HANGOVER FROM WATERGATE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-01208R000100240007-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 22, 2011
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: July 30, 1976
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

u_ i
STAT.- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/22 : CIA-RDP90-01208R000100240007-0
^ / ARTICLE APPEARED NEW YORK TIDIES
-Y ONPAGi/ A_7J 30 JULY 1976
Hangover
From",:'
Watergate
-By Tom Wicker
After President Ford abandoned his
opposition to a-special prosecutor to
investigate wrongdoing within the.;
Government, the Senate included such
an office in its Watergate reform bill.
But. Mr, Ford isn't showing much in-
terest in acting on his own to curb
executive -excesses -or clean up past
offenses.
He .recently ordered . the Justice
Department, for example, to go into
ccurt for a restraining order against ;
.a House subcommittee's attempt to
obtain Federal .wiretap records from'.
American - Telephone . and Telegraph
'Company. Mr. Ford contended that it
,would be an "unacceptable risk" to
the national security to let the sub- j
committee have the records it had
-subpoenaed from A.T.&T.
It may be true that the House in
.the past has not been . sufficiently
scrupulous in maintaining the security
of sensitive documents, and the Ad-
'ministration's concern' may therefore,
be reasonable.. Yet,. how is Congress
'to- operate. - as a? -real check on -the
-Executive if the President can nullify I
a Congressional subpoena with a claim
'of national security. -
Judge'Oliver Gasch, 'who' issued the
temporary order, has. the matter under
advisement and may yet rule in favor
of - the subcommittee.. But with the
echoes, of Watergate' scarcely" faded'.'
from the Washington 'air,' Mr. Ford
would 'have acted more reassuringly if
`he had'sought some security
ment with the subcommittee chairman,
Representative Moss of California,
rather than going into court to protect
; 1
By'doing so, as subcommittee law-
yers pointed out, he ranked 'duly
elected members. of Congress as.less
trustworthy than Justice Department
officials, Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tibn agents and the large number of
A.T.&T. employees who-have seen the!
secret documents. He also raised the!
question whether there ,may not . be
more to hide than "national security";
information in the wiretap records.:
Nor is this the only instance inl
which- an, executive branch ."cover-up" I
might at least be suspected.: A.- Justices
Department official recently told The
New York Times that the department's
lawyers had recommended against the
prosecution. of Central In'telligence'
Agency officials involved in the illegal'
opening of mail between the United
States and Communist countries.
Opening mail, by' the C.I.A. or any-
one else, was clearly against the 'law
throughout the 20-year period when
the agency engaged in the practice.
Yet, the Justice Official Explained, the
department's lawyers had concluded
that during all that t;ne there had
been "a continuum of Presidential, au-
trority" that had made the C.I.A. mail-
-openings legal after all-
But since when have Presidents been-
able to make legal what the law says
is illegal, by a continuum or any o+her'
kind of-authority? And even if there
were-some such power inherent in the
office, what about ' the report of the
'Senate Select' Committee on Intelli-
gence that it had found no documen-
tary evidence that any President had
"authorized" the mail openings?
Aside from these tittestions, how-
ever, why should the Justice Depart-
meet take it upon itself to decide such
.matters? There is ample c,?iden ce that
the mail openings took pl:ice, ngatlnst
the statutory law. That seems reason
enough to prosecute those responsible,
and if the defendants wanted to claim
a "continuum of Presidential author-
ity" as a . defense. t`ir courts could
decide the validity of such a claim.
Justice Department lawyers already
have recommended to Attorney Gen-
eral Levi that no indictments be sought
as a result of C.I.A. assassination olots
against Fidel Castro of Cuba and the
Late -Patrice Lumurrrba 'of,' then, the
Congo. Nor does it appear that perjury
action will be taken against the former
C.I.A. director, Richard Helm, for his
questionable statements to Congress
on the agehcy's involvements in Chile.
If no'evidence of legal offenses.in
these cases exists, of course there
should be no, prosecutions.' But it is-'
hard to see how that could be so, at
least in the mail-opening :natter. And
if such evidence does exist-no :natter
what exculpatory theories the defend-
ants might offer in court-no special
prosecutor ought to bey needed-to order `
indictments.
Mr. Ford's sudden switch tr- support'
of a special prosecutor may have rep-
resented a sincere change of heart: But
it may also have reflected the Demo-
crats' recent show of interest in Water-
gate as' an issue against him. In
either case, action by Mr. Ford's own
Administration would speak louder
than any number of words from him.
!,- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/02/22 : CIA-RDP90-01208R000100240007-0