LETTER TO WILLIMA B. SAXBE FROM W. E. COLBY RE GENERAL W. VINCENT RAKESTRAW SENT TO THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET THE DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION AGAINST SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS OF LEGISLATION PROPOSED BY THIS AGENCY TO AMEND THE NATIONAL SECURITY AC

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 01482032
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2022
• Document Release Date: August 7, 2017
• Case Number: F-2007-00094
• Publication Date: April 24, 1974

�
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482032
C. I�RAL IN 1 1--LL.-1(..7r-INL...C.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20305
24 APR 1974
The Honorable William B. Saxbe
Attorney General
Dc.:partment of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530
Dear Mr. Saxbe:
On 5 April 1974 Assistant Attorney General W. Vincent
Rakestraw sent to the Office of Management and Budget the
�Departments recommendation against submission. to Congress
of legislation-proposed...by this .Agency to amend the. National
Security Act of 19117 to furnish additional protection for intelligence
information. When I wrote to you on 22 January in connection wif1-1
..my submission; of proposed legislation to 0./1-3,. I noted that serious
damage had been-done to ear foreign intelligence effort as a result
of unauthorized disclosure of information relating...to intelligence
. _ . . �
sources and methods, and that my goal was to provide a deterrent
to such disclosure and a means for successful prosecution of
violators.. The lack. of. sanctions or implementing authority to �
support my statutory responsibility for the protection of intelligence
sources and methods is a serious Problem, and I fea..r will become
more serious in the future. While I respect your reasons for
recommending against this proposed legislation,. I cannot agree
with all of them and still feel strongly that Some legislation of �
this kind is needed.
Your basic reason for opposing the creation of a new criminal
offense is that the subject matter is already substantially protect->d
by existing law. My basic reason for seeking this legislation is that
our experience shows the opposite; namely, that existing law is�
inattleciu;Ite for the protection of intelligencc Aur.ces and rriethoc:ir.,
from urtauthorized dis As .7.Lot-.3 in hiz.;
corran�-nts to 0N'113, a sm.cc(,:3;0�1.1.1 ouor under the existing
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482032
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482032
V �
statutes most likely to cover an offense of this kind would probably
require self-defeating public disclosures in proving the relation-
ship of the information to the national defense. The alternative,
as Mr. Rake.straw notes, is abstention from. prosecution_ To my-
mind this is hardly adequate statutory protection.
Contrary to the Department's impression that CIA seeks
harsher penalties against a larger class of persons than provided
�for by existing law, what we seek here is an appropriate penalty
against a limited class of persons; namely, those who have had
access to information relating to intelligence sources and methods
as a result of employment by, or other privity of relationship to,
the Government. In this connection subdivision (3) is designed to
ensure that persons not in this limited class, such as newsmen,
could not be prosecuted wider the statute or even for a collateral .
offense arising out of a violation of the statute.
.The Department questions the utility of .subdivision. (6) -which
would provide statutory authority to seek .an injunction to forestall
violations. Your question of .the need for this section is based �
partly upon our success in getting an injunction against a former
employee (U.S. v. Marchetti) and upon other case-precedents which
indicate that an injunction might be granted in an appropriate case
regardless of the existence of .a statutory provision. This might
� be so, but I think the authority would-be more certain arid compel-
ling if contained in a statute for the specific purpose of protecting
intelligence sources and methods.
.While I agree with your conclusion that this proposal may
arouse stiff opposition and realize that it must be carefully drafted
to avoid constitutional questions, I do not think these are adequate
reasons to forgo the submission of the proposed legislation. Neither
can'I agree that its enactment would have only a marginal protective
effect or that some of its objectives are of doubtful validity_ I
consider protection of intelligence sources and methods to bE._. a:
critical problem that is inadequately covered by existing law, and
feel-that v.rith the cooperation of the Dep-lrtmelkt. we can present a
bill the.t should rneet our o'.)j,c-tives without tcangressing
constitu-
to lirnitatiorts. My C:�.:rt.3r--2.1 Coun�-.3-31 Warib-r,
�
2
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482032
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01-482032
'discussed the Department's objections in general terms with
Mr. Henry Petersen, who has expressed his willingness to work
with us toward what the Department would consider an improved
bill. I appreciate your Cooperation in this effort, and hope that
you will be able to give us support for the kind of legislation
which I feel we must have if we are. to continue a totally effective
foreign intelligence effort.
Sincerely,
.Q43.113:4
W. .E. Colby
Director
cc: The Honorable Roy L. Ash
Dir.ector, Office of Manage.ment
and Budget
.1 �
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482032