LETTER TO CHARLES H. PERCY FROM ROBERT A. MCCONNELL

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP05C01629R000300610002-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 15
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 26, 2011
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: October 1, 1984
• Content Type: LETTER

Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05CO1629R000300610002-6
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
1 O CT 1984
Honorable Charles H. Percy
Chairman
Committee on Foreign Relations
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Chairman Percy:
This responds to your letter to the Attorney General of
September 20, 1984, in which you and Senators Pell and
zorinsky requested the Department of Justice's response to
ten questions regarding the Department's construction of the
Neutrality Act, 18 U.S.C. SS 956 et seq. Because we have
not provided in our responses any details of a current
investigation, or any other sensitive information of a law
enforcement or national security nature, we do not regard
our responses as either sensitive or classified. Our responses
to your questions are provided below:
(1) PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE NEUTRALITY
ACT AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE ACTIVITIES OF PRIVATE U.S.
CITIZENS BOTH IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN CENTRAL AMERICA?
The following is a very general summary of the provisions
commonly and collectively known as the Neutrality Act.
However, it is difficult to be more specific given the general
tone of the question and our concern over the implications of
dealing with hypothetical facts which may be assumed by, but
which have not been specified in, the question.
Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05CO1629R000300610002-6
 Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05CO1629R000300610002-6
The Neutrality Act was first enacted in 1794 following
President Washington's Proclamation of April 22, 1793 regarding
the war between France and Great Britain. The Proclamation
urged the citizens of the United States "with sincerity and
good faith [to] adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and
impartial toward the belligerent powers," warning citizens
"to avoid all acts and proceedings whatsoever, which may in
any manner tend to contravene such disposition," and threatened
to prosecute those "who shall, within the cognizance of the
courts of the United States, violate the law of nations with
respect to the powers at war, or any of them." 32 WRITINGS
OF GEORGE WASHINGTON 430 (J. Fitzpatrick, ed. 1939). See
also 1 MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS 156 (J. Richardson,
ed. 1896). The President viewed the Proclamation as a necessary
measure toward restraining the natural sympathy and enthusiastic
support of the American people for the French cause, born of
France's generous aid to the colonists during the American
Revolution and the Americans' strong identification with the
goals of the French Revolution. See generally C. FENWICK,
THE NEUTRALITY LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES 16-23 (1913);
Letters Written by President Washington to Secretary of State
Jefferson (April 12, 1793) and Secretary of the Treasury
Hamilton (April 12, 1793), reprinted in 32 WRITINGS OF GEORGE
WASHINGTON, supra at 415, 416. Writing nearly one hundred
years later, a committee of Congress described the historical
circumstances immediately preceding President Washington's
Proclamation and the passage of the Act as follows:
The enthusiasm of republicans for France, and
their hostility to England, was not much less
marked in America than in France. It brought
public opinion to the verge of revolt against
the peaceful policy of Washington. Accountable
to the people for its resistance to popular
clamor and the consequences of its timid
submission to the demands of England, whose
arrogant pretensions intensified the popular
friendship for France, the administration was
threatened with formidable resistance, if not
the overthrow of its policy.
H.R. REP. NO. 100, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. at 2 (1866).
In the spring of 1793, Edmund Charles Genet, French
Minister to the United States, arrived in this country and,
pursuant to the Treaty of Amity and Commerce, began issuing
Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05CO1629R000300610002-6
 Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05CO1629R000300610002-6
commissions to commanders of vessels willing to serve France
and authorizing the outfitting of privateers from American
ports. Secretary of State Jefferson protested to the French
Minister that such conduct violated the United States' status
as a neutral nation, but his protestations went unheeded by
Minister Genet. Finally, Jefferson set forth in clear and
simple terms the principles of neutrality as articulated by
President Washington:
[T]hat the arming and equipping [of] vessels in
the ports of the United States, to cruise
against nations with whom we are at peace,
was incompatible with the territorial
sovereignty of the United States; that it
made them instrumental to the annoyance of
those nations, and thereby tended to compromit
their peace;. and that he thought it necessary,
as an evidence of good faith to them, as well
as a proper reparation to the sovereignty of
the country, that the armed vessels of this
description should depart from the ports of
the United States.
After fully weighing again, however, all the
principles and circumstances of the case, the
result appears still to be, that it is the
right of every nation to prohibit acts of
sovereignty from being exercised by any other
within its limits, and the duty of a neutral
nation to prohibit such as would injure one
of the warring Powers; that the granting [of]
military commissions, within the United States,
by any other authority than their own, is an
infringement on their sovereignty, and
particularly so when granted to their own
citizens, to lead them to commit acts contrary
to the duties they owe their own country[.]
Notwithstanding the President's Proclamation and the
continued public reprimands of Minister Genet, privateers
continued to be outfitted in American ports for the service
of France, with the individuals involved suffering few legal
reprisals by the United States Government. Although there
were several prosecutions of individual citizens charged with
Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05CO1629R000300610002-6
 Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05C01629R000300610002-6
attacking the property and citizens of nations at peace with
the United States, the prosecutions were unsuccessful, largely
because there were no federal statutes defining such acts as
crimes and legal opinion was divided on the question whether
violations of international law could provide a basis for a
common-law federal offense. The most celebrated of these cases
is Henfield's Case, 11 F. Cas. 1099 (1793), in which Henfield
was prosecuted at common law for enlisting on the French
privateer, Citizen Genet, in violation of the treaties of the
United States and the law of nations. Although, upon the
urging of Attorney General Randolph, the court recognized
such actions as violations of the sovereignty of the United
States in its charge to the jury, Henfield nevertheless was
acquitted. See generally Lobel, The Rise and Decline of the
Neutrality Act: Sovereignty and Congressional War Powers in
United States Foreign Policy, 24 Harv. Int'l L. J. 1, 13-14
(1983); FENWICK, supra at 24. Regarding this case, Jefferson
wrote in a letter to James Monroe:
The Atty General gave an official
opinion that the act was against law, &
coincided with all our private opinions;
& the lawyers of this State, New York &
Maryland, who were applied to, were
unanimously of the same opinion. Lately
mr. Rawle, Atty of the U. S. in this
district, on a conference with the
District judge, Peters, supposes the law
more doubtful. New acts, therefore, of
the same kind, are left unprosecuted till
the question is determined by the proper
court, which will be during the present
week. . . . I confess I think myself
that the case is punishable, & that, if
found otherwise, Congress ought to make
it so, or we shall be made parties in
every maritime war in which the
piratical spirit of the banditti in
our ports can engage.
6 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 347-48 (P. Ford ed., 1895)
(emphasis added).
In addition, in the summer of 1793, United States officials
became aware of Minister Genet's efforts to organize armies
to invade New Orleans and the Floridas, then in the possession
of Spain, an ally of Great Britain. As a result of these
and other similar events, and the apparent ineffectiveness of
existing legal mechanisms to restrain such activities, President
Washington sought to enact into legislation the principles of
neutrality set forth in his Proclamation.
Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05C01629R000300610002-6
 Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05C01629R000300610002-6
In his annual address to Congress in December 1793,
President Washington articulated his views regarding the role
of the principle of neutrality in sovereign states and called
upon Congress to implement such principles through legislation.
President Washington proclaimed:
It rests with the wisdom of Congress to
correct, improve, or enforce this plan of
procedure; and it will probably be found
expedient to extend the legal code and the
jurisdiction of the Courts of the United
States to many cases which, though dependent
on principles already recognized, demand
some further provisions.
Where individuals shall, within the United
States, array themselves in hostility against
any of the Powers at war[;] or enter upon
military expeditions or enterprises within
the jurisdiction of the United States; or
usurp and exercise Judicial authority within
the United States; or where the penalties on
violations of the law of nations may have
been indistinctly marked, or are inadequate-
these offences cannot receive too early and
close an attention, and require prompt and
decisive remedies.
4 ANNALS OF CONGRESS 11 (1793).
On June 5, 1794, Congress enacted the Neutrality Act.
1 Stat. 381. Although originally enacted as a temporary
measure, the Act was continued in force by the March 2, 1797,
1 Stat. 497, and finally made permanent by the Act of
April 24, 1800, 2 Stat. 54. Through several amendments and
the re-enactment of its provisions in the revision and
codification of title 18 in 1909, 35 Stat. 1088, 1089, and
again in 1948, 62 Stat. 683, 744, the Act today remains
substantially similar to that which was first enacted in 1794.
Although the debates in Congress in 1794 regarding these
provisions focused largely on the immediate problems posed by
the pervasive outfitting of French privateers in American
ports, the Act's legislative history nevertheless reveals
other key issues which were addressed by the Act's passage.
Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05C01629R000300610002-6
 Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05CO1629R000300610002-6
For example, several commentators have suggested, and the speeches
of President Washington, Secretary Jefferson, and various Senators
and Representatives support the view, that the United States,
in the early stages of its development as a republic, embraced
neutrality as a general principle as a means, in view of its
military weakness and geographic isolation, of advancing its
commercial interests by avoiding involvement in European wars
and protecting its independence and sovereignty from violation
by foreign states, as well as of consolidating its federal
powers and strengthening the sovereignty of the federal govern-
ment over its individual citizens. See, e.g., H. R. REP.
NO. 100, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. (1866)(extensive review of the
Act's history by House Committee on Foreign Affairs);
35 WRITINGS OF GEORGE WASHINGTON, supra at 214, 233-34
(President Washington's 1796 Farewell Address). See generally
FENWICK, supra; Lobel, The Rise and Decline of the Neutrality
Act, supra, and sources cited therein. See also the account of
the Act's passage in United States v. O'Sullivan, 27 F. Cas.
367, 373 (1851).
At present, the Neutrality Act consists of several
provisions which generally prohibit the acceptance of
commissions by United States citizens, within the juris-
diction of the United States, to serve a foreign nation
in a war against a country with which the United States
is at peace (18 U.S.C. S 958); the enlistment or recruit-
ment of persons within the United States to serve in the
military of a foreign state (S 959); the knowing partici-
pation in, preparation for, or financing of a hostile
expedition from within the United States against a
nation with which the United States is at peace (S 960);
the outfitting of foreign military vessels in United
States ports to be used by countries in a war against a
country with which the United States is at peace (S 961);
and the outfitting or furnishing of vessels within the
United States with the intent that such vessel be used
in the service of a foreign nation against a nation with
which the United States is at peace (S 962). Other
provisions of the Act prohibit conspiring, within the
United States, to injure or destroy the property of a
foreign government with which the United States is at
peace (S 956); and during a war in which the United
States is a neutral nation, the building or equipping of
a military vessel in the United States with the knowledge,
or reasonable cause to believe, that the vessel will be
employed in the service of a belligerent (S 964).
1
Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05CO1629R000300610002-6
 Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05C01629R000300610002-6
The only provision of the Act which is solely applicable
to United States citizens is S 958, which prohibits
citizens from accepting commissions within the United
States to serve any foreign nation at war against a
country with which the United States is at peace. All
other provisions of the Act apply to any person performing
the proscribed acts "within the jurisdiction of the
United States." Moreover, the foreign nation "with
whom the United States is at peace" for purposes of the
Act, and against which the proscribed activities are
intended to be carried out, can be any nation duly
recognized by the United States Government fitting that
description, whether located in Central America or any
other part of the world.
(2) PLEASE INTERPRET THE VARIOUS COURT DECISIONS WHICH HAVE
DEALT WITH THE NEUTRALITY ACT.
The judicial decisions interpreting the various
provisions of the Neutrality Act are quite numerous
and it would be impossible to answer this question for
all known judicial interpretations and applications.
Necessarily, our response to your request for an inter-
pretation of these decisions will have to be general.
The earliest judicial decisions construing the
Neutrality Act involved the predecessors to sections 961
and 962, which generally prohibit the arming of vessels
in United States ports to be used in the service of
foreign nations against nations with which the United
States is at peace. See, e.g., United States v. Peters,
3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 121 (1795); See also United States v.
Skinner, 27 F. Cas. 1123 (1818); The Betty Cathcart, 17
F. Cas. 651 (1797); The Nancy, 4 F. Cas. 171 (1795).
These early cases focused on what constituted the "arming"
of a vessel, the distinction between "commercial" and
"hostile" intent, and upheld the authority of the United
States Government to define, as a matter of national
policy, the political bodies in whose service, and
against which, the prohibited acts had been committed.
See generally United States v. The Three Friends, 166
U.S. 1 (1897). Moreover, these cases established that
sections 961 and 962 of the Act do not prohibit armed
vessels belonging to citizens of the United States from
sailing out of United States ports; rather the provisions
Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05C01629R000300610002-6
 Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05C01629R000300610002-6
require only that the owners of such vessels certify
that the vessels will not be used to commit hostilities
against foreign nations at peace with the United States.
See United States v. Quincy, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 445
(1832). Finally, these cases recognized, with regard to
sections 961 and 962, the principle generally applicable
to all of the neutrality provisions that the preparations
prohibited by the Act must have been made within the
United States, and that the intention with respect to
the hostile deployment of the vessel must have been
formed before leaving the United States. Id.
These early decisions construing the Act, as well as
subsequent judicial decisions, make clear that, in view of
its purpose to prevent private citizens from interfering
with the conduct of foreign policy by duly authorized
Government officials, the Neutrality Act, particularly
S 960, prohibits'only "the use of the soil or waters of
the United States as a base from which [unauthorized]
military expeditions or military enterprises shall be
carried on against foreign powers with which the United
States is at peace." United States v. Murphy, 84 F.
Cas. 609, 612 (1898). See also Wiborg v. United States,
163 U.S. 632 (1896); United States v. Hart, 78 F. Cas. 868
(E.D.Pa. 1897), aff'd, 84 F. Cas. 799 (3d Cir. 1898);
United States v. O'Sullivan, 27 F. Cas. 367 (1851);
United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192 (D.N.Y. 1806).
For purposes of S 960, these cases define "military . . .
expedition or enterprise" as:
[A] number of men, whether few or many combine[d]
together, and thereby [having] organize[d] them-
selves into a body, within the limits of the
United States with a common intent or purpose
on their part at the time to proceed in a body
to foreign territory, there to engage in carrying
on armed hostilities, either by themselves or in
cooperation with other forces against the territory
or dominions of any foreign power with which the
United States is at peace, and with such intent
or purpose[,] proceed from the limits of the United
States on their way to such territory, either
provided with arms or implements of war, or
intending and expecting and with preparation to
secure them during transit, or before reaching
the scene of hostilities[.]
United States v. Murphy, 84 F. Cas. at 614. See also
United States v. Hart, 78 F. Cas. at 869-70. Moreover,
Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05C01629R000300610002-6
 Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05CO1629R000300610002-6
these cases make clear that a conviction for "provid[ing]
or prepar(ing) a means for" military expeditions,
pursuant to S 960, must be premised first upon a finding
that an unlawful military expedition or enterprise,
within the meaning of S 960, was organized in the United
States, and secondly, upon a finding that the defendant
assisted the expedition, at any stage, with knowledge of
its destination and of its unlawful character. See
United States v. Hart, 78 F. Cas. at 872. See also
Wiborg v. United States, supra; United States v. Murphy,
supra.
(3) THE NEUTRALITY ACT WOULD SEEM TO PROHIBIT "EXPEDITIONS,"
PROVIDING MEANS FOR AN ENTERPRISE, AND THE PROCUREMENT
OF MEANS WHICH WOULD INCLUDE SOLICITING OR COLLECTING
MONEY. WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW ON THESE
POINTS?
As noted above, S 960 prohibits the organization,
within the United States, of "military expeditions" to
proceed from the United States with the purpose of
carrying on armed hostilities against a nation with
which the United States is at peace. Section 960 also
prohibits "provid[ing] or prepar[ing] a means for or
furnish[ing] the money for" such expeditions with the
knowledge of the expedition's destination and unlawful
character. If money is solicited or collected for the
purpose of providing financial assistance to an unlawful
military expedition, it would seem to fall within the
scope of conduct prohibited by S 960. These definitions
are very general, however, and have been developed within
the context of the meaning of the term "military expedi-
tion." For further elaboration on this term, see our
responses to Questions No. 2, supra, and 4, infra.
We caution that the applicability of these provisions
and these general terms to specific facts depends on the
nature of individual facts and, in many cases, states of
mind. Thus, whether any particular activity is embraced
by these prohibitions can only be determined by a close
examination of specific facts.
Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05CO1629R000300610002-6
 Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05CO1629R000300610002-6
(4) ACCORDING TO THE HART CASE, THE LAW IS VIOLATED BY
ORGANIZING AN EXPEDITION OR ENTERPRISE ASSEMBLED IN THE
UNITED STATES, OR PROMOTING IT BY PROVIDING MONEY. PLEASE
PROVIDE THE COMMITTEE WITH INFORMATION AS TO WHAT CAN
AND CANNOT BE DONE IN THIS AREA?
United States v. Hart, 78 F. Cas. 868 (E.D. Pa. 1897),
aff'd, 84 F. Cas 799 (3d Cir. 1898), upheld a conviction of
a shipper charged with "provid[ing a] means here, in
Pennsylvania, for assisting ('military expedition organized
in this country'] on the way to Cuba, . . . with knowledge
that it was such an expedition." 78 F. Cas. at 869. In
support of its charge, the Government introduced evidence
to establish that Hart, as president and manager of the
J. D. Hart Company which owned the vessel used by the
expedition, had provided a steamship and some "unusual"
supplies in the port of Philadelphia; had directed the
ship to sail to Camden, where the ship took on several
smaller boats; and then to Barnegat, where the ship was
outfitted with arms, ammunition and other military
supplies; and on to Navassa Island near Cuba, where the
cargo was transferred finally to another ship bound for
Cuba. Id. In its instructions to the jury, the court
charged that if the jury found that the men were engaged
in a military expedition, as defined above, they "must
next determine whether the defendant provided means for
their transportation, not the whole way, but to Navassa.
It is not necessary that he should transport them to
Cuba, . . . if he provided means for their transportation
to Navassa, on their way to Cuba, and made this provision
here, . . . with knowledge of the character of the
expedition and of its destination, he is guilty." Id.
at 875.
The Hart decision, and other decisions discussed
above, suggest that providing transportation, money, or
other provisions to groups which do not constitute
"military expeditions" within the meaning of S 960, or
without knowledge that the groups are engaged in such
unlawful activity, would not violate S 960. Nor would
S 960 generally prohibit the mere transporting of persons
having an intent to enlist in foreign armies out of the
United States to those foreign countries, so long as such
persons have not combined to form a military expedition
Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05CO1629R000300610002-6
 Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05C01629R000300610002-6
within the meaning of S 960, with the intent of engaging
in armed hostilities against a nation with which the
United States is at peace. Wiborq v. United States,
163 U.S. at 653. Nor under this rationale would ? 960
prohibit, without more, the transporting of "arms,
ammunition and munitions of war from this country to any
foreign country, whether they were to be used in war or
not," or the transporting of "persons intending to
enlist in foreign armies and munitions of war on the
same trip." Id. What S 960 would prohibit, under these
cases, is the transporting of arms from the United
States for the use of a combination of persons organized
in the United States "to go from the United States to
[a foreign nation with which the United States is at
peace] and there make war on the government . . . [by]
join[ing] the insurgent army and thus enlist[ing] in
its service." Id.
(5) IN 1981 AND 1982, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TOOK ACTION
AGAINST THOSE INVOLVED IN ORGANIZING EXPEDITIONS OR
ENTERPRISES AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF HAITI AND THE
GOVERNMENT OF DOMINICA. BY WAY OF ANALOGY, WHAT WERE
THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE HAITIAN AND DOMINICAN CASE THAT
CAUSED THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO ACT?
As explained further in our response to Question No. 9,
infra, when an investigation discloses sufficient evidence
to establish probable cause that a violation of a federal
statute has occurred, the Department takes appropriate
prosecutive action. The circumstances in the Haitian and
Dominica cases were as follows:
On April 27, 1981, as a result of a two-month long joint
investigation by the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms, and the Customs Service, ten persons were arrested
in New Orleans in the act of launching a military expedition
to overthrow the government of the Island of Dominica in the
Caribbean. Michael Perdue, the leader of the group, had
chartered a 50-foot ocean-going vessel to be used in the
expedition; a quantity of explosives, rifles and handguns
were seized by federal agents.
The ten defendants were indicted on charges of violating
the Neutrality Act, the Arms Export Control Act, the Conspiracy
statute, and other federal criminal laws. Pursuant to plea
Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05C01629R000300610002-6
 Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05C01629R000300610002-6
agreements, Michael Perdue and six other defendants pled
guilty to a violation of ? 960, the "expedition against
friendly nations" provision of the Neutrality Act. Two other
defendants were convicted after trial of a violation of S 960,
and were acquitted of the other charges. The remaining
defendant was acquitted on all counts. United States v.
Michael Perdue, et al. (E.D. La. 1981).
As a result of an investigation conducted by the FBI and
the Customs Service, on January 13, 1982, the Coast Guard
intercepted a vessel on the high seas. Bernard Sansaricq and
24 others were on board, with eighteen firearms and twenty
pipe bombs, en route to invade Haiti. Sansaricq and six others
were indicted for violations of S 960, the Arms Export Control
Act, 22 U.S.C. S 2778(b)(2), and other statutes. The remaining
persons who had been on board the vessel were held as material
witnesses.
On July 12, Sansaricq and five of his co-defendants
entered guilty pleas to the count charging a violation of
S 960, and were sentenced to three years probation. The
remaining defendant pled guilty to a violation of the
Arms Export Control Act, and was sentenced to two years
probation. United States v. Bernard Sansaricq, et al. (S.D.
Fla. 1982).
On March 17, 1982, the Coast Guard stopped two boats in
international waters, carrying 16 persons en route to invade
Haiti. On March 25, 15 of these persons were indicted in
Miami for violations of the Neutrality Act, the Arms Export
Control Act, and 18 U.S.C. S 924(b)(Unlawful transportation
of firearms in foreign commerce).
The United States Attorney's Office, utilizing a grand
jury, and the FBI and the Customs Service conducted a joint
investigation into the full scope of the matter, and on
July 9, a superseding indictment was returned, charging
Roland Magloire, leader of the Conseil National Liberation
Haiti (CNLH), in five counts with violations of the Neutrality
Act, the Arms Export Control Act and related statutes.
Subsequently, guilty pleas were entered by all but two
of the defendants, Canadian citizens who are fugitives. Two
persons received sentences of one year in prison for viola-
tions of the Arms Export Control Act, and two others were
Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05C01629R000300610002-6
 Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05C01629R000300610002-6
sentenced to three years probation for the same violation.
Roland Magloire received a sentence of five years probation,
and eight others were sentenced to three years probation for
violations of the Neutrality Act. United States v. Roland
Magloire, et al. (S.D. Fla. 1982).
In the three cases described above, there was sufficient
evidence of the commission of federal crimes, and the Depart-
ment, with the cooperation of other concerned federal agencies,
was successful in the resulting prosecutions.
(6) ACCORDING TO OFFICIALS OF THE FDN CONTRA ORGANIZATION,
OVER $1.5 MILLION PER MONTH HAS BEEN DONATED BY PRIVATE
AMERICANS AND CORPORATIONS TO THE FDN IN SUPPORT OF
THEIR EFFORTS AGAINST THE SANDINISTA GOVERNMENT. DOES
THE NEUTRALITY ACT BAR PRIVATE SUPPORT OF MILITARY
EXPEDITIONS AGAINST FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AT PEACE WITH
THE UNITED 'STATES? ARE THESE DONATIONS IN VIOLATION
OF U.S. LAW?
The question whether the Neutrality Act bars private
support of "military expeditions" against foreign govern-
ments at peace with the United States can be answered
only with reference to the nature of the support and ~
of the military expeditions. As a general matter, the
Act, as noted above, prohibits only the knowing provision
of goods or financial support to military expeditions,
as defined by S 960, i.e., to groups organized in and
launched from& the United States for the purpose of
engaging in armed hostilities against nations with which
the United States is at peace. Thus, the Act generally
has been construed as not prohibiting the private support
of military expeditions which have been organized in, and
launched from, countries other than the United States.
Therefore, in any particular case, in order to establish
a violation, it would be necessary to adduce evidence that
donations to an organization have been used to support military
expeditions organized in, and launched from, the United States.
Otherwise, the Neutrality Act has not been violated. It would
not be appropriate at this time to articulate a definitive
response as to any actual factual situation without a more
thorough specification and understanding of the operable facts.
Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05C01629R000300610002-6
 Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05C01629R000300610002-6
(7) THE CIVILIAN MILITARY ASSISTANCE (CMA) ORGANIZATION BECAME
INTERESTED IN HELPING THE CONTRAS AFTER HEARING A SPEECH
BY AN FDN OFFICIAL. ARE FOREIGN GROUPS PERMITTED TO
SOLICIT FUNDS AND OTHER ASSISTANCE TO CONDUCT INSURGENT
OPERATIONS IN COUNTRIES AT PEACE WITH THE UNITED STATES?
With the exception of S 958, which applies only to
United States citizens, the provisions of the Neutrality
Act apply equally to citizens and noncitizens of the
United States. The Act prohibits any and all persons
within the United States from engaging in the proscribed
conduct. We direct your attention to our responses to
Questions No. 3 and 6, supra.
(8) WAS THE CMA IN VIOLATION OF THE ARMS EXPORT CONTROL ACT
FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN THE PROPER LICENSES FOR SUPPLYING
THE SALVADORAN MILITARY AND THE CONTRAS WITH MILITARY
GOODS?
A n;,
The unlicensed export of items,on the U.S. Munitions
List, which is published in Title 28, C.F.R. S 121.01,
constitutes a prima facie violation of the Arms Export
Control Act. However, decisions of United States Courts of
Appeals for several circuits have established that the
Government must prove not only that the defendant exported
the item without a license, but also that he voluntarily and
intentionally violated a known legal duty not to export the
proscribed item. In other words, the statute imposes a
specific intent limitation upon criminal liability.
Therefore, in a prosecution, the Government would have
to prove that the defendant had exported, without a license,
items on the Munitions List, and that he had knowledge of
the license requirement and had the intent to violate the law.
See, e. g., United States v. Lizarraga-Lizarraga, 541 F.2d 826
(9th Cir. 1976).
Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05C01629R000300610002-6
 Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05CO1629R000300610002-6
(9) IS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LOOKING INTO THE ACTIVITIES OF
GROUPS, OTHER THAN THE CMA, INVOLVED IN SIMILAR ACTIVITIES
IN CENTRAL AMERICA, SUCH AS THE PARAMILITARY ORGANIZATION
KNOWN AS THE PHANTOM DIVISION-TENNESSEE AIRBORNE, THE
CIVILIAN REFUGEE MILITARY ASSISTANTS, THE HUMAN DEVELOP-
MENT FOUNDATION, INC., OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AND THE GROUP
ASSOCIATED WITH SOLDIER OF FORTUNE MAGAZINE? COULD THESE
GROUPS BE IN POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF THE NEUTRALITY ACT OR
OTHER U.S. LAWS?
It is the responsibility of the Department of Justice to
be alert to individuals and organizations participating in
activities in possible violation of federal law. In carrying
out this responsibility, we examine possible violations of
federal law wherever they may occur and, in instances where
there is sufficient evidence to establish that a violation has
occurred, we take the appropriate action. We are unable to
comment on whether the Department is conducting investigations
of specific organizations.
(10) ARE THERE OTHER GROUPS IN THIS COUNTRY THAT ARE TRAINING
FOR PARTICIPATION IN CENTRAL AMERICA? HOW MUCH DOES THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DO TO KEEP TRACK OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING?
Whenever the FBI receives a report of, or otherwise learns
of, an alleged violation of the Neutrality Act, it conducts an
appropriate preliminary investigation and reports its findings
to the Criminal Division. The FBI's report is reviewed and a
determination is made as to whether the investigation-should be
continued, or, in the event that the report contains no evidence
that a violation has been committed, attempted, or planned, that
it be discontinued. In some cases, specific instructions are
given to the FBI as to the necessity of obtaining specific
evidence, conducting additional interviews, or coordinating
with other investigative agencies.
We hope that the answers provided above are responsive to
your request. Please let us know if we can be of further
assistance to you in this matter.
Approved For Release 2011/09/26: CIA-RDP05CO1629R000300610002-6
Robert A. McConnell
Assistant Attorney General
Similar letters sent to: