkable nightmare and
the United States would be the big loser.
Adm. Bobby R. Inman, deputy .CIA director,
urged scientists at the American Association
for the Advancement of Science convention
Wednesday to submit to censorship voluntarily
because, he said, there is a "hemorrhage of the
country's technology," and the Soviet military
advances of recent years have been based
largely on the work of U.S. scientists,
He suggested that U.S. scientists submit
their work,- both "prior to the start of research
and prior to publication," to U.S. intelligence
agencies so they can censor work considered
harmful to the national security.
Yesterday, Larry Speakes, White ? House
deputy press secretary, said: "The administra-
tion is very concerned about the loss of tech-
nology to the Soviets. It is a matter being se-
riolisly addressed by a number of departments I
_ .
and agencies. There is no consideration being
given to any mandatory program for govern-
ment review of scientific papers."
The United States will urge its allies later
this month to crack down on the legal and ii-
flow of militarily important technology to
the Soviet Union, defense officials say.
"There have been some terrific losses," par-
ticularly in micro-electronic know-how vital to
a range of modern land, sea and air weapons,
said an aide who asked to remain anonymous.
One official displayed a circuit board he said
was in a Soviet buoy fished out of the Atlantic
by art American boatman off North Carolina
about six months ago. This buoy, he said, au-
tomatically measures ocean currents and tem-
peratures? information valuable in anti-
submarine warfare ? and radios it back to the
Soviet Union. The circuits, he said, are "direct
copies of U.S. circuits."
Approved For Release 2003/12/03:
STATI NTL
260004-4
U.S. officials suggested that much of the
movement of key technology through illegal
channels is material that has been stolen?ei-
ther by pe'ople doing it simply for money or
those .carrying out espionage assignments. He
also said some U.S. companies assemble equip-
ment in Third World nations and that some of
their workers may make off with samples.
In attempting to deny the Soviets our hest
science by not publishing it,-said Robert Ro-
senzweig, a spokesman for Stanford University,
"we would lose the science ourselves. We would
be the bigger loser."
He said an enormous number of scientists
and their work would be involved in any at-
tempt to shut off publication of sensitive re-
search. Thus the program would he unwork-
able and "disastrous" and might lead to pro-
grams still worse to correct the situation.
William 'Carey, executive officer of the
AAAS, the largest general science membership
organization in America, said that "What
alarms scientists about the [Inman proposal] is
that once science accepts the government's
right to prior restraint ... the programs are
carried out by individuals in the national se-
curity establishment. They resolve questions
where there is doubt on the side of censorship
rather than the freedom of scientists."
He said scientists did not want to be subject
"to the whims of unknown people inside the
walls of the military, not ju.t about immediate
problems, but potential ones .......his would
be a nightmare, no more and no less-than a
nightmare."
Sydney Weinstein, director of the Associa
tion for Computing Machinery, said he ob
*tad to the use of scare tactics, such as talk
lug about the Soviet threat or the threat ot
legislation, "to make people do what they want
them to do. There should be a more rational
way of dealing with this."
Carey and Frank Press, president of the Na
tional Academy of Sciences, acknowledged that
there is a problem in the way technology le,
picked up.by the Soviets and others. Press sale
Inman has, until now at least, opened a dia
logue with the universities in a way that is un
precedented for someone in the intelligence
CIA-RQ,R411 -00901.R000500260004-4 ? -
I
ARTTCLE Aped For Releastin0964/4045},W-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
STATINTL
ON 9 JANUARY 1982 _PAGE .1*,11/
Scientists Warned on Secrecy
WASHINGTON, Jan, 7, (AP) ? The
'deputy director of the Central Intelli-
gence Agency warned scientists Thurs-
day that they faced legal restraints un-
less they voluntarily? agreed to meas-
ures to prevent the loss of sensitive mili-
tarily technology to the Soviet Union.
Ina speech at a panel discussion of the
annual meeting of the American Associ-
ation for the Advancement of Science,
the official, Adm. Bobby R. Inman, pre-
dicted a "tidal wave" of outrage when
the public learned of the "hemorrhage
of the country's technology." _
He predicted that such public pres-
sure would lead Congress to pass tough
laws- restricting scientific exchanges of
information or the publication of scien-
tific papers that the Government
thought might affect the national securi-
ty.
Current Congressional investigations
1,vill?sh-ow that in the Soviet militari
buildup "the bulk of new technology
which they have employed has been ac-
quired from the United States," he said.
Admiral Inman said research fields that
might be affected include computers,
other electronic gear, crop projections
and some manufacturing techniques.
When he was the director of the Na-.4
tional Security Agency, Admiral Inman
helped establish a voluntary system in
which scientists publishing research in
codemaking and codebreaking submit
their papers to the security- agency for
clearance before publication.
He did not offer a specific plan for ex-
tending voluntary submission of scien-
tific work to other areas, but he said that
scientists Would find a voluntary pro-
gram preferable to one established by
Congress,.
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901
AT-1T CFI:Z:1 APP.LA.RED
ON PAGE 4-
Scientists Urged
To Submit Work
For U.S. Review
By Philip J. Hilts
Washington Post Staff Writer
Adm. Bobby R. Inman, deputy
director of the CIA, warned scien-
tists yesterday that they face a gov-
ernment crackdown to curb Soviet
use of militarily sensitive .American
technology unless they agree to vol-
untary "reviews" of their' work by
intelligence agencies. '
If scientists do not cooperate in
keeping some of their papers secret
voluntarily, they will encounter a
"tidal wave" of public outrage result-
ing in tough restrictive laws, Inman
told a panel at the annual meeting of
the American Association for, the
Advancement of Science. ?
Scientists should beware that con-
gressional investigations now in
progress will point up the "thorough-
ly documented" fact that,. in the
buildup of Soviet defense capability,
"the bulk of new technology which
they have employed has been ac-
quired from the United States,"
Inman said.
When the details of this "hemor-
rhage of the country's technology"
become known, Inman said, public
outrage will lead to laws restricting
the publication of scientific work
that the government might consider
"sensitive" on national security
grounds. ' ?
Most of the audience consisted of
military officers and businessmen.
who appeared to sympathize with
Inman's proposal. He got hostile
questions, however, from the handful
of scientists present They 'consid-
ered the proposal repressive censor?
-
ship.
"The tides are moving, and mov-
ing fast, toward legislated solutions
THE WASHINGTON POST
8 January 1982
that in fact are likel
not less restrictive, t
system he has sugge
When he was dire
Agency, the codem
agency,' Inman led
private researchers
'mathematical theory n. _
The NSA also briefly imposed secrecy orders on
some private code research in recent years.
But in April, 1981, the National Science Foun-
dation, the American Council on Education and
the NSA cooperatively produced a voluntary re-
view system under which scientists can submit
their papers to the NSA and receive a judgment
on whether they possibly contain information
damaging to the national security.
Since then, about 25 papers have been reviewed
and none, had problems, according to Daniel
Schwartz, until recently chief counsel for the
NSA.
finnan wants. to extend this sort of voluntary
system to.many other kinds of work,...h.e said yes-
STATINTL
terday.
"There are other fields where publication of
certain information could affect the national se-
curity in a harmful way," Inman said. He cited
"computer hardware and software, other electronic
gear and techniques, lasers, crop projections, and
manufacturing procedures."
Rather than a faceoff between scientists and
the protectors of national security, he said, "I be-
lieve a wiser course is possible:? A potential bal-
ance between national security and science may
lie in 'an agreement to include in the peer review
process, prior to the start of research and prior to
publication, the question of potential harm to the
nation?' - ?
He did not go into detail except to say that he
would like to modify in some way the manner in
which scientific work and papers are normally re-
viewed to allow intelligence agencies access to the
system.
Inman said one problem in getting cooperation
from scientists is that intelligence agencies usually,
',cannot explain why they want to censor a partic-
lar publication, or even define the kind cirinfor-
nation they want to censor, because this may be
ig revealing as the publication itself.
But he warned that those who say "don't give
tel any regulations" are "about to have that way of
thinking washed away by the tidal wave" of public
Outrage. .
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R00
MTEARED THE WASHINGTON POST
ON PAGE 2, 6 January 1982
FBI, CIA Play
A Little Game
Of Snow White
. The FBI and CIA are playing a
little game of Snow White: "Mirror,
mirror, on the_wall, who's the purest
of them all?"
The CIA, it seems, has its doubts
about the FBI's elite, 110-man coun-
terintelligence staff. This is a role-
reversal of the days when the late
FBI director. J. Edgar Hoover
doubted the CIA people's loyalty.
Here's one incident:
In late October, the FBI assigned
two G-men to the CIA for liaison
duty. The FBI agents belonged to
the bureau's counterintelligence
force, supposedly the creme de la
creme.
But in the course of their duties,
the FBI men would have access to
documents even beyond the top-
secret category for which they had
been cleared. So the CIA made them
submit to the agency's rigorous poly-
graph tests, something the FBI does
not require.
One of the G-men passed the lie-
detector test.; the other flunked. The
CIA refused to give the second man
clearance. "
The questions in the CIA's poly-
graph examinations are extremely
personal They include such subjects
as sexual preference and practices,
past and present, and any other per-
sonality traits that might render a
CIA employee vulnerable to black-
mail, greed or ideological temptation.
All CIA employes know they may
be asked to take a lie-detector test at
any time, without warning or stated
reason. An innocent-looking red se-
curity pass merely turns up on the
employe's desk. It's a non-refusable
invitation to the security office for
interrogation, whilehooked up to the
sweat-and-pulse beat machine.
But FBI agents aren't accustomed
to such treatment. So when the one
agent failed the CIA polygraph, his
bureau bosses were unimpressed.
The questions the G-man flunked
involved his continuing contacts with
the KGB. Sources told my associates ,
Dale Van Atta and Indy Badhwar
that the agent, as a counterintelli-
gence officer, dealt with undercover
KGB people as part of his job. He
may have expressed some sympathy
for one of his KGB targets. No big
deal, according to the FBI.
But to the CIA, the FBI man was
a potential double agent. CIA Direc-
tor William J. Casey and his deputy,
Adm. Bobby Re Inman, were report-
edly alarmed by the polygraph test ,
results. They suggested that all 110
FBI counterintelligence agents be
run through the CIA's lie-detector
tests. Inman, a fan of polygraphs
since his days as head of the Nation-
al Security Agency, strongly urged
- ? the idea.,....
STATI NTL
00260004-4
When FBI Director William ii.eb--
ster broached the idea tentative., he,
was confronted with a virtual ebel-
lion. The counterintelligence staff
refused to submit to the rival egen-
cy's polygraphs, and some threat?
ened to quit en masse if requiied to
do so. Webster told the CIA to for--
get about the polygraph tests.
What Webster didn't reelie ac-
cording to my sources, is that there
were two reasons his cotuiteri eteili-
gence agents didn't want to take the
polygraph tests. One was their pro-
fessional distaste for being p eshed
around by another bureaucracy.
But the main reason was fear that
the CIA lie-detectors might turn up
some unpleasant information.
Footnote: A CIA spokesman de-.
nied that any such dustup wicn the.
FBI has occurred.
Approved For Release 2003/12/03 : CIA-RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
STATI NTL
ArEEARETApproved ForiReleas,e,2p1:43/12/9,3 ? CIA, RDP91-00901R000500260004-4
PAGTO.;
Janu.ar,r 1982
? The Central Intelligence Agency
Is up to its old tricks again?dirty tricks.
The boys in the backrooms seem deter-
mined to lower themselves to the
Soviet level and adopt tactics that in the
past have been reserved. for terrorists
and tyrants. CIA operatives are fo- ?
menting world terrorism, which we pro-
fess to abhor; they are spreading "disin-
formation" when the truth would be a
far more powerful weapon.
I cannot think of an instance in the
last 20 years when a covert CIA opera-
tion enhanced our security without
damaging our credibility as the world's
leading spokesman for freedom and
democracy. More likely, the CIA's
clandestine stunts embarrassed our
country, held us up to global ridicule,
played into the hands of our adversa-
s???ries or invited retaliation in kind. .
Consider the litany of CIA fiascoes
?the attempt to invade Cuba with a
ragtag. refugee force that was easily de-
feated at the Bay of Pigs; the plot to
dose up Fidel Castro so his beard would
fall out; the contract with the Mafia to
have him knocked off; the scheme to
smuggle poisoned toothpaste into Africa
to kill left-wing leader Patrice Lumumba;
the clandestine military operations in Laos
and Iraq, which backfired and ended in
the slaughter of mountain tribesmen
abandoned by the CIA; the agent who
plugged in a lie detector and blew out
all the lights in a Singapore hotel; and
the bizarre scheme to try to contact
dead Soviet agents by seance on the
assumption that, since dead, these
agents would recognize the errors of
their ways and spill their secrets.
These abuses and absurdities finally
brought a congressional clampdown on
the CIA. No more reckless engineering
of coups in other lands, the agency was
told, and no more attempts to foment
revolutions and to assasinate foreign
leaders. But now a conservative back-
wash threatens to "unleash" the agency
again ?a salivating prospect for the "old
boy" operatives whose arrested ma-
turation and gleArlpizaviii-dageonaFte
were precisely what made "covert" a
dirty word and brought on the crack-
. administration offer much hope that it
? will resist the pressure to unshackle the
CIA. Too Too many in this administration
seem oblivious to the menace that po-
verty, hunger, racism, religious fanat-
icism and right-wing oppression pose to
global stability and, ultimately, to our
own security. Instead, they seem ob-
sessed with the notion that the Kremlin,
Castro and Qaddafi are the only threats
?and ergo, that any enemy of theirs
is a friend of ours.
On the basis of top-secret documents
I have examined and confidential infor-
mation I have received from CIA con-
tacts, I can report to you today that the'
CIA is preparing to join forces with
totalitarian regimes and anti-communist
factions to carry out covert operations
around the world?operations as bizarre
and potentially as counterproductive
as those that disgraced the agency
and our country in the Sixties and
Seventies.
Bill Casey, the doddering director of
the CIA, thinks he's found a way to get
around restrictions on covert opera-
tions abroad and a way to circumvent
the law which forbids the CIA from
operating in our own country. Casey
thinks he can get foreign agents to do
the dirty work, with our support.
He argues that the dismantling of
U.S. covert capabilities has left Pres-
Casey thinks he can get
foreign agents to .do our
dirty work, with our
support.
?
110,11.111*...0.1???
ident Reagan "with no reasonable op-
tion other than increased cooperation
with anti-communist forces abroad." A
top-secret planning document recom-
mends that "consideration be given to
improving the capability of the agency
to rapidly escalate aid to anti-corn-
a MS
se zuanzAii ziO3 : CIA-1RDP91-00901R
MU" es
That could put our country, the
bastion of democracy, in bed with
? II I .1 ? 1
BY JACK ANDERSON
and traditions than a loath! ig of com-
munism. It could also leave us with a
wide open window of vulne
Libya and Cuba are prio ay targets,
of course, for any new rour d of covert
activities inspired by the (IA. Within
the protected corridors of CIA head-
quarters in McLean, Va., th 3re is whis-
pered speculation aboat bizarre
scheme's to do away with )arldafi. A
hit man could pose as one 0: the Libyan
ruler's team of internatiorail mercen-
aries and slip him a deelyed-effect
poison, for eXample. Ther ? would be
no symptoms for the first 48 hours,
enough time for-the assasshl to exit the
country. Qaddafi would hen come
down with symptoms indisi nquistiab?2
from certain viral diseases he would
become paralyzed, slip into coma and
expire?without a trace of the poison
left in his body.
The CIA got the idea fo this poison
froi=n the Rumanian sec: et service,
which used it to dispose c f some. dis-
sidents who had been givea asylum in
western nations. The ass ssins were
never caught. I have seen the formula
for the poison, which could be mixed in
many chemical labs; but joi malistic res-
ponsibility forbids me front publishing
p616016260oo4-4
e Lie,. considered usin, I a tiny dart,
made up to resemble one of the black
flioc tubich infoqt the) dowrf 11-1,3 rrIconz