SECURITY LECTURE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP57-00384R001000020099-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 9
• Document Creation Date: November 17, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 6, 2000
• Sequence Number: 99
• Content Type: SUMMARY

ApgrafierFor Release 20170/08/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R001000021T099-3
OGC HAS REVIEWED.
SECURITY LECTURE,
Specific $S security regulations have been pointed out
to yeu. In addition, obligations will be imposed on you by
the taking of the oath of office in which you will pledge
your honor and integrity to the support of the law regard-
ing the dissemination of information affecting the nations
defense and the national interest It is now deemed desirable
to point out to you specific provisions of the law on this
subject. The principle act is the Espionage Act of 15 June
1917, 50 U.S.0 31 The oath of office which you will be
required to sign states that you have read and understand
sections 1 and 2 of this Act which correspond to Sections 31
and 52 of Title 50 u.s.coae. It is our purpose to assist
you in understanding the provisions of this Act.
2. Section 1 (a) of the Act provides in part that
whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting
the national defense with intent or reason to believe that
the information to be obtained is to be uaed to the injury
of the United States, or to tha advantage of any foreign
nation, gooa upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains
information concerning any veleel, aircraft; work of defense,
fort, etc., or any place connected with the notional defense,
shall be punished by a fine of not more than $100000 or by
imprisonment for not more than two years or both.
3. Section 1 (b) provides that whoever for the4ourpoee
fitaPOITTt", and with like intent or reason to believe, copies,
takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts, or induces or aids
Approved For Release 2000/08/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R001000020099-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R001000020099-3
.2.
another to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photo-
graph, writing, or note of anything connected with the
national defense, shall be punished by a fine of not more
than $100000, or by imprisonment for not more than two
years or both,
4* Section 2 (a) provides in part that whoever, with
intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to he
injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign
nation, communicates, delivers or transmits, or attempts
to, or aids or induces another to, cox bate, deliver,
or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction
or party or military or naval force within a foreign country,
whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States,
of to any representative, thereof, either directly or in-
directly, any document, writings code books etc*, or in-
formation relating to the national defenses shall be punished
by imprisonment for not more than twenty years, This Section
Qt the Act also provides that In time of wars punishment
for violatioa of the provisions of said Section eA111 be in-
creased to include death or imprisonment for not more than
thirty years*
5 Note t prescribes information conoernng
specific things and places such as a vessels aircraft, fort
signal station, or code book. However, 1 (b) and 2 (a)
are far more general; 1(b) merely saying anything connected
with the national defense and 2(a) providing for information
relating to the national defense. The easiest method of
Approved For Release 2000/08/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R001000020099-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/25 : CIA-R9g57-00384R001000020099-3
understanding the practical effect of the Espionage Act is
to read the leading Supreme Court case of GORIN vs. UNITED
STATES, which was combined with SALICH vs. UNITED STATES,
312 US 713 decided 13 January 1941 The facts of this
case are quite interesting. Garin was a Russian citizen,
and was employed by the Russian Government as its agent
in gathering information. Re purchased from Snitch the
contents of over fifty reports relating chiefly to Japanese
activities in the United States. These reports were taken
from the files of the Naval Intelligence Office at San
Pedro, California Salich was a naturalized Russian-born
citizen but had free access to these records since he was
a civilian investigator for that Office. The reports de-
tailed the coming and going on the West Coast of Japanese
military and sivilian officials and others whose actions
were deemed of possible interest to the Naval Intelligence
Office,
6. The de
b)
are convicted under Sections 1
nd 2(a) of the Espionage Act which were the section
just givengiven to/Ain Dart. They appealed their case, contend.
ing that the provisions cf the Act arc limited to obtaining
and delivering information concerning the specifically de-
scribed places and things set out in Section 1(A) of the
Act such as a vessel, aircraft, fort signal station or
code book. They also contend that an interpretation Of
the statute that the furnishing of any information connected
with or related to the national defense other than concerning
Approved For Release 2000/08/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R001000020099-3
Approved For Release 200/08/25 : CIA-14&57-00384R001000020099-3
thee p?ctficaUY de oribed places and things would be so
inefnte that it would render the Aot unconstitutio 1 as
violatilri? of the due prooess clause. However, the Supreme
?,
74
h4d that he words of the statute satisfied it that
ng of national defense in Sectionsl(b) and 4 (a)
limited to places and things specifically mentioned
i(s). The Court could find no uncertainty in
whioh would deprive a person of the ability
-ed?termin0 whether a contemplated action is criminal
'under the proviaions of the law. The delimiting words in
/the statute are those requiring "intent or reason to believe
the information to be obtained is to be used to the
f the United States or to the advantage of any
gn nation," The provisions of the Act only relate to
who have acted in bad faith and scienter must be
blidhed. In other words, the accused must have known,
by virtue of the circumstances had reason to believe,
that the information was to be used to the injury of the
United States or to the advantage of a, foreign nation.
7 Attorney for the defendants then contended that the
evtdenoe failed to support a conclusion that the defendant*
knewor that they had reason to believe that the informs
tinwas to be used to the injury of the 'United States or
H
to
advantage of a foreign nation, and further contended
hai the evidence did not establish that any of the reports
elated to or were connected with the national defense.
Approved For Re ease 2000/08/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R001000020099-3
Approved For Release'2000/08/25 : CIA-R151,57-00384R001000020099-3
The Court very qi4ckly disposed of these contentions, stating
that reports of this nature are a part of this nation's
plan for armed defense. It was not necessary to prove that
the information obtained was to be used for the injury of
the United States*
9. The trial court determined that whether or not the
information obtained by the defendant in this case concerned*
related to was connected with the national defense was a
question of feet solely for the determination of the jury.
The Supreme Court affirmed this, pointing out that the trial
court had given proper i,struotions as to what constitutes
an adequate definition of connected with or relating to
national defense. It wss stated that, "In short the
phrase'information connected with the National Defense'
as used in the context of the Espionage Act means, broadly,
secret or confidential information which has its primary
significance in relation to the possible armed conflicts
in which the nation might be engaged. The protected in-
formation is readily recognizable from the common experience
and knowledge of the average man." The instructions to the
jury contained further interestinglanguage; For from the
standpoint of military or naval strategy it might not only
be dangerous to us for a foreign power to know our weak-
nesses and our limitations, but it might also be dangerous
to us when such a foreign power knows that we know that they
know of our limitations."
Approved For Release 2000/08/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R001000020099-3
Approved For Release 200D/08/25 : CIA-RDp57-00384R001000020099-3
4.0.6
9. The Suprenie Court then considered the use of the
words in the statute of "national defense". The Supreme
Court agreed with the Government attorneys that national
defense as used in the Espionage Act "is a generic concept
of broad Connotations referring to the military and naval
establishments and the related activities of national pre-
paredness.
10 act that Salieh had been specifically instruoted
by his superior not to divulge any information was held
admissible as evidence to establish Salichve reason to b
lieve that the information was to be used to the injury
of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation.
You are reminded now that information gained in the course
of your work here may not be divulged without specific
written authority of the Director, ssp.
11. t this point motive should be distinguished from
intent. Your motive in attempting to publish a book er fur-
nish information to a newspaper may be above reproach. Re.
01,44240wake44.-4
gardless of your motive, intentlis determinative of guilt
and it is an established principle that when a man deliberately
does an a (such as revealing information which his train-
ing ortruotione have indicated is not to be disclosed
untilpe ifically authorized) he is held, in law, to in
tend the natural and probable oonsequences of his so
el*
Approved For Release 2000/08/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R001000020099-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R001000520099-3
terpre e
to you:
the EspionageAct as in
highest court in the land and as it applies
A. The provisions of the Constitution pro-
tooting freedom of speech and press are not violated
h he Act.
13, The language of the Act is not 80 vague or
definite as to render it unconstitutional. A person
n readily predetermine whether a contemplated act
is criminal,
C It is enough if a person does an unauthorized
act which might conceivably be of advantage to any
foreign government The presence of possible injury
to the United. States is not an essential element of
this crime. There does not have to be an actual ad.
vantage.to a foreign government or an actual injury
to the United States,
D. The judgment whether 'Now it can be told'
ii. not for the individual to make. The innocuous
appearance of the information contained in the un-
authorized disclosure is immaterial. Guilt can
exist regardless of the value of the information in
an unauthorized disclosure.
E The Act is not rendered inoperative upon
the termination of hos ilities.
F. Violators of the Act are not limited to the
specific places and things set out in Section 1(a) of
ApproMPFOVItelease 2000/08/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R001000020099-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R0010'00020099-3
.8-
G. Serious collateral consequences may result upon
conviction under the Act, e.g. deeortation in the case of an
alien, a disbarment in the ease of an attorney.
H. To violate the Act, a person must intend or have
elson to believe, that the information he reveals may be used
7
o the advantage of any fofreign government (friendly or other-
wise) or- to the injury of the United States.
I. It is for a jury to decide, as a question of fact,
whether or not the information revaled is related to the
national defense and the courts have held that a requirement
of secrecy may be in the, national interest and for the national
defense even in time of peace. The fact that you have been
instructed not to divulge classified information would be
admissible for the jury:to:consider as evidence in establishing
your reason to believe that the information was to be used
to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a
foreign nation.
13. Although all men devoutly hope this war will be the last,
it is a hope without guarantee of fulfillment. it is a recognized
fact that allies may become enemies with the passage of time and
Congress foresaw this potentiality when it forbade disclosure, in time
of war or peace, of information related to national defense which
could be used to the advantage of any foreign government. The Supreme
Court has said that one such advantage embraced anything that
Approved For Release 2000/08/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R001000020099-3
Approved For Release 2990/08/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R001000020099-3
would allow a foreign government to check an the efficiency
of our methods of warfare. This is precisely the type of
information which you must safeguard as long an disclosure
has not been authorized. OSS and SSD' have developed
techniques of warfare, physical, psychological logistic
etOra
the value of which has been amply demonstrated,
4 Your responsibility is continuing responsibility;
to safeguard these military advantages for the future of
your country. Dieclosure of these prohibited topics is for.
bidden until specific, written authorization is given, or
until reports on these matters are published with the
authority of Congress or the military establishment.
prohibition may continue forever and (this should. be
carefully) does not automatically terminate with the
cessation of hostilities* actual or proclaimed. What a
future enemy does not know, can be of advantage to this
nation - now, a year from now, ten, twenty or thirty years
from now.
The
not
Approved For Release 2000/08/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R001000020099-3