LAW AND NATIONAL SECURITY INTELLIGENCE REPORT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00806R000100080001-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 10
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 13, 2010
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: March 1, 1986
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

STAT
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/09/13: CIA-RDP90-00806R000100080001-1
b~ AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
A
1
STANDING COMMITTEE Law and National Security
INTELLIGENCE REPORT
John Norton Moore, Chairman March 1986
The Secret War in Central America
The American Society of International Law in its
quarterly Journal (January 1986, Vol. 80, No. 1) has
printed a lengthy article by John Norton Moore entitled
"The Secret War in Central America." The article,
which runs 86 pages, is, we are told, the longest ever
printed by the Journal. It deals basically with the con-
cept of legality, as applied on the one hand to the San-
dinista regime in Nicaragua, and, on the other hand, to
American support for the Contra opposition to the San-
dinistas.
Mr. Moore's essay starts out with the statement:
The core principle of modern world order is that
aggressive attack is prohibited in international
relations and that necessary and proportional
force may be used in response to such an attack.
Mr. Moore's central finding is that the Sandinista
regime is a product of aggressive attack masquerading
as self-defense and that because of this it is the duty of
the world community to assist those who are resisting
the Sandinistas.
We reproduce below several of the key paragraphs
from the conclusion of the article.
Strengthening World Order
The secret war in Central America illustrates the
danger to world order-and to the legal order itself-
posed by the assaults of radical regimes.... That war is
conducted through assistance in organizing Marxist-
Leninist controlled insurgencies; the financing of such
insurgencies; the provision and transshipment to them
of arms and ammunition; training the insurgents; assis-
tance in command and control, intelligence, military
and logistics activities; and extensive political support. It
also includes terrorist attacks and subversive activities
preliminary to and supportive of an all-out covert attack.
Arrayed in support of this secret war is a diverse con-
glomeration of radical regimes and insurgent move-
Editor: W
ments from the Soviet Union and Soviet bloc nations
such as East Germany, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia,
Cuba, Vietnam, Ethiopia and North Korea, to Libya,
Iraq, Iran and the PLO.
The strategy of covert and combined political-mili-
tary attack that undergirds this secret war is a particu-
larly grave threat to world order. By denying the attack,
the aggressors create doubts as to its existence; and by
shielding the attack with a cloud of propaganda and
misinformation, they focus world attention on alleged
(and sometimes real) shortcomings of the victimized
state and the permissibility of defensive response. The
result is a politically "invisible attack" that avoids the
normal political and legal condemnation of aggressive
Continued on back page
Senate Approves Genocide Treaty
After 37 Years of Debate
Thirty-seven years after it was submitted to the Senate
for approval, the International Convention on the Pre-
vention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was
approved February 19 by an 83-11 Senate vote.
The ABA-backed treaty, unanimously approved by
the U.N. General Assembly in 1948 following the World
War II Holocaust, outlaws "acts committed with intent
to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
racial or religious group as such."
Final Senate advice and consent, with the continuing
leadership of Senate Majority Leader Robert J. Dole
(R-Kan.), came 18 months after President Reagan's
strong formal endorsement. With the Senate vote, the
U.S. has taken a major step toward joining the 96 na-
tions that are parties to the convention, which was the
longest pending treaty in Senate history.
The ABA's vigorous support for the ratification was
singled out by Senator William Proxmire (D-Wis.) and
Continued on back page
C. Mo . AssociaWH
Copyright () IW ri
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/09/13: CIA-RDP90-00806R000100080001-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/09/13: CIA-RDP90-00806R000100080001-1
Dissident Congressmen Challenge
President in Federal Courts
A small group of congressmen have over the past few
years frequently challenged the president's foreign
policies in the courts when they could not get ap-
propriate action in the Congress. The Congress as a
whole has not accused President Reagan of violating the
Constitution, acts of Congress (e.g., the War Powers
Act), or joined in such suits with regard to his foreign
policy actions. The judicial challenges by dissident con-
gressmen have concerned Grenada, Central America,
South Africa, and other foreign policy concerns.
In one of the best articulated statements of congres-
sional and presidential powers, and their convergency
and divergency, Judge David N. Edelstein clearly set out
the constitutional limitations of all three branches of
our government. That case, Greenham Women Against
Cruise Missiles et al v. Reagan, 591 F. Supp. 1332 (DC
S.D.N.Y. 1984), concerned, as its title indicates, an at-
tempt to prevent judicially the emplacement in England
of cruise missiles by the United States.
The plaintiffs, a group of British women living within
a 100-mile radius of a USAF base at Greenham Com-
mon, England (50 miles west of London), a United
States citizen living in London, and two United States
congressmen, Ron Dellums and Ted Weiss, sought to
prevent the emplacement on the bases of violation of the
fifth and ninth amendments, tortious injury, and, in the
case of the members of Congress, a violation of the con-
stitutional right of the Congress to declare war and pro-
vide for the general defense and welfare.
Judge Edelstein's opinion stated pertinently:
The courts are simply incapable of determin-
ing the effect of the missile deployment on world
peace. Plaintiffs ask this court to find that since
the cruise missiles can be used in a "first use"
situation, the risk that the United States will in
fact initiate a limited nuclear war increases ter-
ribly; and that even if the United States does not
initiate a nuclear exchange, this new capability
for "first use" will likely provoke a preemptive
nuclear strike by the Soviet Union. In contrast,
the government takes the position that the de-
ployment of cruise missiles promotes peace by
providing a more adequate and needed defense
for Western Europe thereby deterring the Soviet
Union from initiating war and by motivating the
Soviet Union to negotiate arms reduction seri-
ously. "History will tell [which] assessment [is]
correct, but without the benefit of such extended
hindsight [the courts] are powerless to know."
DaCosta v. Laird, supra, 471 F.2d at 1155.
Undoubtedly it can be said that the President
and Congress cannot "know" with an absolute
degree of certainty the effects of missile deploy-
ment. But it is precisely because the ultimate ef-
fects are not altogether knowable that conjecture
and predictions about them are best left to the
political branches of government. Questions that
are infinitely more complicated than those posed
by the question "how many angels can dance on
the head of a pin?" are not ready for ready
answers. Questions like how to ensure peace,
how to promote prosperity, what is a fair utiliza-
tion and distribution of economic resources are
examples of questions that must be decided by
the fair, sound, seasoned and mature judgments
of men and women responsive to the common
good. The power to make these determinations is
therefore appropriately allocated to the political
branches....
The language of then Circuit Judge Warren E.
Burger is very much in point here:
That appellants now resort to the courts on
a vague and disoriented theory that judicial
power can supply a quick and pervasive
remedy for one of mankind's great problems
is no reason why we as judges should regard
ourselves as some kind of Guardian Elders or-
dained to review the political judgments of
elected representatives of the people. In fram-
ing policies relating to the great issues of na-
tional defense and security, the people are and
must be, in a sense, at the mercy of their
elected representatives. But the basic and im-
portant corollary is that the people may
remove their elected representatives as they
cannot dismiss United States Judges. This
elementary fact about the nature of our
system, which seems to have escaped notice
occasionally must make manifest to judges
that we are neither gods nor godlike, but
judicial officers with narrow and limited
authority. Our entire System of Government
would suffer incalculable mischief should
judges attempt to interpose the judicial will
above that of the Congress and President,
even were we so bold as to assume that we can
make a better decision on such issues.
The case was appealed and the United States Court of
Appeals of the Second Circuit (84-6290, February 8,
1985), in a brief decision, upheld the lower court's deci-
sion.
The case is remarkable for what may be a record
number of persons and organizations on whose behalf
amicus briefs were filed (196 in all). The mere listing of
those organizations consumed seven times the space re-
quired for the appellate court's affirmation.
Larry Williams
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/09/13: CIA-RDP90-00806R000100080001-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/09/13: CIA-RDP90-00806R000100080001-1
Morry Leibman Honored by Friends
On 75th Birthday
On February 18, almost 300 friends and acquain-
tances of Morry Leibman came together for an 8 a.m.
breakfast at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.,
to pay tribute to him on the occasion of his 75th birth-
day. The breakfast was under the joint sponsorship of
the ABA Standing Committee on Law and National
Security, the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, Freedoms Foundation, and the National
Strategy Information Center. Among the notables pre-
sent were William J. Casey, director of Central In-
telligence; Justice Lewis Powell; Secretary of the Army
John O. Marsh; General Richard Stilwell; Attorney
General Edwin Meese; former national security adviser
Robert "Bud" McFarlane; Alexander Haig, former
secretary of state; Judge William H. Webster, director
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and many
others.
Justice Powell, speaking on behalf of the Standing
Committee at this extraordinary birthday breakfast,
related some of the 35 years of history that accounted
for the benign and unifying influence that Morry Leib-
man had exerted on all sectors of the community con-
cerned with problems of national security and defense.
Justice Powell had been the author of the resolution
adopted by the ABA House of Delegates in February
1961 that authorized the establishment of the commit-
tee's predecessor organization, the Special Committee
on Education in the Contrast Between Liberty Under
Law and Communism. He said that he had been moti-
vated to propose the resolution creating the committee
"as a result of observations on a visit to the Soviet
Union with a small committee representing the ABA."
The committee members returned to the United States
deeply depressed by the oppressive atmosphere they
found in Moscow-and Justice Powell's resolution cre-
ating the committee was a product of that depression.
Justice Powell spoke at length about the many posi-
tions of public trust that Morry Leibman had occupied
during a long and active life. Apart from serving on
several presidential commissions, he noted that Leib-
man had served on the boards of a number of organiza-
tions including the National Strategy Information
Center, the Georgetown Center for Strategic and Inter-
national Studies and the Freedoms Foundation. He also
served as chairman of the Standing Committee from
1962 to 1967 and from 1975 to 1982.
In concluding his remarks, Justice Powell mentioned
"the two greatest honors bestowed on Morry: the Medal
of Freedom by President Reagan and the willingness of
Mary to marry him."
Among other speakers who paid tribute to Morry
were Admiral William C. Mott, vice president of the
National Strategy Information Center; Amos Jordan,
president, Center for Strategic and International
Studies; Daniel McMichael of the Scaife Family
Charitable Trusts; Robert Miller, president of Freedoms
Foundation; and John Norton Moore, chairman of the
Standing Committee on Law and National Security,
who served as moderator. Mr. Moore also spoke about
the continuing dangers that confront the free world and
which demand the existence of organizations such as the
Standing Committee. His remarks are printed below.
Morry Leibman accepted the many tributes that had
been addressed to him with characteristic modesty giv-
ing much or most of the credit to others-but it was ob-
vious that he was deeply touched with the display of af-
fection which had been accorded him.
Remarks by John Norton Moore
Those of us who have served on the Standing Com-
mittee are not neutral. We see around us an historic
struggle for the future of man between totalitarianism
and democracy. We remember Churchill's famous
phrase that World War II with its 40 million dead was
"the unnecessary war" because the democracies could
act together only too late to deter totalitarian aggres-
sion. In our country, President Roosevelt's famous
quarantine speech, in the year of my birth, fell on ears
that sought security in isolationism. Four years later the
horrors of World War II were brought to the shores of
America. We who are committed to democracy and
human freedom increasingly understand the core clash
of ideas and the seminal role of law in seeking to avoid
repetition of this sad history.
Today, for those who will look, there are again
ominous trends. These include:
? an unprecedented military buildup by our principal
adversaries in virtually every category of military
power from the central strategic front to develop-
ment of new biological agents in violation of
solemn arms control commitments;
? a growing network of totalitarian regimes and
political organizations united in opposition to
democracy and the West and waging sustained low
intensity warfare against the West;
? a massive political and disinformation campaign to
persuade the targeted West that it is the attacker
rather than the attacked. In a real sense the
resulting confusion is destroying the international
immune system against aggressive attack and
directing it toward the defensive response;
? an increasing politicization and breakdown of in-
ternational institutions under the radical assault,
from the United Nations and the OAS to the World
Court, with a concomitant drift to international
anarchy; and
? a popular retreat from responsibility in a mistaken
moral isolationism that oversimplifies both reali-
ties and choices. How many debaters have you
heard who avoid appraisal of the behavior of other
Continued on page 4
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/09/13: CIA-RDP90-00806R000100080001-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/09/13: CIA-RDP90-00806R000100080001-1
Leibman Honored on 75th Birthday
Continued from page 3
nations and the harsh realities of context by glibly
announcing that as Americans their only responsi-
bility is to assess the actions of their own govern-
ment?
For those who would seek to remind the West of these
dangers-as this committee has-our society has power-
ful psychological barriers to the message.
? Democracies, being genuinely responsive to the
wishes of the people, are peace loving and they
have a powerful tendency to mirror image in
ascribing similar feelings to all states;
? all the great psychologists have shown the powerful
effect of the defense mechanism of denial in re-
treating from a world not altogether to our liking;
and
? particularly as the contemporary threat is effective-
ly posed through covert attack rather than armies
on the march, the gap between national intelligence
information and popular understanding lends itself
to controversy, inaction, and the fallacy of the
evenhanded cop out.
All of us have felt the sting of these barriers to truth
in a market mythology that dismisses the message as
"controversial" or "hard line." These tendencies to
shoot or ignore the messenger are not new. It was, after
all, Neville Chamberlain, not Winston Churchill, who
was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. And more recently
it was Le Duc Tho who was awarded the same prize
shortly before North Vietnam openly invaded South
Vietnam with 14 regular divisions in violation of the
very Paris Accords for which the award was jointly
made.
Though the task of realistic messenger is daunting-
the stakes are no less than democracy, human freedom
and the avoidance of war. You can rest assured that the
ABA committee will continue to follow its conscience
whoever the chairman. In the words of Mark Twain,
"Always do right-this will gratify some people and
astonish the rest."
Conference on International Terrorism:
The Threat to Industry
By the Editor
This conference, held in Washington, D.C., in Octo-
ber under the auspices of SRI International, was attended
in its entirety by your editor. It was a remarkable ex-
perience. It differed from some of the theoretical dis-
quisitions about terrorism which have been reviewed in
this Report in the past in that it outlined case histories of
terrorist activities in Spain, Switzerland, Northern
Ireland and Israel, and then told in the plain blunt
words of representatives of those countries what hap-
pened-what was done about it-and what still needed
to be done there and here in the United States.
Northern Ireland, for instance, was represented by Sir
John Hermon, its chief constable, who, after detailing
some of the more disastrous terrorist attacks on busi-
ness in his country, gave the chilling result in these
words:
In March 1983, the Northern Ireland Develop-
ment Board, set up to develop industry, revealed
that 60 percent of British, German and American
businessmen who were questioned said that they
considered the risks of investing in Northern
Ireland too great. Indeed, Northern Ireland was
placed 19th on a list of 20 Western European
countries assessed as to their attractiveness as
locations for industrial plants.
Sir John then went on to explain how terrorism
against industrial targets can and must be countered.
Similar, and even more chilling scenarios were
presented for Spain, Israel and Lebanon. It remained
for Mr. Warren Metzner of Exxon to translate what had
happened in those countries into what American busi-
ness can expect. Said he:
As you have heard this morning, overall it
looks like business will continue to be a target
favored by terrorists worldwide. We can expect
to be the target in at least one third of all actions.
We also know to expect bombings, facility at-
tacks, assassinations, attempted extortions, ab-
ductions, sabotage and piracy, all these things to
continue at about the same level as they do today.
Whatever their cause, the probability that out-
rages of this type will be directed at personnel
and property of American business is real, it is
steadily increasing, it is becoming ever more
violent and it just cannot be ignored. It is clear
that no company has been able to provide com-
plete security for its personnel, property and
assets and it probably never will. There are,
however, a variety of measures that can be em-
ployed to minimize the dangers of the
devastating effects of terrorism.
He then proceeded to outline the steps prudent com-
panies should take.
Other speakers concentrated on remedial steps that
should be taken to counter terrorist attacks. Reuben
Eytan, late of the Israeli Corps of Engineers and now
head of an architectural and engineering firm, gave
details on how to harden sites to limit damage. Bernard
Stewart, organizer of the conference and SRI senior
systems analyst, described how to protect people threat-
ened by terrorist acts, both before and after the act.
Director of Central Intelligence, William Casey, in a
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/09/13: CIA-RDP90-00806R000100080001-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/09/13: CIA-RDP90-00806R000100080001-1
luncheon speech reviewed terrorism-worldwide, its
causes and effects. (See November 1985 issue of In-
telligence Report.) Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor-in-
chief of The Washington Times, presented his indict-
ment of the way our media downplay, underreport and
misreport terrorist incidents. Said he: "The lack of an
institutional memory coupled with what I would call a
,no enemies on the left' bias is a major problem."
The chairman of the Standing Committee on Law and
National Security, John Norton Moore, was the final
speaker and ratified much of what Mr. de Borchgrave
had said about the tactics and strategy of terrorist at-
tacks on Americans. He then stated the law of the case
in these words.
Now, if we were to look for a moment to the
relevance of law in all of this struggle, I think it is
exactly as Bill Casey said. Law is only a small
part of this picture but it does, I think, provide
some insights that need to be vigorously explored
and it should be used as a tool to enable us to
more vigorously respond to this very serious
secret war directed against the democracies.
Basically, law does three things in this
response. First, it sets a basic framework as to
how the international community regards the use
of force in international life and what is regarded
as permissible. Secondly, it sets a framework for
the prosecution and extradition of those engaged
in individual terrorist acts and, lastly, it sets a
framework for much of the ongoing efforts that
we make under national law to deal effectively
with terrorism.
This conference was aimed primarily at businessmen
to encourage them to set up a proprietary terrorist early
warning system and to establish a risk assessment pro-
gram. It is my hope that the report on the conference
will shortly be published and will be available to the
business community.
Book Review
By the Editor
Stalin-And the Shaping of the Soviet Union by Alex de
Jonge. William Morrow and Company, New York,
$19.95.
A remarkable new biography of Stalin has been pub-
lished by Morrow and Company. The author, Alex de
Jonge, grew up with the Russian language and this is
reflected in the 800 footnotes, many of which are keyed
to Russian sources. The exhaustive nature of the
research that went into the writing of the book is ap-
parent from the fact that nearly 300 reference titles are
listed in the bibliography. The index is superb.
In his book, author de Jonge helps to explain many
historical facts that have hitherto been shrouded in
mystery. For example, he cites Soviet stockpiles of raw
materials as one of the prime reasons Hitler agreed to
the strong non-aggression pact of 1938. He quotes
Gustav Hilgar, von Ribbentrop's interpreter, as stating
Hitler never believed Stalin could be bound by a scrap
of paper but he was driven in the short term to have ac-
cess to Soviet stockpiles of chromium, platinum, grain
and petroleum.
The author follows Stalin from his birth in 1879 (ac-
cording to the best evidence he was the illegitimate son
of a famous Russian explorer, Nikolai Przhevalsky, and
a maid servant in a large house in Tiflis) to his death at
the peak of his power during the anti-Semitic hysteria
which accompanied the show trial of the Jewish doctors
in March 1953. His foster father was a shoemaker named
Beso Djugashvili, hence Stalin's acquired name losif
(Joseph) Vissarionovich Djugashvili. "His childhood
was characterized by violent hatred of his father, who
used to beat him when drunk, allegedly prompting the
child to defend himself with a knife."
Did he love his mother? "No," says the author.
"There is no evidence that Stalin ever loved anyone....
He would refer to his mother `as that old whore.' "
One of Stalin's church school contemporaries in
Gori, one Iremashvili, wrote a book while he was in ex-
ile in Berlin in 1932 in which he described Stalin in these
chilling words: "He had an unbalanced, unrestrained
and passionate character when he decided to go for some-
thing or achieve something. He loved nature but he never
ever loved a living being. He was incapable of feeling pity
for man or beast.... I never knew him to cry."
Such were the early years of the man who was to be-
come the greatest mass murderer in history. It is esti-
mated that the Stalin terror over the years exacted the
lives of some 20 million victims, including virtually the
entire Central Committee that had made the Bolshevik
revolution. His purge of the Red Army in 1937 cost the
lives of up to 50 percent of the officer corps including
three of the five Red Army marshals and 13 of the 15
army commanders.
Perhaps the closest family to Stalin, with whom he
often stayed between prison terms, were the Alliluyevs.
In de Jonge's words: "Alliluyev had two daughters.
One, Nadezhda, was aged three when Stalin first met
her. Sixteen years later he would marry her. [Svetlana
was their daughter.] Twelve years after that she would
shoot herself [or was murdered by Stalin-take your
choice]. The other daughter, Anna, was aged eight.
Forty-four years later Stalin would put her in jail." So
much for his treatment of the only family he ever had!
His relations with Lenin were, to say the least, rocky,
especially towards Lenin's end. Lenin, apparently,
distrusted Stalin, and would not have designated him as
his heir. There were even rumors that he had been
Continued on page 6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/09/13: CIA-RDP90-00806R000100080001-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/09/13: CIA-RDP90-00806R000100080001-1
Book Review
Continued from page 5
poisoned by Stalin. However, Lenin died, whether by
poison or stroke. The Bolshevik leaders, Zinoviev,
Kamenev, Bukharin and Kalinin, accompanied by
Stalin, rode out in sleighs to view the body. In time
Stalin would have every member of that group except
Kalinin shot!
One of the most instructive chapters in the book is de
Jonge's description of the way Stalin handled his allies,
Churchill and Roosevelt. Each of the allies vied with the
other to be best friends of Stalin, or "Uncle Joe" as
Roosevelt called him. This gave "Stalin, who never had
the slightest wish to be friends with anybody, a wonder-
ful opportunity to manipulate his allies and make them
dance to his tune."
It was Stalin's conviction that professions of friend-
ship by the Western nations were to be seized upon as
signs of weakness that could be exploited to Soviet ad-
vantage. Churchill and Roosevelt were both misled, al-
though both had around them advisers who understood
the duplicity of the Soviet leader. De Jonge's massive
research into British sources (he taught at Oxford) led
him to examine Foreign Office records and the works of
such actors on the scene as Sir Gifford Martel, the
British Military Attache in Moscow, and Lord Alan-
brooke, who accompanied Churchill to Moscow in
1942. Alanbrooke expressed his distaste for the fawning
attitude of the foreign minister, Anthony Eden, and of
Churchill's approach to Stalin in these words: "We
have bowed and scraped to them, done all we could for
them and never asked them for a single fact or figure in
return. As a result they despise us and have no use for us
except what they can get out of us." Unfortunately,
says the author, Churchill returned to London with
"the delusion that he had gone some way toward win-
ning Stalin's personal friendship."
Churchill managed three private one-on-one meetings
with Stalin, much to the chagrin and envy of Roosevelt.
Not that Roosevelt didn't try to meet with Stalin
without Churchill. One of the most revealing letters to
expose the rivalry to become Stalin's friend was carried
to Moscow by Ambassador Joe Davies on May 5, 1943.
Said Roosevelt to Stalin:
I want to get away from the difficulties of
large Staff conferences or the red tape of
diplomatic conversations. Therefore, the
simplest and most practical method that I can
think of would be an informal and completely
simple visit for a few days between you and
me.... it is my belief you and I ought to meet
this summer.... where to meet? Africa is almost
out of the question in summer and Khartoum is
British territory. Iceland I do not like because for
both you and me it involves rather difficult
flights and, in addition, would make it, quite
frankly, difficult not to invite Prime Minister
Churchill at the same time. " (Emphasis added.)
Nice try, but it didn't work. The first time Roosevelt
was to meet with Stalin was at Teheran, where accord-
ing to one-time secretary of labor Frances Perkins-as
quoted by de Jonge-"Roosevelt made it clear that one
of his motives for going was to get himself liked by
Stalin."
According to the author, "When considering the
Teheran Conference, one cannot help feeling that Stalin
controlled affairs from the start." And he says of the
subsequent Yalta Conference, "Yalta now appears a
one-sided affair in which Stalin got what he wanted."
Disillusion did begin to set in with both Churchill and
Roosevelt after Yalta. As de Jonge describes it, "The So-
viet failure to abide by the spirit of the Yalta Agreement
was already beginning to make Churchill despair and had
even caused the dying Roosevelt to have doubts."
But, even to the end Roosevelt in his last telegram to
Churchill, an hour before his death, expressed the view
that, "I would minimize the general Soviet problem as
much as possible because those problems, in one form
or another, seem to arise every day, and most of them
straighten out ...."
This is an important book and for anyone with a de-
sire to understand the foundations of Soviet society and
the underpinnings of the communist system and the
methods of negotiation they use, it is must reading. It
has many lessons for the present.
Fellows Annual Award Presented
To Leibman
Once a year The Fellows of the American Bar Foun-
dation come together to honor a member of their pro-
fession by presenting a "Fifty-Year Award." The
ceremony this year took place on February 8 at the
Hyatt Regency Hotel in Baltimore during the midyear
meeting of the ABA. The recipient-no one was greatly
surprised-was Morry Leibman, former chairman of
the Bar Association's Standing Committee on Law and
National Security.
The by-laws of The Fellows stipulate the presentation
annually of the award to the lawyer who
... has been engaged in the active practice of the
law for a period of more than 50 years, during all
of which time he has manifested adherence to the
highest principles and traditions of the legal pro-
fession and of service to the public in the com-
munity in which he lives.
On behalf of The Fellows, Newton N. Minow, former
chairman of the Federal Communications Commission,
paid his law partner the following tribute:
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/09/13: CIA-RDP90-00806R000100080001-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/09/13: CIA-RDP90-00806R000100080001-1
As I look forward, it seems only appropriate
that on his seventy-fifth birthday, February 8,
1986, Morry should receive the richly deserved
Fifty-Year Award from The Fellows of the Amer-
ican Bar Foundation. Morry gives unstintingly of
himself to the law, to his fellow lawyers, and to
the search for justice. His constant devotion to
freedom, to equality, to the democratic process,
and to the United States of America spans five
decades of service to the law. And as Browning
wrote, we pray "the best is yet to be." .. .
As we salute Morry, we wish our profession
could have fifty more Morrys and also fifty more
years of Morry's devoted service to the ideals of
the law.
Responding to this and other tributes, Morry-not
about to retire after 50 years-made the following state-
ment of rededication:
The journey to this platform began exactly 29
years and 8 days ago, on February 16, 1957, when
I was the guest of Lewis Powell and Bill Mott at
the first annual meeting of The Fellows in
Chicago. Powell and Mott urged the participation
of The Fellows in the world struggle for liberty
and the protection against threats to our free
society. To me, that was the beginning of the
study of law and national security. My journey
continued because of the help of many leaders of
the bar. The presidents of the association, begin-
ning with Whitney North Seymour, were most
supportive.
The reality of tonight is that I am here as a sym-
bol of the grace and generosity and guidance of an
honorable profession that is dedicated to the
preservation of the miracle of the ages-a society
of free men and women living under the rule of
law.
I can only equate your award with the highest
national civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of
Freedom. The two are much alike. You stress the
highest principles and traditions of the law and
service to the community. The president em-
phasizes civic and humanitarian duties to make
America a just society within and a strong and
secure nation without. Thus, we truly honor this
glorious experiment of a society of law created by
free men and women.
Among many interruptions in my journey was
the published debate with William Sloane Coffin
on civil disobedience in 1972. I reminded him of
the words of my dear departed friend and
teacher, Father John Courtney Murray, about 20
years ago. "Today, the barbarian is the man who
makes open and explicit the rejection of the
traditional role of reason and logic in human af-
fairs. The barbarian need not appear in bear
skins with a club in hand. He may wear a Brooks
Bros. suit and carry a ballpoint pen. The work of
the barbarian is to undermine rational standards
of judgment."
He forgot to include Saville Row clothes for
Gorbachev. Imagine Father Murray predicting
Farrakhan 20 years ago. The struggle for men's
and women's minds continues. Western civiliza-
tion from Mt. Sinai and Galilee and Runnymede
and Valley Forge is still an issue at Geneva. It is
now called public diplomacy.
We have a special responsibility in this debate.
Our journey to preserve our noble cause con-
tinues to demand eternal vigilance. Sidney Hook
recently urged that we strengthen and reinforce
the understanding of the ethos of American po-
litical institutions, and upgrade the quality of our
civic education. This should be done in conjunc-
tion with the preparations for the bicentennial of
our Constitution.
So tonight is merely a pause and a moment of re-
newal and rededication: a time to expand our work
in public education. We have the responsibility
to make real what were only dreams until 1776.
And who will lead the continuing journey? If
not us, who? If not now, when?
George Washington Honor Medal
Awarded to John Norton Moore
At the birthday breakfast for Morry Leibman,
which we report on elsewhere in this issue, John
Norton Moore, chairman of the Standing Com-
mittee on Law and National Security, was signally
honored by the Freedoms Foundation at Valley
Forge by being awarded the George Washington
Honor Medal in the individual achievement
category. The award was presented by Dr. Robert
Miller on behalf of the Freedoms Foundation.
The citation that went with the award read:
John Moore is a lawyer, educator, pro-
fessor, author, diplomat, and above all, a
patriot. He is most unique in the fight for
freedom because he recognized and has ful-
filled the role of the advocate for liberty on
the front line in the battle with the
totalitarians. He recognized that the threat
against America's freedoms both externally
and internally has shifted from military forces
to the new world of law, communication,
propaganda, and disinformation. He is a
leading articulator of the American position
in the field of national security and interna-
tional law.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/09/13: CIA-RDP90-00806R000100080001-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/09/13: CIA-RDP90-00806R000100080001-1
Charges Against Libya Documented
In Terrorism Hearing
In January of this year, the Department of State, to
provide backing for its proposed policy of economic
sanctions against Libya, distributed a paper entitled
"Libya Under Qadhafi: A Pattern of Aggression." The
report provided a detailed look at Libyan terrorist ac-
tivities, direct and indirect, in the Arab world, in sub-
Saharan Africa, in the Caribbean and in Southeast
Asia, and it concluded with 48 terrorist incidents involv-
ing Libyan or Libyan-backed terrorists, extending from
1980 to 1985.
It noted that although the Libyans have been able to
score heavily in certain terrorist undertakings, primarily
the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut, Qadhafi's
efforts had in many cases been frustrated. Said the State
Department report:
Qadhafi has at least twice tried to murder Lib-
yan exiles in Egypt only to have his agents in-
tercepted by Egyptian security. In November
1984, Egypt fooled Qadhafi into believing that
his hired agents had assassinated former Libyan
Prime Minister Bakoush. After the Libyan press
acknowledged Tripoli's responsibility for the
murder, Egypt revealed the sting: the four Lib-
yan agents were in custody, and the pictures of
the alleged victim were fake.
On February 19, the Senate Subcommittee on Secur-
ity and Terrorism, under the chairmanship of Senator
Jeremiah Denton (R-Ala.), held hearings under the cap-
tion "Libyan-Sponsored Terrorism: A Dilemma for
Policy Makers." The witnesses included Fred C. Ikle,
undersecretary of defense for policy; Robert B. Oakley,
director of the State Department's Office for Counter-
Terrorism and Emergency Planning; and Dr. Yonah
Alexander, a member of the senior research staff at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, George-
town University.
In opening the hearings, Senator Denton said:
Over the past five years, this subcommittee has
held more than 60 hearings on terrorism and
related subjects, and those hearings have yielded
abundant and conclusive evidence of a network,
a global unity in the sources of support, strategy,
tactics, and goals of international terrorists. The
thrust and power of this network amounts to a
new, highly effective form of low intensity war-
fare, which is being waged by various nation-
states to erode the influence and strategic posi-
tion of the United States and Western democ-
racies, in general, and to enhance the power of
the Soviet Union, its client states and allies, in
particular.
The shocking hijacking of the Italian cruise
ship, the Achille Lauro, TWA flight 847, Egypt-
Air 648, and the airport massacres in Rome and
Vienna were not isolated incidents. They were
only six of the more than roughly 705 terrorist
acts that were committed in 1985, at a cost of
death or injury to nearly 150 Americans and
countless others.
These incidents have revealed, more clearly
with each occurrence, the existence of a multi-
national support system for such terrorist activi-
ties. The airport massacres in Rome and Vienna
were perpetrated by terrorists of the Abu Nidal
faction who were able to cross international
borders with the assistance of phony passports
reportedly issued by Libya. The Libyan connec-
tion was established more firmly by statements
made by Libyan leader Qadhafi describing the
murders as "heroic" acts and pledging continu-
ing support for such abominations. The U.S.
government reported that it had hard evidence
that terrorists of the Abu Nidal and other fac-
tions were being harbored and trained in Libya.
The purpose of the hearing, Senator Denton said, was
to examine what had become a "radical entente" of
nation-states including Libya, Syria, Iran, Cuba and
North Korea-
which, since the early 1980s, has attempted to
coordinate a worldwide strategy designed to ex-
pel U.S. military, political and economic
presence from key areas of the world. Terrorist
acts are but one part of a strategy which plays
heavily with politics, media, and psychological
warfare. This radical expulsion strategy includes
efforts (1) to "decouple" the U.S. from its allies,
(2) to force the U.S. to abandon key military and
diplomatic outposts, (3) to stretch thin U.S.
military forces over the world by coordinating
the occurrence of terrorist incidents and other
crises simultaneously or in succession in different
parts of the world, and (4) to deny the U.S. and
other free nations access to trade vital to the sur-
vival of the free world's economy... .
The Soviet Union supports the entente's
operations with military hardware, the ar-
rangements for terrorist training and other
assistance, and encourages the core radical coun-
tries to focus their hostility more exclusively
against the United States.
Senator Denton said that with the exception of our
response in the Achille Lauro incident, the United States
has only on rare occasions demonstrated an ability to
prevent or effectively respond to terrorism. He added
that it was also a major purpose of his hearing "to
determine what factors prevent effective responses by
our government."
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/09/13: CIA-RDP90-00806R000100080001-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/09/13: CIA-RDP90-00806R000100080001-1
Ikle Urges Congress to Reconsider
Restriction on Law Enforcement Aid
Mr. Ikle in his testimony pointed out that Qadhafi's
multi-national terrorist network includes "Palestinians,
Iranians, Syrians, Armenians, Germans, Bulgarians,
and even Irish"; and the outrages this network have
perpetrated extend from the Munich Massacre to the re-
cent massacres at the international airports in Rome and
Vienna.
Digressing briefly to deal with the companion phe-
nomenon of European terrorism, Mr. Ikle said the
department was very disturbed by the emergence of a
phenomenon which had been dubbed "Euroterrorism."
"It began in Paris," said Ikle, "with a series of violent
attacks. It spread to Belgium, and it gained momentum
when German, Basque and Portuguese terrorists carried
out bombings of NATO, U.S. and domestic military
targets." The prime constituents of the Euroterrorist
movement, said Ikle, were the German Red Army Fac-
tion and the French Action Directe.
Ikle made a fervent plea to Congress to eliminate an
obsolete piece of legislation-Section 660 of the Foreign
Assistance Act-which serves to prohibit U.S. training
and support for police forces in friendly foreign coun-
tries. He noted that the executive branch had asked
Congress early last October for $2.3 million to help the
police in El Salvador with communications and other
equipment. Even though four U.S. Marines had been
murdered in a cold blooded terrorist attack in San
Salvador in the month of June, and even though the
Communists had announced that U.S. personnel in El
Salvador would be considered prime targets, it had
taken Congress from October until February to release
funds that were clearly needed for the protection of our
own citizens.
State Department Officer Describes
Scope of Qadhafi Threat
Robert Oakley, who testified next, presented a full-
scale rationale for the State Department's Libyan
policy. This policy had met with only a tepid response
from our European allies-but the State Department
has apparently decided that the menace of Qadhafi ter-
rorism has to be met head on if the free world is to
maintain both its credibility and its integrity.
He said it was the-
pattern of rapidly growing Middle East terror-
ism, with greatly increased casualties, more fre-
quent targeting of U.S. citizens and interests,
and stronger state support which caused the Rea-
gan administration to draw the line for Qadhafi
and Libya's direct involvement in terrorism.
Libya is not the only state in the Middle East sup-
porting and using terrorism: Syria and Iran re-
main very much involved. But over the past six
months Libya has become by far the most active
especially against American and European
travellers. If it cannot be stopped, others can be
expected to follow its lead.
Oakley noted that Qadhafi's terrorist support ac-
tivities extend all the way from Northern Ireland to the
Moro Liberation Front in the Philippines. Indeed, Qad-
hafi now runs terrorist activities, or assists in their run-
ning, in every continent. In the Far East, he is involved
with the Kanak Socialist Nationalist Liberation Front in
New Caledonia and the Muslim insurgents in Thailand.
In Central and South America he has provided training
or funding for a large number of revolutionary groups,
including Chile's Movement of the Revolutionary Left,
Colombia's M-19, and the revolutionary left in El
Salvador. He has sent massive assistance to the San-
dinistas in Nicaragua via Cuba. Among his Arab neigh-
bors-Egypt, Tunisia, the Sudan, and Chad-
Qadhafi's activities are much the same.
"We know of Libyan money in the millions of dollars
going to Abu Nidal of Libya," said Oakley. The Abu
Nidal group was described in these terms by the State
Department report of January 1986:
Abu Nidal has conducted over 60 terrorist at-
tacks during the last eight years-at least 30 of
them since the beginning of 1984. Two-thirds of
the group's nearly 20 attacks this year have taken
place in Western Europe, as innocent bystanders
increasingly have become casualties of the
group's assaults.
"After careful deliberation," said Oakley, "the presi-
dent decided to take unilateral action against Libyan
support for terrorism."
He moved to terminate the remaining U.S.-Lib-
yan commercial and financial relations, called
upon other countries to join us in sending Qad-
hafi and other governments the signal. The deci-
sion required still further economic sacrifices for
the United States which has already given up a
multibillion dollar annual business with Libya to
make clear our stand against terrorism, but if we
had not taken the lead no one else would have
done so. Moreover, the moral issue was such that
any administration in this country would be
bound to act.
Our overall policy is to seek to obtain long-
term cooperation of the world community
against the use of terrorism for political ends, no
matter how worthy one may consider those ends.
We have also concluded that while increased
security, an essentially defensive action, is im-
portant and must be energetically pursued, there
is also a need for more offensive, active measures
if the spread of terrorism is to be stopped.
Continued on back page
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/09/13: CIA-RDP90-00806R000100080001-1
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/09/13: CIA-RDP90-00806R000100080001-1
Libyan Terrorism Documented
Continued from page 9
Those who say that this type of non-military
action will not work against Libya should sus-
pend their judgment until our efforts have had
time to be tested, for it is a long-term effort
rather than a one-shot affair.
"We Must Force America
To Fight on 100 Fronts"
The final witness, Yonah Alexander, an internation-
ally recognized authority on terrorism, gave some con-
crete examples of the kind of berserk hatred of America
that inspires Qadhafi and his army of fanatics. He noted
that Qadhafi gloated in these terms over the destruction
of the U.S. Marine headquarters in Beirut on October
23, 1983:
The lesson is that America was kicked out of
Lebanon when an individual Arab was able to
kill 300 Americans. . . . An armed people will
never be defeated, but regular armies are
unreliable.
He also quoted Qadhafi as saying: "We must force
America to fight on 100 fronts all over the earth . . . in
Lebanon, in Chad, in Sudan, in El Salvador, in
Africa."
Alexander presented a list of 44 terrorist training
camps in Libya, complemented by the nationality of the
terrorists being trained in each camp. He noted that
there had been 3,232 terrorist attacks against Americans
and American property between 1970 and 1985-with
the statistics rising dramatically each year. He pointed
out that state sponsored terrorism can be a fiendishly ef-
fective weapon because "it can be used to affect target
countries' political stability, commercial ties and
diplomatic relations in ways which direct military con-
frontation cannot or will not achieve."
The Secret War in Central America
Continued from page 1
attack and instead diverts that moral energy to con-
demning the defensive response. In a real sense, the in-
ternational immune system against aggressive attack
becomes misdirected instead to defensive response.
Aggressive attack-particularly in its more frequent
contemporary manifestation of secret guerrilla war, ter-
rorism and low intensity conflict-is a grave threat to
world order wherever undertaken. That threat is inten-
sified, however, when it is a form of cross-bloc attack in
an area of traditional concern to an opposing alliance
system. That is exactly the kind of threat presented by
an activist Soviet-bloc intervention in the OAS area.
The remedy for strengthening world order is clear:
return to the great vision of the founders of the UN and
OAS Charters. Aggressive attack, whether covert or
overt, is illegal and must be vigorously condemned by
the world community, which must also join in assisting
in defense against such attack. At a minimum, it must
be understood that an attacked state and those acting on
its behalf are entitled to a right of effective defense to
end the attack promptly and protect self-determination.
Senate Approves Genocide Treaty
Continued from page 1
other advocates as a crucial factor in the treaty's
ultimate approval. The ABA, which had opposed the
treaty until 1976, chaired a working group of such na-
tional organizations as the American Jewish Commit-
tee, the Armenian Assembly of America, B'nai B'rith
and Amnesty International to coordinate the effort
leading to ratification. Proxmire, the treaty's staunchest
supporter, gave more than 3,000 consecutive daily
speeches on the Senate floor calling for ratification.
The treaty as approved contains five understandings,
two reservations and one declaration-a package pro-
posed by Senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and Senate
Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard G.
Lugar (R-Ind.) and cosponsored by Senator Orrin G.
Hatch (R-Utah). The five understandings clarify defini-
tions in the treaty, while the two reservations require
that the U.S. give its consent before any dispute involv-
ing the U.S. is submitted to the International Court of
Justice and that nothing in the treaty authorizes action
by the U.S. that is unconstitutional. The declaration
mandates that before the treaty is ratified, implement-
ing legislation be enacted, an action that is expected
shortly.
Addition of the eight conditions at the committee
level garnered the support of several treaty opponents.
Helms, however, voted against the treaty in the final
vote.
Senator Steven D. Symms (R-Idaho) proposed that
the treaty be amended by the Senate to add political
groups to those protected from genocide under the con-
vention; his amendment, which would have had the ef-
fect of killing the treaty, was defeated by a 31-62 vote.
After the vote approving ratification, however, the
Senate passed a resolution, S. Res. 347, urging the presi-
dent to notify the U.N. Secretary General of a U.S.
desire to amend the treaty to add political groups.
[Reprinted from the ABA Washington Letter, Vol.
22, No. 3, March 1, 1986.]
The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the American Bar Association or the Standing
Committee on Law and National Security. Questions or comments should be directed to W. C. Mott, Editor, 217 9th
Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003, Tel. [phone].
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/09/13: CIA-RDP90-00806R000100080001-1