CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000200200016-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 32
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 16, 2004
• Sequence Number: 16
• Publication Date: December 20, 1963
• Content Type: OPEN

X963
Approved ,For Release.2005/0.1/05 :,,CIA~RDp:66B004p3~OQ020a200016=9
CONGRESSIONAL R~C~RI7 =SENATE
that the ,figure "of around $i; billion ds-
cussed ~ ," no't entirely _ right, `because
thl'pilgh "such devices as Y'ublic Law -480,
$2 billion of agricultural products should
actually be added to -any figure that is
passed. . ~_,.~ ? .
In addl~iori, -the United States has
colriinitted, or plans to commit, for use
fn foreign: countries,- hundreds of mil-
llons of dollars .,pf the American tax-
payers' money through various inter-
national .financial agencies, a matter
.already discussed. at~~some length" uri the
fiool' because these latter commitments
do not contalri~ certain restr}ctons iii-
ciu"ded in ,tl?e ~ore~li aidThill itself:
As one gets ~'ur~her into the- subject-
of Alb, it appears that almost anywhere
ode, turns in government; there is fur-
ther utilization of some, piece o~ legisla-
tipn, or Executive order, or internatiolial
agreemelit; to give, or loan; more inoriey
and/or materials to other countries-
'often the terms of std loans :are such
as tp f?orce one tq coilc~Tude that the net
xesult is aetua~ly' a gift, ? _
Tile Senate cleared up mangy "of the
problems contained ~in the proposed for-
i;ign aid_authorza~ioil hill.
In, cpn~erence with the Douse, how-
8V2x, many t5f ,these improvements the
Eenatg ,,placed in the bill were 'sable-
quently deleted by the conferees +
I ask un~ilimous consent tlia~;_a report
made up'b~ the staff o~ the ~oretgn Re-`
has been chosen in free and democratic
elections."
7. Mansfield-Dirksen amendment to section
[fil(e), relating to completion of plans and
cost estimates, requiring in any case where
the .estimate of cost of a project exceeded
$b00,000, that the feasibility of the protect
and the cost estimates be approved by the
Cor3s oP Engineers, Department of the Army,
or by s reputable U.S: private firm of engi-
neers.
8. The Proxmire amendment to take away
President's special discretionary authority to
furnish. aid.to Yugoslavia.
9. The Lausche amendment to take away
President's special discretionary authority to
furnish aid to any Communist country:
10. The Dirksen amendment to prohibit
the furnishing of assistance to Yugloslavia
unless and until St makes arrangements for
the payment of claims oP U.S. citizens whose
property was nationalized or to en by that
government.
11. The Lausche amendment to prohibit
assistance for (#overnmerit-owned enterprises,
except where it clearly appears that goods or
services of the same general class cannot be
provided by private businesses.
12. The Kudlel amendment to prohibit
assistance to any country which extends its'
jurisdiction for fishing purposes over an area
of. the high seas beyond that recognized by
the United States, or imposes any penalty
or Sanction against a U.S. fishing vessel on
account of its fishing activities in ouch area.
13. Miller amendment limiting U.S. con-
tributions to Food and Agriculture Organiza-
tion to !85 million a year.
lotions Committee showing the .provi- TRIBUTES 'TO PRESIDENTS
lions p~ the Senate ~lfl _~ater , c~eletecl In KENNEDY AND JCJINSON
Conferen~e~ be ,inserted at this "point in Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, in the
.the ~'taCpRD current issue of the Officer, monthly
'T~i.ere, bQmgrno ob~ectlon~ the report .magazine of the Reserve Officers Asso-
was ;oxclered tq ~e printQ~ iri the ~,ECOan, elation of the United States appear two
as follows - --brief editorials which pay tribute to the
r ~_ .
fE?,S SFNAT~ -? late President John F. Kennedy and t0
COMMITTEE QN,FOREIGN RELATIONS
13ecember 3~ rss3 "the Nation's succeeding Commander in
Memorandum , ; ` ' "? ' "` "" ? Chief, Px'esiderit Lyndon B. Johnson.
T6: ,~nyt4~' SYMIrcTON There is also an.article in the Officer
From:"l~a`t E5! 1=IoYt. `" ~ by Col. Jahn T, Carlton, the association's
het Earth below 1"_s a summary aP the provi- executive director and editor of the
alone of fife ~`enate passed 'bill which were
detgted by the Senate house conferees. ` magazine, which gives a personal View
1. 'I'he" ISaminfck amendment Rio section of both of these great Americans.
203 tp require (fiat the r`eiise of a1T recei is ~ ` `~ ~^
_ p Colonel Carlton formerly was the act-
from developmerit"loans lie subject to annual mlriistratlve assistant in the Senate of
apprapriatfons. ~ my colleague, the Senator from Florida
2. 'The Lausche ;amendment adding a new [Mr, SMAT1lERSl, and is known to many
sectipn 2i_i? to the, act toF require- that no _ of us. For this reason, as well as for the
technical assistance program be undertaken
unless, prior fio the commencement thereof, subject matter of the pieces he has
the recipient country agrees to `"aceept the " tVritten, I ask unanimous Consent that
re8pon9ibilit~ for. the continuation and "fi- these articles be primed in the RECORD.
nancing of such program after the expire- mere being no abjection, the articles
tion of a xeasonabl~ time,. not to? exc`eed 7 , .were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
yeari-, unless the ~rograxn is scheduled for -
completioii within such tune" as follows:
3. Section ~,2f~b) ~'~) pr0#llibit6 "-payments IN THE MINUTEMAN HALL OF FAME
under all risk guarantees 1n cases where the 3n I'ebruary of 1962, recognizing-the place
loss is attributa~ile to 'fraud or ,m3scondizet he already had earned in history, our also-
for which :#he" ~nyestor is .i'espponslT3fe.ti' ~ The elation claimed fox John "F. Kennedy A
Lail~che aanQndment to adc~ fife word nepll- place in the IQatlon's 'Minuteman` Hall of
genes" to "i~raud or mi"sacnduct`~was dropped" Fame.'
by the conferees. ~ At that time, just well into his service as
4, ~Ilendgr amendment ,requiring redemp- P}'eaident _ Mr. Kennedy. received ROA's
'tipn oP Treasury notes issued under Fconom- le_adeTS for one oP their oocasloxial oonfer-
Sc Cogperation Act oi~eserves for investment ences with the Commander i
n Chief. xe ap-
_
guarantee program _ ? peered surprised and` highly pleased that ttie _ Yet we too sustain a personal loss, and ex-
S.~ The >~ominlek amendment to require occasion also brouglLt to him -the han_ dson4e perience personalty the impact which has
that the r'QUSe of all receipts from Alliance plaque which was designed to hang with a jarred the Nation. , We knew "Jack" Kennedy
for 1gI?ggi?ess loans be subject to annual ap= select few in a hall which ROA's Minuteman both as an -individual and as the President.
proliriatfon ~ Memorial Building, to be colistructed in the He was warmhearted, in many ways quite
6 The futorse amendment roh~bitin as- Nartion'e Capital at No. 1 Independence Ave- unassuming, and genuinely devoted to
` y _ ~ , ~ g-. ~ nue, will make a reali
slstance io an Latin American overnment ty friendships he had acquired throughout his
'
.pome to power'throug~i the force= The ROA recognition was to a Lieutenant life. Those who knew him on Capitol Hill
-which "haS
bee overthrow of a prior government which Kennedy, not to the President, ar the Gbxn- enjoyed his warmth. History will record his
Approved For Release 2005/01/05 :CIA-RDP66B00403R000200200016-9
241 7
mender in Chief, and it was received by $im
as $uch.
ROA claims him and his war record to
emphasize and exalt the vital role in na-
tional securitq of the citL,en-reservist.
Mr. Kennedy was a young man when World
VG"ar If'dpened: In a"manner that is typical
of the spirit which always has protected
America, he volunteered far military service
and chose one of the most hazardous roles-
with the fragile PT-boats, and the doughty
sailors who manned them, in the South
Pacific. It was there that young Kennedy
almost lost a life and suffered. injuries which
plagued him far the rest of his life. ROA's
national treasurer, himself a Medal of Honor
winner; was an instructor of the young offi-
cer whose valor was to became a legend.
President Kennedy's leadership of this Na-
tion, and his considerable- impact upon his-
tory already have been extolled by the mast
eloquent throughout the world which con-
tinues to mourn him. Many in a sorrowing
nation, and a sorrowing world, as do we
among the Nation's reservists to whom he
was a brother officer and an inspiration, have
observed, as of Lincoln, "Now he belongs to
the ages."
He belongs also to this great Nation's
"Minute Man" tradition, which has given to
the citizens of the United States of America
the clarity of allegiance, the collunitment of
stout heart, resolute character, and personal
resources which insures our way aP life for
posterity.
THE NEW COMMANDER IN CHIEF
Lyndon Baines Johnson, upon _ whom
tragedy has thrust the awful burden of the
Presidency, is a man who, like his predeces-
? p; _k~as answered his country's call in war
as in peace. The new President entered the
Navy as a Reserve officer at the start of World
War II, risking the loss of his seat in Congress
to go immediately into uniform. His service
was brief because then President Roosevelt
ordered all Members of Congress out of the
service a.nd back to their duties on Capitol
Hill. But in his tour in the Pacific he won
the Silver Star. The citation accompanying
- the medal noted his "marked coolness" under
-fire.
_ We suspect that "marked coolness" will be
displayed again as he takes on the job of
leading the defense of the free world. Prob-
ably no President in history has had more
experience at the highest national level to fit
him for the office. Hia deep knowledge of
Government includes special schooling in
defense matters.as aformer member of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, where he
chaired the Preparedness Investigating Sub-
committee, and served as chairman of the
Senate Space Committee and as Senate maj-
ority leader. We are sustained by the knowl-
edge that our new President is capable of the
burden of his. olflce.
As Americans our hearts go out to him. As
officers we salute him and pledge -him our
faithful support.
IN MEMORIAM: RESERVE OFFICERa ASSOCIATION
MOURNS PASSING OF COMMANDER IN CHIEF,
_ HA_IL6 STRENGTH OF SUCCESSOR
_ The world-shaking events of late November
..shocked Reserve Officers Association as it did
tha._bpdy of the American people. So much
has been written about the cruel death of
Pres_i_d~nt John. Fitzgerald Kennedy that we
hesitate.to attempt to add any words to those
 218
Approved For Release 2005/01/05 :CIA-RDP66B00403R000200200016-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE December 20
impact oa the world, which was considerable:
it was' most difficult 14 conceive of anyone
directing real hate tow:tird him.
Even in the personal pasalpsfa that many
friends ezperienced, vie felt that he would
have been the one to lie proud that nathlag
could stop our Nation.
IC rues ltidr. Kennedy who chose Lyndon
Johnson 86 hie runn'ag mate, and subse-
quently as his 91ce President.
3ohnaon had been a master is the forensic
sad legislative arena where bath received
their seasoning for ier.dership. Zn the Ben-
ate, he was Sennedy's senior both in years of
service and atithorit3. Senator Kennedy
looked up to hie leadership and history may
Sadeed reused that his insistence, at Los An-
geles in 1980, upon bis running mate may
have been his most sigr-iflcant exhibition of
leadership. .
One incident in the Senate xrvice of Mr.
Seanedy I will always remember. because it
reflects his deep senf a of loyalty and his
reoogaltioa of the wor?1i of hie seniors.
The late Senator W:Qter F. (Ieorge, chair-
man of the Senate Fcrrelgn Relations Com-
mittee during the Elaenhower administra-
tion, was working in the twilight of hie
career to libezalize the social security ayetem.
It was a close issue to the Senate and as
Senator George's assistant Z was on the floor
with him. The venerable chairman worked
the cloakroom and the floor diligently, look-
iag fan that vote which would put hla bill
across.
H8 walked over to 13enator Kennedy, who
was not favorable to the bill, and put his
arm across his shoulder.
?You're gulag to be with me on this aren't
poai Ja.ckZ" he asked.
Senator Sennedy l~wked ug, and I saw
is his epee a awif changing mood. After
some hesitation, he said. "
"13eaator Qeorge, I don't think I could vote
against you."
Tin bill carried, se I recall it, by two votes.
Lteutenant Commander Johnson also fa a
Reserve Olacer Association member who pays
his own Way.
The hallmark of uur association is !ts
dedication to our congressionnl mission.
Ia our membership are men and women of
all walks of life who may differ on every-
thing else, but who ~re brouhght together in
support o1 adequate national aecuritp. That
now is President Johnson's foremost concern
and rasponalbtlity. In 'hie capable hands
are many fateful dutl~ro, but none transcend
that embodied in his cloak as Commander In
Chief of the Armed Forces,
With the recent fuss about a phony issue,
Lyndon Johnson's reaa'd which endears him
most to reservists 3s that during World War
II he lest hie .seat in the Congress and went
into the Navy, nutkLsg a fine record. On
orders of the Commander In Chief he Was
brougl-t back to Washington. There in both
House and Senate, h:a personal e:perienee
is combat proved of tsaascendent value to
him in various asalpuneata is the Senate
Armed Services Committee, including chair-
n'innahip of the Senate Preparedness Sub-
committee.
President Johnson 11as experience in this
acid which probably fits him for his role
ale Commander in Chic+f more than any Prea-
(dent is resent hlntosy.
We Sa the Reserve Officer Association, Loo,
look to him 88 our Commander is Chief.
While free Sa a certaLi sense from his com-
mand. We at111 honor his once-and dedicate
ourselves to-abide by his decisions. We are
ooafldent that in advance o1 major decisions
our aasoclatioa will rata welcomed in eaerclse
oz-ro c~egA
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as my-Lol-
.leagues will recall, "have several times
spoken on the Boor about the so-called
Otepka ease.
I took the floor the first time to speak
about this matter on November 5, when
it was announced that Mr, Otepka had
been dismissed on the bests of the
charges brought against him. I said on
that occasion that Mr, Otepka's distnis-
sai was an affront to Congress and to the
right of congressional committees; I
stated further that it Otepka could be
dfsmissed for the simFle reason that he
had given honest testimony before the
Senate Subcommittee on Internal Se-
curity, then it would become impossible
or, at the best, very difficult for any con-
gessional committee in the future to ob-
Ladn uninhibited testimorLV from Execu-
tive officials and employees.
In the colloquy that followed, there was
discussion of the possibility of perjury
charges against some of the State De-
partment officials.
On Lhe following day, the Senate Sub-
committee on Internal $ecyi'ity received
parallel letters from three of the State
Department officials-Mr. John F. Re1I1,y,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Secu-
rity, Mr, David I. Belisle, deputy to
Mr. Reilly, and Mr. Eimer Dewey Hill,
Director of the Division of Technical
Services 1n the Office of Security-ask-
ing to change their testimony. Whereas
they had previously sworn that they
knew nothing about the Installation of a
listening device in Mr, Otepka's office,
they now confirmed that they had taken
part in the installation of such a device
or were aware of its installation.
Two of the witnesses, Mr. Reilly and
Mr. Belisle, when they were recaAed be-
fore the committee, stated that none of
Mr. Otepka's conversations had been
overheard or compromised because of
electronic difficulties. The third wit-
ness, however, an electronics expert,
Elmer Dewey Hill, testified that tape
recordings had been made of several
conversations. that Mr. Reilly had ex-
pressed particular interest in one conver-
sation, and that he had turned. the tapes
over to an unidentified third party at Mr.
Reilly's direction.
The Otepka case goes to the heart of
security Procedures iiz the Department
of State. It has the greatest signifi-
cance from the standpoint of relations
between the legislative and executive
blanches. In addition, it has profound
elements of personal drama. Zt 1s not
surprising, therefore, that the press of
our Country has displayed very great in-
terest from the beginning In the stoiy of
the Otepka Case.
The Subcommittee on Internal SeCU-
rity has literally thousands of press
items, both articles and editorials relat-
ing to this case. A few of the editorials
support the State Department's position.
The overwhelming majority of them,
however, are strongly critical of the
action that has been taken.
Mr. President, I esk unanimous con-
sent Lo insert in the Racoxn at this point
some representative editorials, both pro
and con, that have appeared in our na-
tional press. i also ask unanimous con-
sent to insert in the R$coxb at the con-
clusion of these editorials the exchange
of Correspondence between Mr, Otepka
and the Department O1 State.
There being no objection, the edi-
torials and correspondence were ordered
Lo be printed in the RsCORD, as follows:
(From the Washington (D.C.) Star, Oct. 8,
1983]
o~ comas
The showdown which is shaping up be-
tween the State Department and the Senate
Judiciary Committee, or rather its Subcom-
snittee on Internal Security, is both neces-
sary and desirable. For the issues are of
highest importance.
What is involved here is a seeming coi-
ltatoa between the undoubted right of the
State I>~epartment to maintain proper se-
curity procedures within the Department and
the equally undeniable right of the Senate
(and the public) to know whether sloppy
Stets Department procedures have been en-
dangering national security.
The Department has preferred charges
which oouId lead to the dismissal 01 Otto F.
Otepka, Chief of State's Security Evaluations
Dlvisioa. These charges were developed after
such spy-thrlller techniques as searching
Mr. Otepka`a "burn basket," reading the im-
print oa hie carbon paper, deciphering used
typewriter ribbons. patching together torn
up nurse, etc, Furthermore, s Department
official has issued ea order focbidding em-
ployees to appear before the Senate subcom-
Illlttae withont Obtallling ad4aaC8 ClearaaCe
from State. Ii is a1PO apecifled la the order
that "this includes contact or interviews with
any members o[ the staff of the subcom-
mittee" This oovera s lot of territory.
Naturally, the Senators, or at Least those
immediately involved, are up in arms. And
they shoutd be, For the order to the em-
plopees and the action against llfr. Otepka
c:ouid serve to clamp down the lid on infor-
matlpa from the State Department to which
the Senate, u not the public, should have
access, It tibia ib what is being done. every
possible pressure should be brought to bear
to stop it.
We fled !t hard to believe, however, that
Secretary Rusk would condone any such
activity. It rune counter to his nature, and
he 1a too sensible. Nevertheless, it !a good
that the Senate has called upon him to
testify sad that ha has agreed to do so. The
inane-Domes down to a question of just what
1Kr. OLepka wan doing. The typewriter rib-
bons, the vaed carbon paper, and the rest
should tell rife story.
[From the Washington Post, Nov. 10, 1988]
Esacorivs AvrONOSCr
For ail of Senator Dorm's sputtering, he
must know that what Otto F, Otepka did
was not only unlawful but unconscionable
ea well. Mr. Otepha certainy knew this htm-
seif-which is ao doubt why he did 2t cov-
ertly instead of candidly. He gave classified
information to aomeoae not authorized to
receive !t. And ho prepared a list of ques-
tions to htip a Senate subcommittee trip
hie superior in the state Department. No
one can be surprised that the state Depart-
ment does not want to keep him any longer
to s posttlon of trust.
St really does not matter that the recipient
of the information he discIoeed was an em-
ployee of the-Senate. He had no authority
to give it. Ir the Senate Internal security
Subcommittee felt a need for clasifled mate-
rial is the State Department, its proper
course was fo summon the Secretary os State
and ask him for it. If a~ underling in the
State Department were free at his own dis-
cretion to disclose confidential cables or Si
any agent of the Federal Bureau of Inves-
tigation oouId Ieak Lhe contents of secret
fllea whenever he felt Like it, the executive
Approved For Release 2005/01/05 :CIA-RDP66B00403R000200200016-9
 ~;;,~,,. Appr~i~e?~X~t~r~F~~`~~~?~405/~}'.4/0~ ~IA~R[~~~'6BOO~A~R000200200016=g
bral?ch o ,the _- ., v~3'??u~cnfa pYpulsi, have,, a9 he COS}dlaG'tesi ixi BD malign and miasmic a fag the testimony of his superiors. He told
seCU11t-y a~ all climate, _ _ the enators in closed 1 b t
aess on a ou gross
Senate; >1ASS,a~a,~In cha~a1 A~, the. g}}h- _-, ,. ?_ .,,r-...,._,_ ~ ,. ,,, ,,, =,;gnoring of the State Department security
Pi73#~;i~,~ ~~~ that thpowers ai [From the Washington News, Nov. 13, 1963] evaluation procedures under the Kennedy
G`o~g'resa?are a s Q ,~z~_j_~ i~e~?Sla
,,, - ~ -~ DISCORD AT STATE administration. Dean Rusk, for instance,
,to ~tiat~~~ ~r ~epka by every means at had backdated more than 159 high-level se-
3Y1y C~mfkS.~nC~~ All that the ~ta#,e De art- It sounds like a pretty mess at the State
P- curity clearances, using special powers in-
me~~ ~ met, ixl6a1l1gTd>~ats Department with one official fired for slip- tended Yor emergencies; the Eisenhower ad-
eznl3Io~ee. ~ power to do so is ,fixed by the ping unauthorized information to Congress ministration had used this o
('inriefi t.,t:`tnn a,,:3':,.~~ .e,..~..,, s,,,,,,';"- ...:... ...... -and three others charePd Witt, annnnino nn p wet flue times.
_.
--_
-_ ..,......,,,..... ..:.~ r.,aaaanc~ wnivcra. nc
. power, a .course ;to x ,qualifications for em-, _ ongress. times im ortant ositions were filled without
~sloymexit in the exectxti~ ~h ?~,fl{~,,,,LA _ '-'Otto F. Otepka, former Department secu- an natc e p
city risk evaluator, provides the affair with Y passing through the security
po ~ Cwfi~be,proced O e k ,$ Baring and review evaluation office.
d1.9an~ss~~s ~' ~~ ~Ax~e ~ ~ ~~ ~fl ita name-the Otepka case. His dismissal _ ____ Otepka also strenuously ob]ected when
atr'viCii act anc~ these procedures are being ~~ based, among other things, on the
orlon Cle land, an ssi
iii p _, case Indeed, he charge he gave a senatorial committee con- ve A stant Secretary of
C~11 and r}sy go to court about the matter. fldential information from security files co State, named a panel to study security pro-
~~o~t a}~t~~it,~ity to fire subordinates is ton6hy it is supposed to be released only cedures-and some oP the men named, fu
with the personal approval, of the Presi--_ Otepka's experienced opinion, had personnel
tke e~C~vC ~'~;n9~ tie ~t~~,,_S!olliti
be werless 'Fo fu]$11 `dent. records so derogatory that they should have
Po i ,_ ~~s?~Q~~,t19lRa'9_ -- ge has a_ r_i ht to a eel but iF the charges had a full FBI investigation. Cleveland even
sparisibili~ to take care? that the lawa.be stand u _g PP went so far as to inquire what clearances
fait~ft~5~~`executed Congress no more-pos- p, he clearly was insubordinate and would be necessar to bran Al er Hiss back
?e5s,~ tl3e,, power tQ reia~lttate Mr.~teplca as ought to stay fired. Y g g
a7~ ,C311~1~ o~the State_Department than Senators defending him, including such into the State Department.
~kte ,S ,possesses power to remove Mr powerful figures as,DonD, of ConlaectiCUt, and At first Otepka testified with the permis-
,J.,~,~u~r~ ins o EASTLAND, of Mississi i, consider the case sion and advice of his superiors. But then
~` ~~~d ~a ~~ate ~~ ~ pp his superiors flatly contradicted man of his
esrnl,~g~~irf~y Subcommittee a test of the powers of_C_ongress as opposed Y
f ;, ~ u ~~ tfie ~ ecutive statements. To vindicate himself of possible
#~~ ~ ~ ;, ~ ~ powers of the President. charges of per ur p
[x'rom the Washington Post Nov 12 193 't'his recurring conflict provides the case with j Y. Ote ka returned to the
1 '"~~' ""` '"~"^~`'~~ '~ "] added drama. committee to name names, without asking
"~ ~e ~~~~~ ~> kr ""~Benator Dona demands that, instead of his superiors fi he would be allowed to prove
P'~'i1e hepartment of State must , be a s1e- firing Mr. Otepka, the Department get rid of them wrong, By revealing names sad classi-
lightful -place to work. theas~ Tgays. The three other officials, at least two of whom fled information to the subcommittee coun-
~taxlosphere of affectionate., Cq~,~?g~gy~S_6~~, .denied to a Senate subcommittee they had sel, Otepka was in technical violation of
+ warm Yfasl~u~l ~aJ1f],i~I}~C,p~Yaillllg there has installed a listening device in Mr. Otepka's the rules; the irony of it all was that he was
pYdbabl'y`not ,been matchec~_~x}gwhere since office, then later admitted it. These charges the very person who had classified the in-
the heyday of the Medics in~t%aaai~SapCg_ ..are under 'investigation. These men, it formation.
It~l~' _ - ~=r- - ~ =seems to us, also have placed their jobs in But even though the State Department was
- ~ou;litl~x~hp. situat~Q,~, for inst;~e, fn the grave jeopardy, if not for spying on Mr, incredibly lax in Sts general interpretation of
piRce P~ thg Deguty Assistant Secretary for Otepka, then for misleading the Senators.. sccurity, it began to put the screws on
$QCidrity, Mr. John, F Re13_ly. Mr. Reilly was gut ail question of degrees of guilt aside, Otepka. His phone was bugged. The sheets
- ~O~ ~g ~sui~ 1Cyralkoingd~m~pnd~irn~~ etvhe~r~ bodyQ~ ahem the incident lifts the curtain on a nasty ~ dis ove this correspondence. eLettersthat
~ ~ p internal condition at State which fa hi hl
as,~iS~axlts, ~ Mi' _=Qtto ~ ~?tepka, was telling disturbing. g Y had been shredded and deposited in a sealed
ta]e~ ~itQ?It ~~ - tic "Sep-fly ~'~~~~ 'Se- This fs the Department which works in a ~~burn bag" for security waste were painstak-
cti'rity Subcommittees .ti ?? ~ - ~ - thousand ways to uphold the dignity of the ingly puzzled out. At last the zealous sleuths
~~Iaw CIi,S MT,~~,Z~11Y find out about Mr. United States around the world, and to keep i?und what they needed: a memorandum,
S~t~pka? pS~hy by pawing through the con- pieced together from plastic typewritten rib-
ua out of war. Whether speaking to Congress
- tCiits~~ Mx,,,Qtepka's "burn. baakQt" _si.,course or to Khrushchev the Department should bons, in which Otepka provided some em-
- aaid~ by tgpping Mr. Otepka s 'tQlephone. speak with one voice and that voice should barrassing questions for the Senators to ask ~,
Iioyv e~6
e7 '
hi
'
~
.
s superiors.
- ~` %~ ~-_~~ ~`
:
be the voice of the Secretary of State:
Svla' Reilly appears to have been assisted If tenure imposed by Civil Service regula- For institutional disloyalty, the loyal
in .this salop~ing_by another of Mr. Otepka's tions prevents this and institutionalizes dis- Otepka got the pink slip. This was the sec-
cpJteagues, a Mr ~Imer A,,~iA, Chief of the harmony, then there is something badly and go-round. Once before the Department
-Security Offices Dlylsio~ ~y ~~ChniCal -Serv_ wrong with civil service regulations. The had tried to get rid of him.
icQa 'pVheu t12,ep~~~yQrtjly yellows were asked security of the United States, upon which Otepka, in testimony a year and a half
~y members of t~&..~aaat~.Inte~alaLSecurity the smooth function of this Department ago, revealed that the State Department's
dtl~C9mm7##~e If t]3e3' had ever done any pry- measura`ly depends, is vastly more impor- laxndF om testimony iylWie and andiotherls
ing into 1VIr t~t~pka s-- private affairs, how- tent than the right of an uncooperative
`wEl they ~ooked .quite _scazls3alized at so Government employee to hold on to his the Senate subcommittee concluded that
ofTensive . atk ,iputatian -.and replied as jab, Wieland was responsible for much of the
blahdly as you lease that they certainly had Caribbean policy that led to U.S. support of
1],eGer ~Ton~ a yt~~i of the sort Castro in the late fifties. Wieland had hard
~~ ~ >,, ,~? ~,~m, m,~,~_:,... [From the Richmond News Leader, Oct. 22,
-But tie, ff}C't 0~_the yin-aj;ter .appears to be, 1963] information that Castro was a Communist,
neY~rth~ICS%~ that, -although they may mo- yet he suppressed any references to this prob-
knent~riiy have forgotten about 1t, they did OTEPKA DAY lem in his policy reports.
actuafty bug Mr, Otcpka'a quarters in that _ Tomorrow is Otepka Day. It is the day From Otepka, ft was discovered that Wei-
ble~ant StatQ Department,. Budding; they 'that Otto Otepka, career State Department land had falsified his application and per-
naVV ~.cknAyl~,etlge as much, although they -. security officer, is scheduled to be released sonal history, and had never been properly
9nsi~t t~ t~yey didn't really hear anything from his job. He is getting fired because he cleared. And in fact, no clearance of any
lnteiesting. So by "mutual consent," they thought that lull security procedures should sort had been entered into the file until the
have begin, Ori~eT~(ju xo go on leave until the be followed in evaluating the cases of such day after President Kennedy told a press
1d~o7e a$a11',,~ 1op~pti~~,q prize State Department errors as Alger Hfss, conference that he had personally approved
~~"~ " "' William Arthur Wieland, and John Stewart the Wieland case.
'CV~.iat 1~iX1.5~ QR. fixate Iepartment has the Service. Worse yet, he revealed the laxness Moreover, Otepka himself evaluated Wie-
Uni#Rd yState~ got these days2 One supposes to Senate investigators. land as "not a security risk, but unsuitable,"
that W9}'kESS in tk~._~'g;sign Commissariat of There are really two Otepka cases. The with regard to personal conduct under the
th ~Krera~~~ lgok ..over,. -their__shoulders at most recent began last month when Otepka, rules of the Civil Service Commission. Such
a ~rehension~an FYit~1 'a""Certain amount of an old-line security officer responsible for as- a ruling requires a mandatory dismissal, un-
hapve su osed that~pxicty But_ Who .would sembling and evaluating personnel security less it is overruled by the top level. Ear-
PP ~??e~'c~ns ii1_.the. Amerl- data, was summarily barred from his office lier Otepka had made a similaa finding in
eat I3e artment of?Sty ~.w-guld need to em- by his new chief, Abba Schwartz. Before the case of John Stewart Service. But nei-
~ilay of~cial ,tasters _wlxen -they venture into Otepka's eyes, six security men set about ther Service nor any other Foreign Service oi_
-ths departmgntal yl~iniXlu room? _ ,-__ _ __ -searching his files and changing the locks fleet has been dismissed outright in the past
- ~?ts ki??d o~ Tagging and spying and on his safes. He was assigned to writing a two decades.
tattling produces no kind- aP security at all, security handbook, and relieved of all his These touchy questions of "suitability"
Tt produces. notl7yia~g but an atmosphere of responsibilities.
Cri lin and su o refer to both personal conduct and judg-
Pp g ij'~atj.,pg suspicion. Decent Otepka was lectured on institutional went. The Senators found Wieland's ad-
3n9naholxld~ I~ot b~.,,,askQxl.~nd cannot be ex- loyalty. This meant that Otepka had testa- minlstrative judgment both weak and doubt-
pected to woriC fl~~uch, an atmosphere. The fled freely before the Senate Internal Se- ful Wieland, althou h involved in eraon-
ipreign affairs of ~. #ree people should not curity Subcommittee, frequently contradict
- , istr }1, did not 1~'i,o~ ,whether
-- ~ _.- ~ ~~ ~d ia1~~.rt._
Appraved,~or Release 2005/01/05; CYA=RDP66B00403F~#~#~2~#~~
 24I20
Approved CONGRESS ONAL /REGARD DP?~~~Qj}Q3R0002002000'~~e~be~? 20
homose-xuality was a problem in the State
Department, and said That he had never lied
to deal with the problem to any way. A
more experienced State Department officer
called this judgment "incredible ? And as
far as Wieland's personal conQuct fs con-
cerned, the Senators directed the Justice
Department to study conflicts in Wieland's
testimony for perjur;t action. Wieland is
still ahigh-grade State Department officer,
and no action has bee z taken.
A year ago, the State Department tried to
get rid of Otepka by reorganizing the security
office, and cutting down on the number of
employees. Then they tried, without suc-
cess, to ship him off to study at the War
College. Now he fa b,:ing fired for cooperat-
Sng with the Senate.
And tomorrow is Gtepka Day. It stands
88 a symbol, not of one-man's lost job, but
of s fundamental aici:nesa in the State De-
partment. Behind tt,e forefga policy fleei-
sions of the United $;atea stand the men of
the State Department, Otepka Day is a dap
for reckoning. __
[From the Tulsa (O~ ~) World, Sept. 28,
A $IQffi.Y :3II8PECT FLAP
Surely the Department of State should
be able to perform better than it has over the
Sap that seems to be developing in the case
of a departmental security officer, Otto F.
Otepks.
Otepka has been t,anded a Stela Depart-
ment letter of charifea, which !s the fore-
runner to dismissal unless cause can be
shown discharge woitid be unwarranted.
Strangely. the case involves. fn part at least,
Otepka's submitting to the Senate Internal
Security gubcommit xe departmental infor-
mation that is cfasstfled or secret.
ha8 come oa,ecc,on., Vv w+o r~? ?~?-~?-? - rtment, he
handling of the Otepka case. Prom way off able aecu~ity activttiea in the Depa
Dallas. Tea.. Robert: Morrie, former chief was tired.
counsel for the sub,~mmittee, said he had It appears that the State Department is
been informed Otei?ka'e dismissal ~ ratiion petencetthan nizootfng out aubveraives.m-
pvshed by reason of his too close coops
With the subcommtt,tee. Morris insists the The Otepka case must serve as a focal point
cofninittee 1s entitle?i to the lnfarmation. for justifiable concern over the subversion
It is a sensitive situation all around. of national sectu'1ty.
IS the Morris view fa correct, it would _
apgetir the State Department has been high- (From the Times, Oct. 19, 1963 )
handed in seeking tr, protect !ts records from
warranted scrutiny by a top congressional SexrrY rx Iprg7iNAL BscvsiTY
group. By the cams token, the case seems How far the Nation has moved from the
to furnish further evidence that Washing- escesses of the McCarthy era >e reflected in
ton's bureaucracy has reached a dangerous the instructions the Defense Department has
point of untonchatdiity !t Congress, Which ls6ued ~ the Armed Forces to respect "law-
prosides its wherewithal, is refused informs- ful civil and private rights" of persona ques-
tion on its internal workings. honed In security investlgattons. 3peclfl-
Certatnly the Department mag have every fly excluded under the new guidelines are
bit of evidence it needs to dismiss Mr. inquiries into such matttm ss whether an
Otepka. It is also p~~saible Otepka's projected individual considers himself a liberal or a
disDllssal is not base solely upon Mr. Morris' conservative or whether he belongs to the
understanding of the evidence: yet, this has National Aaaoctstlon for the Advancement
not been denied. of Colored People.
Otepka has serval as security evaluations It !s, of course, shocking to think that
.-...,...e,., ..,,d wnm .. ,..+iir,.,?o aecurtty officer Wottid have ever
quired as to the posaibtfity of bringing Alger
Hlsa hack into the D^parunent.
Hiss, who served as a State Department
adviser during the Yalta Conference, was
convicted of perjury during the Truman ad-
ministration. He denied before a Federal
grand jury he had served as a relayman for
passing official documents to a Soviet agent.
The documents were produced and-Hiss was
convicted.
Th1a is the man who has been in and out
01 the limelight since he was released from
prison in the mid-1950'e. He appeared on
an air "interview" entitled, "The Political
Obituary of Richard Nixon;' shortly after
the latter had been defeated Sn the Cali-
fornia gubernatorial contest in 1962. And
now it seems his name is up for reconsid-
eration by the State Department.
The former Vice President had headed a
congressional committee which unHi~ ebred tlin
evidence of perjury concerning
1948-~19. When this came out in the open.
St provided the Republicans a springboard
for the i9b2 elections.
As a result, the liberals never forga4e
inside the State Department that, whereas dreamed of asking such quescaona ++. ~..,~ ...,o- ?-...~~? - rind le of see King
Otepka doss have a reapoaslbilfty for working guided believe that the answers would fro- incident nor even the p P
with congressional security forces, he does vide an index of loyalty. Yet evsn more out- out Communists !n government while he
not have the authority to divulge specified rageoua invasfona of lndtvtdusi conscience served as Vice President or during the 1960
information or information zealously guard- he hr f de not IdcCarthylsm iaydpecadedur~e in ca$ p` i~e hastily thought out "Political
ed by the Departmeht. y y Obituary of Richard Ninon" complete with
A missing link i z the Hap is the absence The whole tone at the new lnstructtona. the a arance of Alger Hiss was supposed
a1 congressional f ztRreat in the case. AL sent out lest November but not previously ~ 1ndl~te Hiss was now dancing figuratively
least there has Been no Beaate subcomm-t- brought Lo public attention, Ss one of regard
tea move publicly to defend Otepka's tight for free thought and expression. hThe Amseera o ~ Q~p~ s leads are based on solid sub-
to continuance on the job. Scan Cfvii Liberties Union has rig p P
Secrecy In public office fa repugnant !o the the memorandum as a ' algnlflcant forward stance, and Hiss indeed returns to the Fe -
' in adjusting the Pentagon's security eras payroll as a State Department employee,
American people. If the State Department step' ++m to fuller observance of constitu- he will be able Lo dance on any number of
facie justified in lie plans to dismiss its se- Pry
curitp official, sure: y it has rho responsibility tional rights. National strength is best pro- person's graves. It will also Indicate t ere
for making that jLStiflcatlon apparent. Too tested by the establishment of a sound bal- Sa still a mess to be cleaned up in Wash-
much secrecy. as life Department seems to be once between the need for guarding legal he tn~ a result of Otepka's testimony, only
displaying, is as bE.d or worse than too much subversion and the need for reepec g th:.ee other State Department employees were
COnt7eraatton on [enaftive national secrets. privacy of tpdivfdual beliefs.
We think further enlightenment is called [From the f~Lr~ i T~' News-Star,
for from ail parties to the Otepka case. far
the bureaucracy has no more privilege to Govssxee~r'i' SECVarrY Rises
prosecute is secrecy than do the courts of Several days ago, the case of OtW OtePka,
America-and it has no such privilege. ,lg_year-old chief of the evaluation division
[From the Perth Amboy (x.J?) Newa, Nov. 22, !n the State Department's office of security
1983) made secondary news. Accounts said
Otepka had p: seed along confldentiai State
OrsPiu CAas RArsES SacvarrY Qoxcsax Department information to a Senate sub-
Congressmen and ether officials concerned committee and had been given 10 days to
with the scope of Communist influence in explain why to the Department's satisfaction
tht State Department will keep alive the case or lose his post.
of Otto F. Otepka. What sort of cat was Otepka about to let
It will not be filed quietly in some dark oaui~L ~ ~e ekFSd $utisnewsq stories were
nook at the Department.
The latest of the shocking disclosures fa sketchy. rticular interest in this
the Otepka case is the clear-cut evidence The story to of pa
that high State Department officisle were part of the country because the Senate Inter-
"out to get" the dismissed security officer. nal Security Subcommittee works under the
Two high-ranking officials resigned (un- Senate Judiciary Committee-headed by Mis-
der presure) recently because they attempt- sisslppl's Senator Jexas O. ]i,'ASTLAND.
ed to "bug" Otepka's telephone. Another personality involved indirectly is
These officials, little more than hatchet- farmer State Department Adviser Alger Hiss.
men, conceded that the electronic device In digging into the information furnished by
they used felled and wee removed. Otepka, who has cooperated in the past with
Otepka's "crime" was cooperating with the congressional committees with Bute Depart-
chief counsel of the Senate Internal Security maul approval, the Senate probers have un-
Subcommlttee. (State Department otflctala covered an effort within the State Depart-
call this "leaking" classified lnformatfon to smeecuritp rick ~ineluding Hiss-to make their
Congressmen.l
The issue >a simple: Des Congress have wny back to the payroll.
the right to right to find out what is going According to information secured by Col-
on iII the State Department and what se- amulets Robert S. Allen and Paul Scott,
cutfty risks are being shielded by that sworn testimony before the subcommittee
agency's entrenched bureaucrats? revealed that one of the central figures in
It !s no overatmpllflcatio~Wmsaithat'li lea semis antaStcretarpgof State for Internattoai
the years, the State Dap Po
have been questionable, ii not downright Affairs.
suspect Cleveland touched n8in rseveralt persons
There have been many questions raised Department by appo g
on subversives fa the State Department In with questionable security backgrounds to
recent pears. ~ ~ an advisory committee to study the staffing
_ _.__ _ _ _, ..._ ... ,,.,a>,..n.,. in international organizations.
Approved For Release 2005/01/05 :CIA-RDP66B00403R000200200016-9
 questlonen pv tine aenars surwommiticee. its cniei securi~y ev ai uw~iviin viuucr. ~. sac cncvu~avo Fri. v==cg~. ..++~~+~=?=5 o..a~.,~ww=...-
3'hen ~s~y~,usTs instituted- a ruling Senate Internal Security Subcommittee partment officials rem-sin away irom the
v!hexe no a 'loyee could testf~ before the chairman Senator Txona/+s S. Donn, Demo- subcommittee and give it no information.
~pn~~tee out his advance ra" royal crat? of Connecticut, wend so far as to view Otepka freely cooperated with the
_ .r~
J ~. ~ ~ e coube sett ano er c~"sh Otepka's t=iring as r`a serious challenge to re- "` a~mmittee`.
be~y~egn3fa aena~e, commi~~ee anc~_~ie Mate sponsible government." Chairman EASTLnNn, aP the subcommi~titee,
?. _
_~
,Uepartmen`~ which cou`Ici s~ialte ~ e country ?it the other extreme a Mate l5epartxnent iw"minerited, "The powers of Congress are
ifo ~ so ~tlian did ,the investigal;ione of :.the spokesman tying to prove that Ote ka was at stake, and I intend to protect Mr. Otepka
~...
Iate Sena{o .foseph McCarthy. `~"out oi' s?ep `wit11 the times," made t e ridic- by every rneana 'at my command against
' 'But trimtime, ?he" chief pralier`s will be ulous assertion that the ISe~artment "has- hccusations which complain, in effect, that
$enators,~AMES ~. EABTI.AND, 04 Ivlississipp! nq security risks and he knows it." he -told the truth when asked to do so by a
a11C],~1.'$OMABDODD aP Conn`ecticut both con. 'We would be equall~* astonished if the -Senate subcommittee:'
serriitive ;~emocrats State fSepartiment were proved i00 percent ""' There can be no doubt that tills case
"`; ~~j .~~"`~-="~ ~~ ~ " ~` , pore or i4 Otepka's removal crusliec'C respori- "~ ects an intention by tha Kenned~ ad-
[From ?he l~few`~it`ork 'Yiimea l+Yov, ~~ i$63]^ sible government. The truth of the. matter nistration to conduct a purge of pa riots.
? `~: "The subcommittee Peels that the often mis-
3 1 EssroNAr. UrmERGRO'[TNn `: seeiis "to be-that thfa ?s merely a`case 1u
'~'H$ ;~,igNGR
-:Tike dratxaats c ~tuin in the Ote ka securit ` 'vCiiich zeal outstripped ud ent. used doctrine oP executive privilege can be
y -A State Department inquiry indicated that claimed Only by the President, not by any
..pk1,g?--rafaJng que~s~ions about ~~e $a,ctfcs of -.Otepka had fed classified documents to the bureaucrat who Peels like thwarting Congress.
file accuses as well as the. accuse-threat-,.,,.mate subcommittee in defiance of his su- vi'e trust that the Senate will press this cen-
is11S to gb`sr~ure the real issue involved If, tral int, for if it lets the issue o de-
a~w b~iai'gecf dtepka s ~?ta~e 15e~partment 'periors at State. However noble his put- fain p Con ress will soon find itself ham-
. ,pocli,Ser~ ~~rSplo~ed dubious eavesdropping Pose may have been, if this be true it was an strux~i b the bureaucra in lookin into
-act of disloyalty to his employers and he g y cy g
rocedures a lust him and then deceived a
~ - ~' should scarcely expect to be rewarded. any facet of public business whatsoever. It
~exu~te ~ lttee about t~u actions, ., .,.At the root of the trouble is the ever- would be salutary if it invoked its powers to
t ~Ii
'`
liit~).e t~~~llna~ measures agains
e
em ..present ]ealousy and bickering between the punLsh for contempt.
ekioyklt7 b~ en ut none o4 ~tliis~ in, it- .".legislative and executive departments. Sen- Meanwhile, it should exert its utmost
s~14 exonerates e~t~ier fir ~fz~&a ar the Sen- ator Donn was delighted to have a pipeline efforts to safeguard Mr. Otepka's career
ate ~ntex1ial Seeljri$~p SubcainmitEee from _ ,.into State, shortcutting the usual route via through avenues of appeal which ultimately
Criticisrsl_, #pr th~j_ practiced ng wh~h they the head of the Department. .He says that Permit reviews of his case by Secretary Ruek
,,~sigaged. _ ~ Otepka's violation of executive department and President Kennedy. We have no great
Tl~e espe~ti~l ~ in tli~?~teplza case are ....orders was "only technical." One may won- faith that there wlll be sympathy for Mr.
S).6t in dis~~te Mr Otepka a State bekiait- .der if the Senator would be as lenient iY Otepka in any of these quarters, for it-is ob-
tfektt seciir ty o`iii'~er turned"over confidential ,secrets held by his committee were leaked vious the administration was out to get him,
tlocuPrieriks on~o~alty and aecurlt matters -~ the executive branch. and did. These are the kind .oi rewards a
~'to~the Sena?e su~coxi3m7tte~ w~?hou~authori- Ote ka's ac uaintance with the State De- loyal American can expect irom a crowd
rrafa.,,, P,..,'.., 4.YQ"Q,`,..o;-T;,,.~ ...~'~sta S,o 'has P q --' .. - - --
ice 9oixl;n SS and ultimatel to_ the r`"b"". '" '" "`"." ".." "" "`"" rw"""' `"" ?~'"?'"
-preliminary judgment on the security cre-
'~S'tii~s e c3 , r nab the pun"is ment m-
~e]f on him is~ro er and le al is best dentials of more Washington officials than
~,,o~sq ~ - - ~ g ~ --- -- -has any other person.
""''"gam there - -He will have a chance to appeal his dis-
T'he di'stl~rbin~ aspect o4 the case is that .missal. But on the showing thus far it would
bSrth 11fix ~tepka and rr~embers aJ' the Sen- _~ppear that he set himself a different stand-
it~ su~oanlit~ee have cl~~xl~g tlz~Sr aq ward of security than he helped impose on
'iio~ on grounds ct `kiigher lo~aft~ his . others.
ie'a mattEx t1~at does beyond file olear right
a~ cgpgressfonal committees to Inves~ti"~ate , " ., . _.. _ ,, ~ _ _ _ _ ._. _. _...
CitQCSitive ,a;~encies'. f~?derlyy procedures are [From the Chicago Tribune, Nov. 7, 1965]
es~e~itlal 1~ tkle Yit~ c~ivisi9~ ol: rawer be- Wum SENATE FrcHT2
?_ -:-Internal Security Subcommittee during-the
tvPeen tl;e legislative and executive brancfiea The Stiate Aepartment has~eliown its con-
ie,xiot to b~~uilder~slined T~~ ,.e of ~'u?id~r- ~tcxnpt for the prerogatives of the Senate and Truman administration. Representative H.
groiiiid"' metlioc]s to obtain classified docu- Sts indifference to security risks within its R. GROSS of Iowa, a Republican, terms the
~'m~xiirts fxQr'rk lower {gvgl o~;c u~ ~~,~iang_er- own-ranks by dismissing its. ChieY Security reported threat an outrage.
According to real re orts, the man in
Sure f~roxn. such er~y procedures Evaluations Officer It did so in the face a P D
y - ~ ~ question dealt wi h the epartment's secu-
1~?d nppwheretire so Khasi t~~,}?Siersp# lfly a direct warning carried by a member of the rity inPOrmaticn. It is 4urther reported that
~.lt and sacu ty: Senate Internal Security Subcommittee to
e a accused of viola Execut a order
fihe McCarthy era amply demonstrated the Secretary of State Rusk. tang an iv
~~buses ~a~ c~.rt ~'rgkJ1 th? publicizing The victim of the purge,_Otto F. Otepka, by giving information fn his care to the
"~-rave m~{;gT1~S ~ro~17y ~gyalt Piles IInder an is a veteran of 27 years of Government serv- senate committee. The order in question
~xeCUtive ,grt~er is,~ue~i ~ ,~9~$~ the author- ,ice ,For,tJhe last 1Q?]~Q has~ee,}7,,th~~0.bf1 vg~iSl Provided that records on the loyalty of Gov-
t9at14,ia SYX .t~ke I~:es~clerkt lxel~ ~ required gives security clearances _ to State Depart- ~sTnmerit employees were to be kept fn con8-
bePore loyaf'ty ~n4ormation is turned over to ,meet employees. So well and efficiently did dente in the executive branch.
Congressional committees `? he perform that in 1968 he was awarded the According to the Constitution the Gov-
rnment is divided 1 ee t
"? `t'he clesirabi~iiy_of such a limitation was State Department's Meritorious Service a nto thr separa e
"It heI ixi he re crt of th
'tee iIi $~~ at ~ ~ e select commit- Award branches, the executive, legislative, and
Late SenatPT 1V.~cCarthy It ~Pi~~7#~ 01 tie ~.ut ,as SenaA.or_Donn,, 04 Connecticut has " Judicial. None is actually independent of
~ '~ ' , ~u the others but none can ive orders to the
ndorsed the Pres- said, in the topsy-turvy world oP the State g
_ other either. Con essman Gaoss asserts
Ident a dower to safeguard from public dis- Department, the idea is to catch, the cap ~
eLkiiitki}tlok7i'~ iniprxn~tf~9~i o~~tl~i~ ~, 'not- and. , not _ the culprit.. So charges were that the Senate committee ".had every right
with~tazi~islg that the regulations might. in- brought against Otepka for, having engaged to know" the information it is supposed to
siireCtly inteiif"e"ie with any secret transmis- in conduct unbecoming a diplomatic officer- have received. That is a debatable point
~, ~eQR tl~e C` ?'~ a ~?"' - de endin u on the nature of the informa-
91q ? 1131q,. bCt ~ X4'Ctitiv~.,,~mployeea namely, in collaborating with -the Senate Se-_ P g P
i
The same report;: criticized failure of , file
Conpiess or anp Member to adapt itself or
himsQlg tg~ rea~s3ab1Q, regulations.. by the
Presis]e~t.. r , his, authotlze~ ,., department
heads ? ~'`~*~witla; }~espect_ to,matters invQly-
ing national security.' _ _.
' ?~'iie Sex~a~e ~nt~fi~al Security 8ubcommit-
'des w131 )?erg protect American principles by
heeding this admonition
C~om the,,G~hica~o,~Ill) News~Novi 9 1963]
I3oyp~ ,5'T.,p}~I)A~Iji) 9If 4'Ca'~
on. The question to be settled, however,
curity Subcommittee. He was accused of t
having disclosed secret Department docu- is whether it ,had the right to obtain the
menu to Senators, information as it did or, more precisely,
In the Department it was said that Otepka whether the State Department employee had
"is out of step with. the times." A spokes- the right to give !t as he did.
-
the constant complaints related to
man remarked, "We are not witch hunting One of
any more. We haye_no security risks,. and loyalty information in the past was that
-
he
knows it." The Senate subcommittee's unevaluated, unverified information-gos-
reaction is one of skepticism. Its investiga_ sip-was tossed into the public record caul-
tion of De rtment wire ullin to icture g y o nnocen
` ~ ~ y p "~ P~ " ~ o en d d, r~ht to tpersons Congress did
cast~q as the "fiber to o Clxba and,. of aa, his kind or to use it as
there's othing k nikylin the Depardtmentthat However, the claim
that Representative
;A good. Beak of nonsense h~a_ e?~iiax~t~e~ security practices, or -lack of them, in the Department aids are employed by Congress
from both sides ip.~,ile ~sgute Cvet.tllS State Department. It was hampered by a Depart- and should respond with information in
Apps?ved For Release. 2005/01/05 :, CIA-RDP66B0040~ROOd20fl200016-9
[From Glen Falls (N.Y.) Post-Star, Oct. 2,
1963]
ANOTHER OUTRAGE
Washington is able to live only so long
before, periodically, it is confronted by a
clash between the rights of the executive
branch and those of the legislative branch.
The latest case concerns a State De-
partment officer who reportedly laces dia-
 Approved For Release 2005/01/05 :CIA-RDP66B00403R000200200016-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE Dece~cber ~0
This man wsa under Department orders and
thoso are the orders he should have obeyed.
As a matter of tact ~Ae do not know that ho
didn't; he is only ace need of "leaking" iaior-
mation. However tl+at may be, he is respon-
sible to hie superio~B, not to Congress.
>S Representative Gaoss sinCarelp believes
that an outrage is being perpetuated--
legallp perhaps-one is tempted to offer a
suggestion. Why ac.t give this man a posl-
tfoa with one of Lhn congressional commit-
tees? Or would these committees feel that
their secrets would not be sale with him
[From the Rockford (111.) Register-Republic,
Oct. li},1963)
Moan EvmsNCa n' Asic TwrsTrxo
Two new ncident3 thin week were added
to the growing pile cf` evidence that the Naw
Frontier will go to great lengths to apply
the liammerlock to i+ny person who dares to
disagree with the pellet' of the moment.
Otto F. Otepka, veteran Chief of the Evalu-
atlons Division of the Btate Department's
Becurlty Office, charged that he has reason
to believe that hie o[6ce telephone had bean
tapped and that his desk and safe have been
opened and searched "with the knowledge
and approval of my ~{uperiora, tr not by their
express direction
Otepka got into hot water with his aupe-
riots when he allegedly gave classified infor-
mation to the Benat?l Internal Security Sub-
committee. Otepka said he did not furnish
any information until confronted with te~ti-
mony by his auper:.ors which appeased to
make him a liar under oath.
Then, Senator Ara~eT Goan, Democrat, of
Tennessee, charged that the Democratic Ns=
tioael Committee we,a attemgting to use the
tea reduction bill ta at wc?rk here and the case of
Otepl_a Ss a classic: example of divided
loyalty.
Otepka has said h.' will appeal. Sin dis-
missal is subject to review by Secretary of
state Deaa Rusk anal President gennedy.
In the meantime, :sow about some guide-
lines for people like Gtepka? There wlll cer-
tainly be others in the Suture.
[From the Gree:ZVllle (S.C.) News,
ATav. 3,1863}
WaaN Dm Tsls Baxoi+sx s CancE?
Tho curious case of Otto F. Otepka is
bound to have serious regercusafona in Wash-
iagton for maap wee'as to come.
Mr, Otepka was Sled by the Department
of State on offfcial grounds of "conduct un-
becoming an officer" of the Department.
Btrfpped of officialese, this means that Mr.
Otepka got caught giving the Renate In-
ternal Security 8ubco~nmittee information on
State Department po:tcles and policymaktrs
involved la the Cuban situation.
'fie is accused of turning over classified
documents and helFing prepare queaiionr
for J. G. Sourwine, au'~committee chief coun-
sel, to put to witnesses during as investiga-
tion into the Cuban saisls.
Already members o; the subcommittee are
protesting the act' on. Benatoa THOasAs
Dona of Connecticut, a Democrat, interprets
the dismissal of Mr. ~~tepka as s direct slap
at Senate authority Fwd sa a "serious chal-
lenge to responsible government."
Senator Donn polnia out that Mr. Otepka
is not charged with having fataifled informa-
tion but with simp:.y handing the group
some facts it might fad useful in its eIIorts
tv preserve the Natioa'e security.
Although the punishment meted out to
Mr. Otepka is seven, hie actions are not
unprecedented. Officals in eaecutive de-
partments have "leaked" information to
Members of Congress [rom time out of mind,
just ae Congressmen have 'leaked" lafor-
mation from Capitol Hail,
Adnlirais have leak~xl information boIater-
ing their case against the Army sad Air
Force. The Becuritiea and Exchange Com-
mission has been accused of Ieakiug reports
on its proceedings ir. cases. And who can
surpass Brother Bobby's Justice Department
for skillful leaking ~tt progress reports on
criminal cases?
Is anyone prepared to propose that the
middle 8ennedy brother be Bred for giving
out "secret" informa~lon?
The eaecutive dap utment, the Congress
and enterprising reporters have ail benefft-
ted from this loose handling of ao-called "se-
cret" information. On balance, we are sure
that the American public Ilan benefited es
well.
But rarely it ever leas s member of a de-
partment been Bred ice this almost common-
place act. If it should become a hard and
Past precedent the oivii service rolls will
shrink to almcet aotlsng_
It >E hard to underetand,whg Mr. Otepka's
"crime" is any more heinous than the thou-
sands which have i;one before. It leads
almost inescapably G~ the conclusion that
the State Department has something dread-
ful to fear from such leakage.
The Senate Interne! Security Subcommit-
tee should launch an. immediate iavestlga-
tion Hlto the State De,Jartment'a suapictousiy
harsh treatment of aai old and able employe.
We shall look to Senator OLrN JaHxaxoN, a
member of the aubccmmittee, for a report
soon.
[From the Lansing (Mich.) State Journal,
Nov. B, 1863 }
QTSP#A'a QVSTta Di$Tl/$an4G
The dismissal Tuesday of Otto F. Otepka
from his ]ob as chief ~curity evaluaLtoas
Dinar Scu the II.S. BtaLe Department raises
new and disturbing questions ea to what's
going on Sn Washington.
Otepkti was fled on charges of conduct
"unbecoming an officer of the Department o1
Bute" IInder suspenalon since September
29, be was accused among other things of
giving confidential information to the Sen-
ate Internal Security Subcommittee.
The ouster of Otepka recalls n column we
published a few weeks ago in which Wash-
ington aziters Robert S. Allen and Paul Scott
reported that Senate probers digging into
the case "uncovered a backstage effort with-
in tine State Department to clear the wag for
a number of former security risks, including
Alger Hiea, to worm their way back onto the
Government's payrolls as either employes or
consultants."
Otepka reportedly was so shocked by the
activities of one of the central figures la the
maneuvering in behalf of the former se-
curity risks that he sent a aeries of reports
to his superiors, including one that urea
routed through channels to McGeorge Bundy,
President Bennedy'e chief White House ad-
viser on foreign policy.
Otepka was quickly placed under surreii-
btnce sad then removed from security opera-
tions, according to the Allen-Scott report,
and charges of "misconduct," involving the
alleged turning over ad documents to the
Senate subcommittee, Were Aled against him.
Senator THOatAS J. ffoaa, Democrat, of
Connecticut, attacked Otepksb ouster as an
affront to the subcommittee, which he heads.
and to the Senate ae a Whale.
"In the topsy-turvp world o1 the State De-
partment, 'security violations' have come to
mean not the act od turning over informa-
tion to an alien power but the act of giving
[ntormation to s 8eaata subcommittee,"
Dona told the Senate.
'The charges boil down to the simple fact,"
Dona said, "that Otepka teatiffed honestly
before the subcommittee about matters relat-
ing to security in the Department ai State:'
The Senator also said the! the State De-
partment in the Otepka case has !n atfect
nullified statutes eatsbllshiag the right of
Government employes to furnish information
to Coagresa and has "issued a warning to all
empioges who cooperate with the Interasi
Security Subcommittee that the giving of
testimony unpalatable 1a the higher eehelone
of the Department >a a crime punishable by
dismissal."
Raked about the case st s news conter-
ence October 8, President S:eanedp said, "I
will examine the matter myself, when tt
comes time to Lake any dlscipllnary actions,
if such a time does come."
Evidently somebody In the State Depart-
ment decided the time had come Tuesday.
It raises the question of whether 8ennedy
did ezaaiine the case and, if so, whether he
goes along with the dangerous notion that
security officials are supposed to guard the
the security o[ departmental officials against
congressional inveatigatians or the security
of the Nation against Sts enemies.
(From Liu Anniston (Ale.) Star, Nov. 7, 1883 [
BSdTa DasASTS[aNT THmwa BooaxsANa
There are some painful and unanswered
questlona left in the wake of the State De-
partment's ffi'liIg of Otto F. Otepka, !ta chief
eectuit; risk evaluator.
Although the evidence is not yet conclu-
sive. the Department may be the guilty
P~Y-
It may be guilty of getting rid of an oiHcer
who had the disconcerting habit of providing
Congress with keys to unlock the musty
valets where evidence of official mistakes are
kept.
Second. it opera the Department and the
entire administration to charges by the fev-
ered rtghtwing that-may stick.
Two of the 13 specific charges against
Otepka accuse him o1 preparing questions for
a Renate Internal Seciuitiea investigator.
The committee was conducting an inquiry
into the reasons the State Department did
not know that Fidel Castro would turn sour.
While it is a natural instinct to tilde mis-
takes, the. airing of these mistakes la a basic
safeguard of our governmental system,
The ability of Congress and newsmen to
present to the American public the whole
record-both good and bad-affects the flow
of information with which we can make a
judgment about whether an administration
should be reelected or turned out.
Critical ezamination fa equally as vital 1n
Democratic aQminiatrations a8 !n Republican
administrations.
t?t course, the fact that Mr. Otepka is the
chief aecuritg risk evaluator 1r lricidentai.
But the frantic rightwing will probably
translate his tiring as an attempt by the ad-
ministration to protect the "thousands of
Communists in the State Department."
These charges, when they came we will
brand sa patently false because the sources
that make them never have evidence, only
suspicion.
Certatnlp, Government empiopeea owe their
auperi~s loyalty. Thep can and should be
replaced tf they are not doing s good job.
Carefully prepared leaks aimed at specific
personalities in say department involving
tnformatlon it 1d sat necessary for the public
to know to evaluate an administration could
be oansldered a Bring offense.
But, ii the whole case against Mr. Otepka
la no more damaging than providing clues
to a Renate Committee to get answers that
should be found, the State Department it$eli
will be on trial far his Bring.
(From the Evansvllle (Ind.) Press,
Nov. 13, 1883]
OTEPKA CABS Pare SPOTLIGHT ON NASTY
CoNDrrwN Ar STATS
IL sounds like a pretty mess at the State
Department with one official fired for slip-
ping unauthorized information to Congress
and three others charged with snooping on
the Brat man, then denying it to a commit-
tee of Congress.
Otto F. Ottpka, former Department Secu-
rity Risk Evaluator, provider the aBair with
its asset--the Otepka case. His dismissal
war based, among other things, on the charge
he 'gave a senatorial committee confidential
information from security files ao touchy !t
is supposed to be released only with the-per-
aonal approval of the President.
He has a right to appeal but it the charges
stand up he clearly was insubordinate and
ought to stay fired.
Senators defending him, including such
powerful figurer ar Doaa o1 Connecticut and
EASTI.Axn of itiieaiaeippt, consider the case a
teat of the powers of Congress as opposed to
the Executive powers of the President. This
recurring conflict provides the case with
added drama.
Senator Donn demands that instead of fir-
ing Otepka, Lhe Department get rid of three
other officials, at least two of whom denied
to a Senate subcommittee they had installed
a 1latening device is 1Sr. Otepka's office, then
later adimltted it. These charges are under
investigation. These men, tt seems to us,
also have placed their jobs in grave jeopardy,
Approved For Release 2005/01/05 :CIA-RDP66B00403R000200200016-9
 1963 Approved' Fo~~S~Qc)1'V-A~.O~tEGUx1TP~~t~'~000200200016-9 h4125
1f not for spying on__Otepka, then for mis-
1.eaS1ing the Senators. '
But ;sly question of degrees oP guilt aside,
the ~np~den~ lifts the curtain of a nasty in-
ternal Condition at -State which is highly
disturbing.
This is tiZe Department which works in. a
thou."sand Wid~s to u ~lOld tie dignity of the
United estates aroun~= the world; and to keep
us out of war. Virfiether speaking to Con-
gress oT` to s8hruslichev the Department
should speak `with one voice and that voice
should be tle~voice of the 5`egretary of State.
if tenure ~T'inposec~ _b' Civil- Service regula-
tions prevents this an~ institiz~ionalizes dis-
harlnpny, then there is something badly
.wrong with Civil Service zegulations. `The
security of the United S"totes, upon which
the smooth function of this Department
measixrably depends; is vastly more impor-
tent than the right of_an uncooperative Gov-
erlment employee to hold on to his job.
[From the Knoxville (Tenn.) News-Sentinel,
Nov. 13, 1963]. ,
~ZSCORI) AT STATE
It sounds l'(ke a pretty mess at the-State
Department with one official fired Por slip-
ping unauthorized information to Congress
and three others charged with snooping on
the, first'man,`then denyirigit to a committee
of G~ongress~ .., _ -_ ,
Otto Otepka, former~Department security
risk evaluator, provides the ail'air with its
name-the dfizpka case. Iitis disriilssal was
based, among other things, on the charge
he gave a senatorial committee confidential
information fro security files so touchy it
is supposed toe, released only with the
personal approval of the President.
~Ia has a right to appeal but if the charges
stand up he alearly was Ynsubordinate and
ou~`ht to stay fired.
Senators., defending him,. including such
powerful figures as 'DoDD oP Connecticut and
EA3TLAND af-Mississippi, consider the case a
test of the powers of Congress as opposed
to fdie executive , pgwers of the President.
This recurring conflict provides the case with
added drama.,
Senator -bonD demands -that,- instead of
firing Otepka, the Department get rid of
three other. ofilcials,, at least two of whom de-
Hied to a Sexiate subcommittee they had in-
stalled a ,listening device in Mr: Otepka's
office, then later aihnitted it. These charges
are,,.und.er, investigation.. These` men, it
seems, to use also have pYaoed their jabs in
grave jeoparcfiy, if not for spying on Otepka;
then far misleading the Senators.
Byit all question oP degrees of guilt aside,
the .incident lifts the curtain on a nasty
internal conc(ition atState -which is highly
disturbing. .
'I'Yiis, is the, Department which works in a~
tholdsan~} ways to uphold the dignity of the
United States around the wor"1d and'to keep
ids pldt of war. Whether epeakingsto Con-
gress or to Khrtishcfiev, ~ the Department
should speak with one voice and that voice
shoidlfl be the voice oP the Secretary of
State.... ,_ ,.:, , .
If tenure imposed by civil service regula-
tioxis prevents ths'and ixistitutionalizes dfs-
fiarmouy, "then there is "something -badly
wrgn with civil service regulations. The
s~CUr~ty of -the l7nited States, upon"which
thy: smoot~,Yfunctlon oP ibis Department
measurilblp depends, is vastly more impor-
tan~t; than the"right of an uncooperative Gov-
. ernment employee to hold on to his job'.
[From the San Antonio Dews f5'ov $ 1983]
STATE D~pA~TM~ ~,+~ 7~.
I~''9 }IFW _.~,'ECURZTY CASE
Firing of State bepartment seauiity 11i-
vestigator Otto F'. Otepka brings to the tore
once agafli'tlie problem oP independence be-
tweeli e>~ecu~ive and l"egfslative branches oP
the Government.
State Department says is ciassifled informa-
tion to the Senate Internal Security Sub-
committee. Specifically, he offered data for
questions to be -asked by the subcommittee's
staff lawyer.
Otepka very probably violated Depart-
ment rules. The question is whether such
violation was in the public interes~as it
very well could be. At any rate, the subcom-
mittee now is dutp-bound to justify its prob-
ing into whatever it was the Department
finds so objectionable about the disclosures.
State Department-"spokesmen" say the
kernel of the controversy is that "Otepka is
out of step with the times. * ' ? We are not
witch-hunting anymore. " ? " we have no
security risks, and he (Otepka) knows it."
That is a sweeping statement, even naive.
Security clearances are sensitive matters;
they should be handled fairly and carefully.
It3s always a big surprise to find some trusted
Ezfjployee has been some kind of a spy, so ft
is better to err on the side of caution than
on the side of carelessness in security mat-
ters. '
We certainly do not presume to judge the
case. We think that where executive em-
ployes have information they believe to be
for the public good, they should place it
where it will get adequate consideration.
This clearly places the burden of proof upon
the Senate subcommittee to justify what has
been done.
[From the Roswell (N. Mex.) Record; Nov. 7,
1963]
SENATORS KEPT IN DARK?
Why should any information be withheld
from the Senate Internal Security Subcom-
mittee? How can such a committee operate
unless it has all the facts in hand to judge
any case of security violation.
It seems strange to us that Otto F. Otepka
was dismissed from his fob as State De-
partment security of&oer for, among other
things, giving confidential information to
the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee.
Is this a crime? Is this reason Por dismis-
sal?
How can our Senators do their jobs prop-
erly unless they have access to information
concerning security violations. It appears
here that the executive branch of the Gov-
ernment is usurping the constitutional pow-
er of the legislative branch of Government.
Would the same thing happen to a State
Department employee who gave information
to the House Un-American Activities Com-
mittee?
The formal charge against Otepka was con-
duct "unbecoming an officer of the Depart-
meiit of State." _
.Did this conduct merely mean that'the
man was cooperating with the U.S. Senate.
Now, there may be more to this case than
meets the eye. But, it seems to ua that
Senators charged with security matters
should have access to any information that
is pertinent.
.Are the branches of Government in com-
petition with one another-the State De-
partment hiding -Pacts-the Senate and the
Senate forced to scratch Por information.
We feel that the public is due a complete
explanation of Otepka's firing. Does the
State Department consider a request from
the Senate Por information "none oP the
.Senate's business?"
If so, things are in a sorry state.
[From the Knoxville ('Tenn.) Journal, Nov.
matters rebated to national security.
The committee is bipartisan, and over the
years has managed to provide substantial
protection for the Government in this
fashion.
Now the country is Paced by the spectacle
of the firing of the chief security officer of
the State Department by Secretary of State
Dean -Rusk on charges that this career em-
ployee had disclosed departmental secrets.
One might conclude from this bare recital
of the facts in the case of the security officer,
Otto F. Otepka; that this man had handed
over to some potential enemy, such as Rus-
sia, vital information. The fact is that he
is tieing fired because his testimony before
the Senate committee made liars out of sev-
eral of his superiors in the State Department
who had, either in ignorance or purposely,
connived at the employment of persons in
the Department who were doubtful security
risks.
Members of the Senate committee are nat-
urally indignant that Ote~pka has been dis-
missed on charges of conduct "unbecoming
an officer of the Department of State." Sev-
eral of these Senators are predicting the se-
curity o~lcer's reinstatement. Not as a
partisan matter, but as one of concern for
the continued seeking out of subversion, we
hope that the Senators are right.
Of course, Mr. Otepka may be in the proc-
ess oP being blessed if his discharge stands.
We recall that in 1957 the Tennessee Valley
Authority fired Joseph C. Swidler for pre-
paring loaded questions to be asked by U.S.
Senators during the course of hearings on
the confirmation of Arnold R. Jones, nomi-
nated to membership on the TVA board.
Swidler's firing was handled under the cloak
oP resignation, but there was never any
question about the real facts in the case.
This appeared to be a sad blow to Mr.
Swidler's career, but the next thing anyone
knew, he bobbed up as the President's Chair-
man of the Federal Power Commission, a post
which he-holds today. Mr. Otepka may take
some comfort from this occurrence so far as
the future is concerned.
We hope, however, that before he takes a
new job anywhere, he will write a book giv-
ing the American. people the facts on his
discharge and the identity of his accusers.
Subversion is nothing new in Foggy Bottom,
but the only protection against it is full dis-
closure when it appears.
[From the Oakland (Calif.) Tribune, Nov. 7,
1963]
A RIPROARING EVENING
One of the most important developments
in modern political affairs has been the ap-
pearance of a healthy dialog in the realm
of political science.
Basic issues are being explored as never be-
fore. Positions are being articulated with
more skill than has been evident in years.
-..Bay area residents will have a chance to
observe political exchange at its very best in
a few days. On the evening of November 18,
in the Berkeley Community Theater, there
will bo a debate between the eminent con-
servative editor and columnist, William F.
Buckley, Jr., and the distinguished University
of California Professor Joseph Tussman.
To top it off, the moderator of the debate
will be Eugene Burdick, author of the best-
seller, "Fail-Safe."
.The debate will be conducted on the sub-
ject, "Resolved: The Communist Investigat-
ing Committees Have Been Beneficial to the
American People:' Sn other words, Yt will
undoubtedly center upon the activities of
the House Committee on Un-American Activ-
ities, and the Senate Internal Security Sub-
7, 1963]
THE PRICE OF DISCLOSURE
The Senate Internal Security Subeommit-
tee is charged with the responsibility of at-
temptfng to weed out subversive characters
who have had a way, during the past 40 years,
of infiltrating places both high and low in
carries on its worK by summoning witinesses
whose testimony it is felt will shed light on
committee.
Approved.For.P~elease 2005/01/05 :CIA-RDP66B00403ROQ0200200016-9
 2~I~6
Approved Fort;C71vG~~A/~51Z~1 RI3 P6 3`ENATE _000200200016~ecem~ber 20
This particular debate will be conducted
Oxford style, which allows the opgonents
to cross-examine each other. We can searceIy
Iciagfna a more l-vely and enlightening eve-
ning. Soth sa ahec r entertainment, and as
s means to achieve enlightened citi~nahJp,
the debate promisee to be unusually frtiitftri.
R'hy don't you plf.n to see it?
[From the Ch;cago (Ill.} Tribune,
Nov, 20, 1983]
BODE? C~S.ARIYICASr4N
Caught up in tlrelr own and Lhe State
Department's lies, I.wo 01 the Department's
security officials have found it advisable
to resign after Sr;t having been put on
"administrative lea?ve." The two who have
departed uadsr firs of the Senate distia-
guished themselves se the admirrfatratlon's
hatchet men in a campaign to get rid of Otto
F. Otepka, the Department's security evalua-
tions oiQcer.
The State Department had aroused the
anger of a Senate security subcommittee by
firing Otepka after he had testified before the
committee about dirioyalty within the State
Department. The Department accused him
of telling secrete to :he Senators and charged
him 'lYith conduct tmbecoming a diplomatic
officer. Otepka !a st11I on the payroll pend-
ing as appeal.
Called before Lh: committee to expiaia
Lhe charge against Otepka, John F. ReUly,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Btate for Secu-
rity, and Elmer Dewey Hill, .a subordinate,
told the Senators under oath that they knew
nothing of any attempts to tap Otepka'a
telephone.
Last week the twa to be the
standard, then, as Vice Chairman Doaa, of
the Senate subcommittee, charges, the Amer-
Approved For Release 2005/01/05 :CIA-RDP66B00403R000200200016-9
 j963 Approved For / 66 00200200016-9
~~~~ ~e -~~? 24127
ican system of checks and .balances in Gov- a.plan is a Poot to bring Alger Hiss back into ment security officer, the last has not been
ernrnent is ,at stake. ?_ the State .Department as a consultant. heaxd of his Case.
~--'-~ SulacQmmittee members have indicated Otepka has the right of appeal, and the
[From the Cincinnati (Ohio) En_quirer,, that'Mr, Otepka is also concerned about the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee is
Rov. 'f 0, 1983] presence of men of questionable background showing a great deal of interest in how and
CxesING THE PoI.ICEIVfArr _ in Influential State Department assignments. why his dismissal came about.
"(d) The right of persons employed in the Some of them purportedly helped to draw up Facts behind the case. are strange. Otepka
civil service of the tiinite~i States,. either in- the test ban treaty. Others, the same re- was charged with 13 violations of regula-
dividually or collectively, to petition Con- Port goes, are working on additional agree- tions, but most fi not all of these were tech-
' gress, Or any Member thereof, or to Yurnish ments with the Soviet Union. nicaiities. His real "crime" iii the eyes of
faformatio>~ to either House of Congress or Mr. Otepka also is reportedly concerned top State Department' officials, was his co-
to any committee or memher thereof, shall about the Kennedy administration's practice operation with the Senate subcommittee in
-not be denied or interfered with." of granting so-called emergency clearance its Investigation of alleged laxity in security
The foregoing excerpt from a Federal stat- to tap State Department personnel at the in the Department.
ute is )Iasic to the American System of gov- rate of 150 a year (compared with two or Moreover, the State Department apparent-
ernmental Cheeks and balances. It is not a three emergency clearances a year during the It' resorted to illegal wiretapping in its effort
license to the legislative branch of the Fed- Eisenhower administration). This means to get Otepka. Senator THOMAa DODD, vice
eral machinery to abscond with the Consti- that such personnel go to work immediately chairman of the subcommittee, said his
' tutionai preroga$ives of the executive without awaiting the normal procedures group has proof that Otepka's phone was
branch; but it does assure to Congress and through which the State Department and tapped. State Department officials first de-
to its legislative committees the right to other Federal agencies have traditionally nied, then admitted, that at least an attempt
seCUre fife facts. and figures without which Protected themselves from subversives and eas made to do so.
their Members must legislate in darkness. others unsuited for access to Government DODD also reported that Oteplca was
The provision has particular relevance in secrete. locked out of his office, was denied access
view of last Week's. dis~31SSa1 -oP Otto F. A final cause oP concern to Mr. Otepka to his files which were rifled, and was
Otepka for conduct "unbecoming an officer has been the constant juggling ai Office of humiliated before his fellow employes.
of the Department of State: ' Security affairs since the very outset oP the But the heart of the issue is whether a
Another view of the charge against Mr. Kennedy administration. These successive Federal employe should be harassed and fired
' Otepka was offered by Senator THOMAS ,l, reorganizations aroused the concern ai for talking to a committee of Congress. The
Donn, Democrat, of Connecticut, on the Sen- John W, Hanes, who served as head of the subcommittee had aright to the informa-
ate flOQr Tuesday. ``The charges on which office duffing the Eisenhower years. I can tion it wanted.
Mr. Otepka's dismissal is based," Senator only saq," Mr. Hanes declared, that this -
Donn told the Senate, "lwil down, to the either is due to incompetence or a deliberate [From the Memphis (Tenn.) Press-Scimitar,
simple Pact that he testified honestly before attempt to render the State Department's .Nov. 13, 1963]
the $epate Subcommittee on Internal Se- security section ineffective." DISCORD IN STATE DEPARTMENT
cuxity on matters relating to security in the Whatever the specific facts of the case,
Department of State." there has been no hint of partisanship in It sounds like a .pretty mess at the State
the congressional outrage at the anti-Otepka Department with one ofRCial fired ior slip-
. BEHIND oTEr1~A:.q xECORD. of EXCr`y~,ExCE campaign. When the Otepka crackdown be- ping unauthorized information to Congress
Had,he not been singled out fax dismissal, gan, in fact, the full Senate Judiciary Com- and three others charged with snooping'on
6tto F. Otepka very probably would have mittee (of which the Internal Security Sub- the first man, then denying- it to a commit-
devoted his Qn$ire adultaifo_to Government committee is a part) voted unanimously to tee of Congress.
Sgxvice without Coining-to the attention of lodge a formal protest with Secretary of Otto F. Otepka, former Department secu-
the American .public. He has behind him State Dean Rusk. Among those supporting rift' risk evaluator, provides the affairs with
-some 27 years of Government service... In the protest: Senator EDWARD KENNEDY, of its name-the Otepka .case. His dismissal
the course p2 k-is career, he had risen to be Massachusetts, the President's brother. was based, among other things, on the
Deputy Director of the ,State Department's It is small wonder that Senator DODD de- charge he gave a senatorial committee con-
Otfice oY Security and officer in charge of Glared in his Senate speech Tuesday: "In fldential information from security files so
evaluations. His e81c1enCy ratings over the the topsy-turvy attitude it has displayed in touchy it is supposed to be released only
-veers have been nothing but "excellent" the Otepka case, the State Department has with the personal approval of the President.
In 1858, in tact, he was singled out by Sec- been chasing the policeman instead oP the He . has a right to appeal, but iP the
retary of State John Foster Aulles to receive culprit." charges stand up he clearly was insubordi-
a Meritorious Service Award. Senator DODn is unquestionably aware that Hate and ought to stay fired.
Quite suddenly, Mr. Otepka's prospects lie has undertaken a fearful responsibility Senators defending him, including such
changed. in .registering so vigorous a protest against Powerful figures as DODD, of Connecticut, and
-First of all, his State Department superiors a department oP the Federal Government. EASTLAND, of M1ssLssippi, consider the case a
installed a tap on his telephone. (A State He is aware that allegations of incomes- test of the powers of Congress as opposed
Department official SAbsequently denied un- fence-or worse-in the handling of secu-` to the executive powers of the President.
der oatlx that such .Was the case, but the rift' affairs are of the gravest nature. This recurring conflict provides the case with
Senate Internal Security Subcommittee our- ~ are we. added drama.
ports to .have evidence that the tap was in But if the Otepka case is weighed along- Senator DODD demands that, instead of
fact installed.) side the whole drift oY the Kennedy adman- firing Otepka, the Department get rid of three
Then they began to piece together scraps istration in its frantic efforts to .justify an other of&cials, at least two of whom denied
fx Next theOtlocked him ouast het. "accommodation" with international tom- to a Senate subcommittee they had installed
- Y oY his office and munism, there is cause for the deepest con- a listening device in Otepka's office, then
deified him access to his office. Sles-all with- tern on the part of every American. later admitted it. These charges are under
From the wining and dining of J. Robert investigation, These men, it seems to us,
out bringing formal. charges against him. Oppenheimer at the White House to the also have placed their jobs in grave jeopardy,
EVEN ENEMg AGEN'Pa ARE NOT SO TREATED selection of Alexander Meiklejohn (who has - if not far spying on Otepka, then for mis-
'+~ $Enatar DODD told the Senate Tuesday, given his name to a campaign to destroy leading the Senators.
"No one suspected of espionage or disloyalty the House Committee on Un-American Ac- But all questions of degrees of guilt aside,
has to my knowledge been subjected to such tivitfes and to an almost infinite variety the incident lifts the curtain on a nasty ,
surveillance and humiliation." of other leftist causes) to receive a. Fetlaral internal condition in the State Department
that he helped to prepare a series of ques- administration has closed its eyes to what This is the Department which wanks in a
tions ior J. G. Souryrine, counsel to the In- could happen and to what has happened in thousand ways to uphold the dignity oY the
ternal Security Subcommittee, to put to the past. United States around the world, and to keep
State Department witnesses in the Course of Such a line, far from reducing tensions ua out oY war. Whether speaking to Con-
a recent inquiry into U.S. Cuban policy, in today's troubled world, has earned ior the gress 'or to Khrushchev, the Department
Mr. Otepka, it turns out, was- convinced Kennedy administration the contempt oP should speak with one voice and that voice
that the State Department ofRcials -were our enemies, the anxiety oY our Priends and should be the voice of the Secretary of
lying to the Senate subcommittee. the apprehension oP the 180 million Amer- .State.
About othex reasons .for the sudden anti- icans the administration is sworn to protect. if tenure imposed by civil service regula-
Otepka vendetta .there can be and s tions prevents this and institutionalizes dis-
y pecula- From the Texarkana (Tex.) News, Nov. 18, harmony, then there is something badly
tion, The conservative foxtnightly, National wrong with civil service regulations. The
Review, contends. that. Mr. Otepka objected 1963] security oP the United States, upon which
strenuously to the security clearance granted OrTExA REPERCUBSIONa - the smooth function of this Department
to Harlan ~leyelarld, Assistant Secretary oP The firing of Otto Otepka raises a stench measurably depends is vastly more important
State for international organization affairs. in the State Department. Though Otepka than the right oP an uncooperative govern-
An additional Washington rumor has it that has been ejected from his job as a Depart- meat employee,. to_hold on to his job.
No. 211-9
Approved For Release 2005f01/05:CIA-RDP66B00403R000200200016-9
 24128
Approved Fo~r~N~ aRESSIONAZ 05~:~C~IQ~DP~~~3R000200200~1~~cember 20
security officer. the last has sot bean heard of
hi6 Casa.
Otepka has the right of agpesl, and the
Bessie Iateraal Sectirlty 6ubeommittse is
showing a great deal of interest in how and
why hts dismissal came about.
Facts behind the case are strange. Otepka
was charged with 19 viotattons of regulations,
but most it not all of these were technical-
ities. Hie real "crime," in Lhe epee of top
State Department officials, was his coopera-
tion with the Senate subcommittee is its in-
vestigation ai alleged laxStp in security Sn
the Department.
Moreover.. the State Department apparently
resorted to illegal wiretapping to fta effort
to "get" Otepka. Senator Tti01[AS DoDD, vice
chairman of the subcommittee, said hla group
has picot that Otepka's phone was tapped.
State Department officials first denied, Lhen
admitted, that a least an attempt was made
to do so.
Donn also reported that Otepks waa locked
out of his office, was denied access to his tiles
which were rifled, and was humiliated before
hts fellow employees.
But the heart of the issue is whether a
Federal employee should be lyprasaed and
fired for talking to a committee of Congress.
The subcommittee had a right to the in-
formatlan It wanted.
Otepka has been dismissed for telling the
truth-his right under the II.S. Civil Service
Code wlalch states that such "shall not be
denied nor tnteriered with :' He has bean
the victim of illegal tactics-wiretapping.
The Senate committee should pursue the
scent.
[F*om the New Orleans (La.) Timea-
Picayune, Nov. 19, 1983]
No TaADE
The resignation of two high offielale in the
Security D[viston of the State Department
who figured to the recent dismissal there-
from of Otto F. Otep"sa, map strike some as
a sort of poetic justice trade-oR.
The immediate cacse of the reaignattona
has to do either wltla belated admission of
using or trying to use S wiretap or "listening
bug" in early stages of a checkup on Mr.
Otepka; or with early denial or disclaimer of
this attempt; or with both.
But behind this development are some
other matters involv.ng officials in the De-
partment and Mr. Otepka wh[ch still keep
alive the question of whether he was justly
treated from the inception, and particularly
with respect to the main gravamen of the
charges against him- the disclosure-tif nomi-
nally "classified" doc~amtnts, etc.
The 8eaate Judiciary Committee is very
disturbed about the `aendiiag of the Otepka
affair by the State Department. Leaving
aside the matter of congresaionai-executive
relations, the picture that has been drawn.
and so far not can;radtcted, is that of a
sealous security officer whose very zeal got
him into hot water; ~~f an officer whose on]g
real recourse to protect himself Sn a situc-
tlon of conflict iaa sworn committee testi-
mony Was to effect declaasiflcat[on, border-
line or otherwise, of certain material. IIati1
these points ale cIe aced up, it cannot be
assumed that anytli ng lees than reinstate-
ment of Mr, Otepka, apart from reafgnations
made or perhaps pending, w[31 serve Justice
is his cars.
[From the Riverside-(Calif.) Enterprise; Nav.
Zl, 1983)
Tea Ot'trsA CASs
Nobodq, but nobody, comes of[ wail In the
case of Otto Otepka.
Mr. Otepka, veteran Chief 6ecur[tp Evalua-
tor in the State Department, was caught
playing footsie with coagresalonaI investi-
gating committees. Not only did he give a
Senate aubCOmmitG~e access to ciaaslfled
personneY files, but ht coached committee
members in methaia of grill[ng his own
superiors.
ThLs is scarcely tolerable behavior, even
assuming that Mz. Otepka was operating
from the purest of patriotic motives. How
can you run a department of government
with this concept of internal loyalty?
But in order to complete the evidence on
which they fired L?u. 4tepka, twa of his
superiors tapped his telephone, rummaged
through his desk and his wastebasket, and
thin falsely denied that they had done ao.
This was sneaky business compounded by
perjury.-oi which the pair may or-may not
have purged themst~Ives by valunteering to
correct their original testimony.
Now tlyeae two men, at first seat on leave
when the case became sticky, have been al-
lowed to resign. Th:~t IB gentle treatment far
such serious trespa:isea. Secretary of State
Dean Rusk, who admittedly has other wor-
ries, nevertheless owed the country a more
indignant reaction.
This does not complete the roll of in-
glorious behavior, Y.owever. Softie Senators
have been overplaying the affair sa much as
Mr. Rusk has been underplaying it. Thty
have been trying to make a hero out of Mr.
Otepka. Shades of the McCarthy era.
The whole thing has been a sorry mess.
And it certainip ha.r turned up no heroes.
[From the Nov 20 1u983j~d.).Star,
OTtrx+- Iisriacussroxa
The flsing of Otto Otapke raises a stench In
the State Department. Though Otepka has
been ejected from hie job as a department
(From the Bridgeport (Conn.) Poat, Nov. 18,
1$83j
QNLY FALTa Aces NILDID
Once upon a time, a radio character made
famous the phrase: "If it's not one thing-
it'a the same thing: ? And, of course there
is that ancient French proverb: "The more
things change, the wort they remain the
acme.'.
Ali of which la an obUque introduction to
soma views an the case of Otto F. Otepka,
erstwhile Security Evaluations Chief of the
State Department. Otepka, it will be re-
called, was Bred seat week on charges that he
had glean confldentiai data about the Ds-
partment'a operations to the Senate In-
ternaY Security Coaamfttee'a counsel without
first obtaining his superiors' consent and
approval.
Seuators snd Members of the Hovae have
arisen in what they abviovsiy believe to be
righteous wrath, fed by Senator TH07SA8 J.
Doan, to defend Otepka end to demand his
reinstatement. The State Department, until
now, has remained adamant in hie dismissal,
which he has the right to appeal.
A71 of this barite back Lo the McCarthy
era and !a the basis for referring to the il-
lusion of change. The late Senator Joseph
McCarthy, Wisconsin Repubilcaa, It will be
remembered, even weal ao far as to appeat
on the Senate floor to Federal employees to
ignore their boasts' orders and provide him
with data tae needed to tuei his machine. It
was mainly because of such tactics that he
eventually was Censured by the-Senate-itself.
Ou the other aids of the coin them >8 an
lnecrlption that requires the rendering to
Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to
this case, ft means information that belongs
to the people, or their duly erected represent-
atives. Congressional inquiries are con-
ducted. sstensibip, to obtain information Sor
use in drafting corrective legislstion, and the
tattcutivt department h6a a duty to provide
it, without lnforcing rules and regulations
that tend t0 make tta o43clsle "squealers" if
they fell their higher layalty-rests with the
Nation rather than with the bureaucracy.
President Eisenhower evidently thought he
had solved tht issue when he accepted re-
aponsibilitp for approving the furnishing, or
refusing to furnish, sensitive data to Con-
gress, astep 1n which President Eennedy has
concurred. But once again, in the Otepka
case, the so-called foolproof solution has
been punctured.
There obviouslq are some areas In which
the national security is involved and which it
would not be ,justifiable tq publicize. We
have enough confidence in the patriotic com-
monsense of moat Members of Congress to
believe they would recognize such areas and
refrain from invading them. On the other
head, the executive departments, and espe-
cisllp the State Department, are iaardinately
jealous of guarding "secrets" that may be
general property.
The methods apparently used to "get"
Otepka are reprehensible, spying on his mail,
tapping hta telephone, locking his tiles swap
from him sad similar tactics that smack.
more o1 college sophomores than responsible
officials to whom our natlonaI policy enforce-
ment is entrusted.
In any sass, the sooner the Otepka case is
cleared, the better everything wail be for a
while until another official decides to let the
Congress "seduce" him.
(From the Sacraments (Calif.) IInlon, Nov.
18, 19$3)
OxErasA's "Rars?rsNSrars" OIISTER
Because Otto F. Otepka, veteran career
officer, was dedicated to national security
and believed Congress aught to know of
security failures, the 3tat Department fired
him yesterday.
8peclflcally, he was discharged for giving
ConIIdential information to a Senate sub-
committee, conduct described as unbecoming
en officer of the Department of State.
The confldenttai Information involved data
on wretchedip bad advice by official State
counselors which contrJbuted to the Gov-
ernment's failure to realize in time that
Fidel Castro was a plain Cuban Red.
Ia it conduct unbecoming an officer to re-
veal facts, involving among others William
Wieland. a top-ranking Stan official, and
the ill informed, stupid recommendations
they made in sugaring over or disclaiming
Castro's communism?
Aze we to believe it more becoming in
the chief security evluation officec of the
Slate Department Lo hldt the shells of grave
errors and incompetence?
Coagreamman H. R. Gaoss, of Iowa, called
Mr. Otepka's ouster "most reprehensible:'
He declared the State officer was fired for
providing a conunittee of 'Congress with
information necessary to show that "other
officfata of Government were not telling the
truth.,.
Acting Chairman DonD of the Senate sub-
committee prevlouaip stated discharge of Irit.
Otepka would be '"a great tragedy," Yndicat-
ing State Department i$ more Interested in
prosecuting employees who want to clean up
the Department Haan employees accused of
practices injurious to naitonai security.
The dismissal of Mr. Otepks, a conscien-
tloua and oourageoua State Department of-
8ciai, is indeed reprehensible. He simply
didn't want sleazy security methods in sensi-
tive areas and fa convinced, as we are, that
far too many dubious characters are en-
sconced in the Department's advisory eche-
lon.
As to the charge made against him of giv-
ing classified information to Congress-that
holds about as much water as a cheesecloth
sieve. .
There Sa a Iong tradition that the executive
department can withhold some documents
from the senate. This, we submit, cannot
govern when the security of the country
is at lassie.
Congress has a right to make security
laws. Zt cannot possibly do so if it doesn't
accurately know the needs.
Approved For Release 2005/01/05 :CIA-RDP66B00403R000200200016-9
 Hpproued For I ~ / bb ~0100Z000'16-9
- 24129
x7963 ?~ _ O~US`~
hould 3erent story.' Summarized' fn news reports Aren't we all for rooting the untrustworthy
It
ni
h
d
s
`
s
s
e
.
is not fi
e
. The Otep~a ca
be appealed: to the Courts ii necessary. the story is that Reilly became suspicious out of sensitive spots and exposing traitors
VGhat frpn~ to punish him for baring State that Otepka might be privately furnishing and spies?
Uepartmen~ occur ty errors and do nothing information to J. Sourwine, chief counsel But we read od State Department em-
~bout the, men`"whd were'friiserably taken in of tyre subcommittee. He and his assistant, ployees attempting to "bug" the telephone
Sb~ the Castro fiim3lam. ' Belisle, discussed a variety of investigative of a security chief of their own branch and
- -- techniques which might be used to deter- quarreling with the Senate Internal Security
[From the Missoula (Mont.) Missoulfan, mine whether their suspicions were correct. Subcommittee over confidential information
I9ov. 16, 1963 ] On March 18, Mr. Reilly asked Hill to "under- about employees.
'VERSIONS ~~DIFFER ON OTEPKA'SDIFFICULTY -take a survey of the feasibility of inter- Ever since the Kennedy administration has
- r ~ cepting conversations in Otepka's office." come into office there has been a general
In 1942, Otto F' Otepka became a war- Hill and Clarence J. Schneider, chief of the loosening of security regulations within gov-
time security officer for the Civil Service technical operations branch, altered the ernmental departments, and a growing tend-
Uommission. He was recruited a year later wiring in the telephone in Otepka's office ency to resent -and resist efforts of congres-
by the late Scott McLeod, a zealous investi- and established a circuit from Otepka's office sional committees to find out what is going
Bator of segurlty risks, as his chief evaluator ~ the Division of Technical Services lab- on and why.
of security clearance at the State Depart- oratory by making additional connections in The administration- continually seeks to
rrient, Now he has been dismissed from the existing telephone system wiring, hide behind the so-called executive privi-
his X18,960 a year joTi, and a State Depart- They declared they were not trying to legs."
Anent spokesman'says"Otepka fs "out of step monitor Otepka's telephone but overhear .The latest incident was dismissal of Otto
CVith the times. We are not witch hunting ~nversations in his office. Later the tele- Otepka, the State Department security of-
any more. We have no security risks, and phone system was disconnected as Reilly ficer who was fired for allegedly giving clas-
he knows it." ~ reported he had found information he was aifled information to a .Senate committee,
However, that is not quite the way Senator looking for from the examination of Otepka's and the subsequent suspension of two de-
THOMAs J'. Donn; Democrat, of Connecticut, classified trash basket. partment employees for giving conflicting
sees it. As vice chalrinan of `the"Senate In- Senator DODD'8 comment was that "al_ evidence on whether they had sought to
rnaY Security Suboomittee, Doan-says that though the State Department official has "listen in" on Mr. Otepka's telephone con-
"dtepka Was fired because he "testified hon- denied under oath that this was done, the versations.
estl~ before the panel on matters relating to subcommittee has proof that the tap was Mr. Otepka's crime is that in testifying
security in the Department of State ? The installed. before the Senate Internal Security Subcom-
dlsm]ssal`was ofi:3~ charges of giving con- 'The State Department official who told mittee on Loyalty Matters, supposedly as re-
$dential cCocuments to the committee, and the untruth is the man who ought to be qufred under civil service legislation, he gave
YUrnishirigf giie?tions to'be asked Otepka's dismissed. - The,_only man dismissed thus some information he should have kept secret.
siiperiors. far is the man who told the truth." Thy seems an odd way to waste the ener-
The Case emphasizes the difficulty Congress Secretary of State Dean Rusk, who is re- ?i~ of Government when, as a Navy flag
haQ in .getting Information oil disloyalty, viewing the Otepka appeal from the dismissal officer pointed out at a recent conference
rYlalfeasance, 'conflict 'oi Interest, or other order, should set this matter straight. ~ ~ ~'p defense industry management officials
wrong$oing in the executive branch o~ the meeting iIt Pomona, ]t is obvious the Com-
C+overnme t. ~ [From the Memphis,- (Tenn.) Commercial iliunists are intensifying their efforts to steal
` Otepka" ts, oY course, entitled `to a State Appeal; Nov. 20, 1983] the secrets of the United States.
Department hearing on the charges. Should No "BIG BROTHERS" The admiral's remarks were not in rela-
decision be against him, he 3s entitled tion to the Washington controversy but in
t0 appeal to the Presiden? and to $he'courts. Otto F. Otepka, a longtime State Depart- regard to industrial security on the part of
Should- the disinissaI be upheld, personnel went security officer who won particular management in a time when. we "are target
of the executive branch oY the ~verriment piafse during the tenure of the late Secre- No. 1 for all others who are seeking to im-
= undoubtedly will- be more reserved In -the terry oY State John F'oater Dulles, dell from prove their political, economic, and military
tutors in~ answering questions of congrea- favor in the hierarchy headed by Secretary positionl'
" '' Dean Rusk. He was fired under accusation
lsfonal investigators. In his annual report for the 1963 fiscal
- - '? ,.:~-:: _~ ~ " 03 leaking iniorxnation to the Senote Inter- year, J. Edgar Hoover, Director oY the Federal
[From the Green Say ('Wis.) Press-Gazette, nal Security Subcommittee. Bureau of Investigation, warned that the
Non 19 1963] Aa a result oY the ensuing furor, two other Communist Party in the United States, de-
{ ~- State De artment securit offioers were re- _ sptte all the legal actions taken against it as
~IONEST TESTIMONY IN WASHINGTON P Y
Otto F, Otepka, Chtei of Valuat`fona in the lfeved of duty, and aulraequently they have a result of FBI investigations, is continuing
resigned. These men, John F. Reilly and its untiring efforts to advance the cause of
Security Office of the 15tate Department, was Elmer D. Hill, testified under oath before the
tlfal~}issed i'rom the service earl~+ this month world communism, but again has shifted its
Internal Security Subcommittee in July and tactics.
rjll charges o~ conduct unbecoming a Stets August that they never had bugged the office Its major aim now, the Bureau's report
Department officer or telephone of Mr. Otepka or taken papers says, "is to convey the impression -that
SenatoF THOMAS J. DODD, D@mOCrat, of from his "classified trash." Later the were
Connecticut took the floor of the Senate to y Communists are loyal citizens of the United
declare (ffepka's sole offense was that he had forced to admit there had been tampering States who merely hold political views which
"testified honestly" before the Senate In- with the Otepka phone and other clandestine differ from those currently preyalling. They
ternal Security Subcommittee about seourfty .efforts to undermine -the security conscious deny any direction from abroad and allege
in the State Department. official. they are seeking change only through legal
Moray ,; Senators have -been upset over The case seemed to raise the issue of means." ?
whether loyalty to the present high com- -Thus, under that se, Communists have
Otepka's dismissal, claiming that ff this ac- ~
tpn shoo d stand, the Senate would there- mend of the State Department was to be been able to invade our campuses and fn-
. after be in a",poor 'position to get honest ranked higher than loyalty to country. crease their contacts within Government as
testimony from -any Government employee. Powerful $enatora have sided with Mr. well as industry.
Otepka, and their efforts have revealed the
~eoently, however, three State Department Instead of fighting each other, the congres-
gfSafef~,.have .written to the Internal Se- shocking interdepartmental ax wielding that sional committees and the executive branch
made of Otepka a crucificial object.
curity Subcommittee asking to change the The resignation of Mr. Reilly and Mr. Hill, had better set about fighting the Communist
testimony they have at a secret subcommittee conspiracy. There should be no secrets from
Meeting, last July. Tkiefr testimony at that who admitted they had not told the Senate each other regarding loyalties.
tfmg wfle that they had no knowledge' ai Internal Security the lull truth, puts the
au attempt to tap btepka`s telephone. All State Department, and the Kennedy admin-
sWdTe ~41iQy knew nothing of such an attempt. fatratfon, on notice that such tactics are [From the Augusta (Ga.) Herald,
~c o~e~als named as.testiYying were John -not to be condoned by Congress or the pub- Nov. i6, 1963]
F Reilly, Deputy i~SSistant Secretary. YOr I1C. ~ ~ AFFItGNT TO DEMOCRACY ITSELF
~eeluity David I. Belisle, special assistant It is highly fortunate that this move to- If America ever has a dictator, he will not
to Reilly, and Elmer D. HiIY, Chief of `the ward the "big brother" attitude of a totalitar- ride into office at the head of a revolutionary
Aivialoli o~ Technical SerYfces, f5fiice oY Se- fan state has been thwarted in the glare of parade, preceded by a military coup and
Curity. publicity. followed by a goosestepping private army.
Upon receiv3n the letters the subcommit- ~ -- -
~' ~ He will assume dictatorial powers 3lttle by
tee without comment released both the [From the Springfield- (Ill.) State Journal, little: Through reduction of powers oY the
8wo1'ii tes~imon' of the three o~ciais and Nov. 22, 1963] States, transfer of decisionmaking from the
tllefr letters, Z~ws reports indicate that the OTEPKA INCmENT: LOOSENING OF SECURITY Congress to the White House, intrusion of
testimony revealed repeated denials that F'Or WIe lf#e Oi us.we can't undexstand_the C+overnment into all areas oY the. economy,
Otepka's phone had been tapped. All three reason for the. continual dispute between the and grabbing of leglnlatlve reins from State
said they ,had no knowledge whatever of executive branch _af the government and the legislatures and from the Congress by an
such an attempt. Cgngrese over matters o1 security involving executive-appointed 'U.S, Supreme Court-
Howevex, the clarifying letters told a dif- U.S, personnel. all heralded as social progress.
Approved For Release 2005/01/05 :CIA-RDP66B00403R000200200016-9
 2#134 Approved FQr~A~/O~DPf~(~3ROOO2OO2OOO16~9ecember ,~0
He will be asaistesi by departments and lm it. The Department said Governor Wal-
burcaus which insist increasingly on ran- lace had bean correct.
daring allegiance oni;~ to the would-be AIC- Then there i8 Lhe case to Otto Otepka. Bred
tout~r, and not to the voters: State Department ancurity employe. During
T'Fe IInited' States, we Americana always Beasts Internal Security subcommittee hear-
have maintained, cornea closest among the lags Otepka made a number of atatemente
world's governments to being a government regarding Btate Department handling of per-
ky the people. Yet la recent years-ao manq sons alleged to be security risks taken into
citizens maintain-alms s>f these trends the Department. Otopka said that Dapart-
which have been listed as the preliminary meat e$orts to humlliate and. embarrass him
steps to a dietatorsleig have been greatly included wiretapping of his office telephone.
accelerated. Fie named those who he believed to have
The latest exanlple of action, designed to done the wiretapping. The subcommittee
saddle this Nation ewintually with a totall- quizeed tht three who are supposed to have
'fal'len system is In the State Department. done the wiretapping. The three vigorously
This Ss the Departure-at which in past years denied the charge. On November 9 the State
risks, and which is in a position, because
of its field of activity, to compromise the
Nation's satetp should it employ persons
apmpathetlc to commim:etic regimes, or who
are careless of security. An easmpie of the
dangers le apparent let our Natlon'e oompia~~yy
cency while a Communist took control lff
Cuba.
A clear demonstration that the State De-
partment scorns the people as a source of
its-authority came recently with the Wring
of a Department security official, Otto F.
Otepka, because he t:newared questions o1
the Bennie Internal Security Subcommittee.
Other Department otH:_ale, in order to provR
.the guilt of Otepka in acknowledging atiegi-
ance to the voters' F:epresentatives !n the
Congress; tapped OGrpka's telephone and
conducted searches of his wastebasket.
To compound the devious means by which
they hoped to enforce statism, they lied to
the subcommittee about their snooping and
later admitted they lied.
II.B. Senator Taossen Dona, of Connecticut,
calls the State Department's contemgt far
the subcommittee an affront to the Sannte.
It ig morQ than thl.t, Since the Senate
speaks for the voters who elect its Members,
!t is an aSroat to the voters and to democ-
racy as a system of government.
We cannot a,Sord a ocystem of bureaucracy
operated along the line of their tsounter-
psrts in the Sremun. The most thorough
Investigation, and the atrongeet possible ac-
tion, should be taken in the Otepka case.
(Frans the Monroe (Ddich.) News, Nov.. i$,
I9E3j
STaelvos F$arsw Gozarsss-Orr
fibers wan considerable consternation
when s Federal official voiced the policy that
!t was our Government's right-ld not obllga-
tion-to lie to preserve its positiaa. This
philosophy of a new era in Government
shocked many an observer. Many, however,
Just put it down as nn imprudent remark
that was made off the cuff and had no basin
!n fact as s method od Federal operations.
But an increasing--send disturking-num-
ber of revelations has been made that gives
some credence to the opinion that there are
those in Washington ~~ho do indeed believe
!t i8 all right to lie in order to keep opposi-
tion and criticism to a low Iavel.
Take, for example, the case of the Rever-
end Martin Luther Sing who, it was charged,
wan driven around Alabama im traiasporta-
lion supglted by the ii.B. Government. Dt1r-
ing October, when civil rights. unrest was at
a raZOrsharp edge, Governor Wallace of Ala-
bama charged that Lh~a Suatice Department
was paying for Reverend Slag's eacurelons
in Alabama stirring ul3 further unrest. In
response, the Justice Iiepartment Bald G~v-
ernor Wallace's chargr was ?'elther a gross
miataka or a deliberate attempt to mislead
the people:' Earlier tills month, on the eve
ofa Dallas (Ala.) ..County grand Jury ~quuy,
the Justice Department retracted ita earlier
statemont and admitted that a Department
lawyer had lent s Government-rented car to
a person who drove R?:verend Sing around
Department said that two od three Inter ad-
niltted flint they lied during the subcommit-
tee hearings and that they had, In fact, et-
tempted to eavesdrop on Otepka's telephone.
These aren't the only two cases of Federal
bureaucratic deliberate lying. Others have
been revealed. It la this trend that disturbs
so eiiauy eitlzelia. To be eSectlve a Govern-
ment has to be beUeved.
[Frt~m the Washington {pa.) Observer, Nov.
Is, 1983 j
i.N POaMdT1oN C~rwrr.~tuQa
in 1942, Otto F. Otepka became s wartimt
recurity officer for the Clvll Service Commia-
eion. He wan recruited a pear later by the
late Scott McLeod, a aeaisxln investigator of
security risks, as his skis[ evaluator of secu-
rity clearance at the State Department. D1s-
miaesd from hi6 818,900 a year Jab, a -Bute
Depiirtaient spokesman said Otepka >a "nut
of stag with the times, We are not witch
hunting asp more. We have no aerurlty
risks, and he known It."
However, that in not quite the way Senator
TlroacAe J. Dona, Connecticut Democrat, seen
it. As vice chairman of the subcommittee,
Doan says that Otepka wan fired because be
"testified honestly before the panel on mat-
ters relating to security in the Department
of State." The dismiaaai was on 13 charges
of givieig twafldentiai documents to the com-
mittee sad furnishing questions to be asked
Otepka's superiors.
The case emphasises the difficulty Con-
gress has in getting Information on dWoyal-
ty, malfeasance, conflict of int~ereat, or other
wrongdoing to the eaecutlve branch. u up-
heid-0tepka can appeal to file President
and the courts ii hie departmental trial goon
against him-it would dlscpurage others
from testifying honestly.
[From the Pine Bluff (Ark.) Commercial,
Nav. Iii, 198Sj
Tt1c Orapan Can=
The Otepka case is complex enough, cer-
tainly, but the heart of the controversy In
the case seems to tIS as simple as iL is funda-
mental.
The basic question posed is whether any
Federal employee has the right to disclose
information which he holds !n trust. Mr.
Otepka is alleged by his defenders to have
violated State Department regulations in
pursuit of n transcendent loyalty to his
country. But this defenst won't wash.
Fundamental to eSective security procedures
!a that no Ieakage of classified material cam
be sanctioned-whether the leakage is to the
Soviet Smbasay ar a Scants committee,
OI ninny obJactiona to the higher Iopalty
doctrine which can be voiced, the most ira-
portant is perhaps that the resolution of ae-
curity problems cannot be left to the indi-
viduals directly aReeted. Mr. Otepka felt
impelled by conscience to give confidential
fniotmatioa Lo people not authorized to re-
ceive it. Mr. Otepka felt that agents of the
II.B. Senate should be the recipteats of his
confidence. His good Judgment in the selee-
tton of confidaata ought perhaps to be con-
gratulated but we don't nee how an eaceptiom
can be made for those who betray a public
trust only with the best people. The next
ezecutlve employee may feel as strongly im-
pelled by hie conscience to give information
to the Order od Siberniana, or the Interior
Department, or the Ambassador of the IInited
Arab Republic. It should not be forgotten
that the real security problems during and
Just after World War II were with a few peo-
ple who felt that they were helping the war
effort or the estabilahment of a peaceful
world by passing Information to our allies,
the Russians.
[From the Lewistown (Pa.) Sentinel,
Nov. 15, 1983 )
OTarKA RaP6nCQSSIOMS
The firing of Otto Otepka raises a stench
to the State Department. Though Otepka
has been elected from his Job as a Depart-
ment security ofitcer, the last has not been.
heard of his case,
Otepka has tht right of appeal, and the
Bennie Internal Security Subcommittee is
showing a great deal of interest in how and
why his dismissal came about.
Facts behind the case are strange. Otepka
wan charged with 13 violations of regula-
tions, but most if not all of these were tech-
nicalities. Ste real "crime," in the eyes of top
Btate Department officials, was his coopera-
Won with the Senate subcommittee in its
investigation of alleged laxity to security In
idle Department.
Moreover, the State Department appar-
ently resorted to illegal wiretapping in its
effort to "get" Otepka. Senator Tlioanis
Doan, vice chairman of the subcommittee,
said his group has pt+oof that Otepka's phone
was Lapped. State Department officials first
dented. then admitted, that at least an at-
tempt wan made to do so.
Dooa also reported that Otepka was locked
out of his office, wan denied access to his files
which were rifled, and wan humiliated before
his fellow employees.
But the heart aid the issue is whether s
Federal employee should be harassed and
fired for talking to a committee of Congress.
The subcommittee had a right to the infor-
mation it wanted.
Otepka has been dismissed for telling the
trutt~hia right under the II.B. Civll Service
Code which states that ouch "shall not be
denied nor interfered with," He has bees
the victim of illegal tactics-wiretapping
The Senate committee should pursue the
scent.
[From the Indianapolis {Ind.) News, Nov.
18, 1963]
OTLPHA UOSTII{ FaaTI;RIatiT $TSp
The State Department acted forthrightly
and courageously in firing Otto Otepka, its
farmer Ghief Security Risk Evaluator, on
charges of unbecoming conduct. It the
State Department accusations era factual,
Otepka is himself a security risk and should
not hold a sensitive post, u Otepka thinks
they are not, he has ample avenues of ap-
peal.
Otepka, who has been under suspension
since September 23, was charged with de-
olassiipiag and mutilating certain docu-
ments and with having grepared questions
for the counsel of the Senate Internal Se-
curity Subcommittee to ask grate Depart-
ment witnesses. He denied violating the
spirit of the departmental regulations. The
subcwmmittee was then investigating grate
Department attitudes toward Fidel Castro
in the period of Caetro's rise to power.
The subcommittee, through its vice chair-
man, Senator TIrOMAS DOaa, Democrat, of
Connecticut, strongly supported Otepka, con-
tending that violations, 11 they occurred,
were "technical." They seemed to us, and
obviously to the State Department, to be
anything but that. And they moat have
seemed substantive to the White House-
Prasident Kennedy promised oa October 9
Approved For Release 2005/01/05 :CIA-RDP66BOO4O3ROOO2OO2OOO16-9
 Y96~ "`~ Ap'pro`ved For 6B 0200200016-9
_ .. - R~~~~~.~L ~~. -.~ .24131
yo exalxuz~e r~neyy,~r1511~se~i waxen the Lime egaTta Lo .Undermine OttA P: Otepka, have The immediate cause. of the resignations
Ca} ,f6~z11~C~piinary action now resigned under fire. has tq d9 either with belated admission of
e;~ ~~, ~nYOivg~ ~~re ti?aX~ the ac .. ~1VIr. Otepka is -the former head of the usixxg or trying to use a wiretap or "listening-
tlvi~~es o ep1~a `I`he uestfon, and it is Evaluation Division of th@ State Department bug" in early stages of a checkup on Mr.
%iiidt a Ia q~}e, is wheer congressional Security Office. He was fired-early this month Otepka; or with early denial or disclaimer of
~~~o~ ~uate'ra ..are to be allowed to reach after ~ long-period of harassment. His ma- this attempt; or with both.
tigwn iq minor gfficials in the executive jor crime which was termed, "conduct un_- . , ..13ut behind. this development are some
b~axlFlx ~~,i} }1ae,t.h~elX,f ~,p,gromo~e their own ;becoming an officer of the State Depart- other matters involving ofRcials in the De-
"
CatT,~~ ;
t is ~o~ a ~ues on oY ~~et?ing in- merit" was to passe. along to the Senate In- partment ,and Mr. Otepka which still keep
formation, tha cou d"`proper~y-have been ternal Security Subcommittee some informs-_ .alive. the question of whether he was justly
`Cbtained thio'iigh ~e Yuma a channels. Lion which some of his superiors and also- treated from the inception, and particularly
A , ,clec~cle ado t~e State Department .ciates considered confidential. :with respect to the main gravamen of the
klxuCil~,,yulxder to, Senator JoaQph lUicCar- The loyalty of Mr. Otepka has never been charges against him-the disclosure of nom-
thy on the saa`ne issue as the one~resexted ,in question. But there now has arisen some fnally "classified" documents, etc.
in the Q, ?teplia oase. ale congra ulate the question of the loyalties of other -State De- The Senate Judiciary Committee is very
Iiennedy _ adm3nistratlgn for putting the partment personnel. who did. not like U.S. -disturbed about the handling of the Otepka
Senate inquisitors in their place - Senators= probin into State De artment o
` 9.=' f ;:. F` __ Crai;ions, especiali 'those dealing with ,the aside the m ttertsof on sessional-executive
y gr
;[From ~t~ie Cincinnati. (Ohio) Enduirer, Nov. Castro Communists in Cuba. relations, the icture that has been drawn,
i '. . c~4, i983~ The. Otepka case,presents only one aspect and so far not contradicted, '1s that of a
T E OTZZ~#sA Plox I xENS of the "mess in Washin ton" under the
- ~..,.
~ ~ - g, Zealous security officer whose very zeal got
F
r
nh
d b
n t
i
e
s
l
~
y t
S
m
h
g
s
y
m
ent
as
ee
exc
eedingly
coy abou
the , real recourse t
pro~ect himself fn
he
elYate dud c
am Com
it ee and
ita
b
a
situa
InternaY- ~ecu?'ty Subcommittee Otto F. Otepka case because it deals with the very~tion of conflict. in sworn committee teati-
Otepka-would very prohab~Y"y have=iieen driven "heart of the conduct of American foreign mony was to effect declassification, border-
.. ~rpJ]~,f~o1~~re~elvc,~,~~y,,~[sgrace, and the pglicy. line or otherwise, of certain material. Until
?4meripafx,~people Wou d have known nothing State Department officials have spent con- these points are cleared up, it cannot be
$~ tlx~e o~~ums#sncQ [i,a 1}u7atiA]i, slderabie time in the last 3 years in the assumed that anything less than reinstate-
? IV'ow howeve;,,the S~ate_Department, which briefing of selected citizens and so-called merit of Mr. Otepka, apart from resignations
~'Ir~ Otepka served as Deliut~Director of the opinionmakers-briefing them in the points made or perhaps pending, will serve justice in
6~ce q~ S,eCUrlty, has granted what is known of roiew considered acceptable to the Ameri- his case.
as ~d~cxinisti'ative leave to twq ~tiier Depart- can people. But State Department officials _
]Yieij,t oioials direCtl involved in the Ote ka have been less than candid'in revealing some [From the Terre Haute (Ind.) Star, Nov. 20,
'Cage y ~ P of the matters that Mr. Otepka thought 1983 ]
- 'essential far our national lawmakers to know.
The tw ofticiaia te~tizie5d unsl~s S,1$tl} Ile OTEPKA REPERCUSSIONS
.fore the .~elxate xgterrfal Se~urit Subcorn The deception which the two recently re-
y signed officials had practiced before the Sen- The firing of Otto Otepka raises a stench
~13r~O,t pka's~t lephoneo while the wasa sail ate committee does not speak well for the in the State Department. Though Otepka
quality of intellectual honesty which the has been ejected from his job as a Depart-
8gx'vipg as a security evaluator_in, the State ,,, public has a right to expect. The fact that merit security officer, the last has not been
Department. Subsequently, when the com- heard of his case.
pnittee waste it Clear that St had evideneg, to these two men have quit under fire should
..the Contrary, they asked permission to amend stimulate a thorough senatorial check into Otepka has the right oi' appeal,. and the
- why and how our foreign polic o eratians Senate Internal Security Subcommittee is
their testix~ioxxy. _ y P showing a great deal of interest in how and
$erxCe, endin further Tn uir into the have been conducted with respect to our
y relations with the international Communist why his dismissal came about.
? .question, ~he State Department has granted Facts behind the case are stran e. Ote ka
~1~e111 adlntnistrative leaYe, conspiracy, g p
a + - = was charged with 13 violations of regulations,
i Ill tb~a circumstance, algne, there is [From the Savannah (Ga.) News, Nov. 20, but most if not all of these were technicali-
@;lOxmgUsirgr}y. - 1963] ties. His real "crime," in the eyes of top
~I', l~t@p~Ca's grave crime, in the State De- n ,. State Department officials, was his coopera-
partment`s eyes, is that. he testified _ truth- Is LOYALTY A MISTAKE? tion with the Senate subcommittee in its
~]111Y-,before a Renate cgmmitt~e? -_Fq~,tklili _ The Stflte.Department has dispensed with investigation of alleged laxity in security in
~]ffelise~ his tglephone was tapped, his waste= the services of two officials who lied to a con- the Department.
bas~.et g!as pilfered he was locked-out of his _, gressional committee about their improper Moreover, the State Department appar-
4ffics and denied acg~ss? tC his files.. .Ilia .Conduct in the Otepka case. ently resorted to illegal wiretapping in its
hum,iliatign in4brief, was as osten~,tioUS and , T>xe_Department'a action was appropriate, effort to "get" Otepka. Senator THOMAS
Cgil~~x~p'~ete as the State, Department _ could but. it doesn't clear up all the questigns the DODD, vice Chairman of the subcommittee,
hicks 3t. ,airing of Otto Otepka .has raised, . Mr. said his group has proof that Otepka's phone
The ,twq otllel{'s,ill the_Caae, however, who Otepka's long and faithful service as a secu- was tapped. State Department officials first
Apparently hate confessed -~ ,lying to a rity officer is a matter of record, and his die- denied, then admitted, that at least an at-
~o committee, are simply put on adman- missal still carries a heavy stench of foul tempt was made to do so.
lrtrat~ve .leave, ,drawing. their. full salaries play. DODD also reported that Otepka was locked
a'[xd kri`gvy~jpg nothing of the opprobrium Mr. Otepka's only crime was cooperation out of his office, was denied access to his files
heapped upon Mr. ,Otepka._ _ _ - .with Congress and concern about the Nation's which were rifled, and was humilitated be-
T'he .overridixig significance of_ the entire security. If he violated department techni- fore his fellow employes.
6tepka ~ case we believe,. is the,_y,!ide pread calitfes, as his critics charge, his transgression But the heart of the issue is whether a
a8si{tnptfon in gfHcial WasY~ngton that the hardly equaled those of his persecutors.' Federal employe should be harassed and
tbzeat qt lomipLtniat ixi$j~af~ln>?,lllto r~xlal- The defense being offered far the' State fired for talking to a committee of Congress,
tive area o~ the. 17,x, GoXesnyge3lt_is- ]rigxl- .Department-that its hirings and firings are The subcommittee had a right to the infor-
~fatent. _, _,. not any business of Congress-is no defense motion it wanted.
This Coxivictign,,in turn, stems frgm the _at all. The national security fs a valid con- Otepka has been dismissed for telling the
artigle qP t`a.ith, altogether too widely held cern for Congress and for the public and truth-his right under the United States
iu t~e~.BO_cahes#_,libernl cos~J,itxtiLy, that so are the credentials of those Who serve in ,Civil Service Code which states that such
? MCCfxx`thyir~m was. a tar.., more loatl3eaome -_ .key positions. The apparently unjustified "shall not be denied nor interfered with."
olxapter in American history than Hisaism or dLSmissal of a loyal and efficient public ser- He has been the victim of illegal tactics-
~a~y Dexter Whiteism. vant is the business of Congress, wiretapping, The Senate committee ?should
'I`kxex,e ,was ~ .time, curlously,~ when Mr, Mr. Otepka appears to be the victim of a Pursue the scent.
$elllledy had the courage to speak up against vendetta within the State Department. It
"~yhat he .galled ,,`.`1;he ?-I+,a,#~ti~s= and- i13e - is ironic that the Department's defenders are [From the Knoxville (Tenn.) Journal,
Fairbanks" whose .State Aepartment mach- those who complain about "witch hunts;' and Nov. 11, 1963]
inatioxis requited in the.. 1,gas A~ _.Chiria- to in some cases, those who have helped to
the free wgrld. $ut tlxe realism of that, shield persons guilty of graver mistakes-if WRONG PERSON DISCHARGID
dOllu ,F? ,I~enrledy seems to. be, something you want to call Mr. Otepka's loyalty that. Reference has previously been made. here
tDday'a, John F. ,Kennedy is trying to live tq the dismissal of Otto Otepka, a senior
doivt~ - ~ [From the New Orleans (La.) Times- security officer of the State Department, be-
And the. Nation, is tt}e loser - ; .Picayune, Nov. 19, 1983] cause he gave to members of the Senate
'
"
~
~`
~
~ `
'
'
~ -:r ~ ~ ~
~~ .r :~ ~o ,~~E Judiciary Committee. information concern-
"[From t1~Spokane^(Wash) Spokesman- ~, rPalenn.tinn .,r amp ha.,H ?m,,..,,- ,? ~L_ frig irregularities and probable illegalities
~7'ATF.T~rEPA$T11~ESJT ~O~ OvER OTEPKA & spa men On Tuesday, Senator .THOMAS H. DODD,
,.,who figured in the recent dismissal therefrom Democrat, of Connecticut, asserted that
Two oicipls q1 the State Department
who of Otto F
Ote
ka
m
t
ik
"
,
.
p
,
ay s
r
e some as a sort
the dismissal of Mr. Otepka by the Depart-
fUrst denied and then ?cknowledged_ covert ~ of poetic justice trade off. went of State... is a serious challenge to re=
1 _-=
>. -
Apprbved'For'Release~2005/01/05 :CIA-RDP66B00403RA:Q022082p0016-9
 24132
Approved F~~l~~~4.1/~~~~Q~~3R0002002000~e~emb~r 20
aponsible government and to the system sated an Executive order in passing claastAed because of his testimony before s congres-
of checks and balances on which it id based." lnformatlan to the Senate caatmittee. It hen sional committee In which he furnished in-
Those American eit'aens who have tried not come La grips with his testimony that formation about lax security procedures in
to keep conversant with the eprnwling De- there are weaknesses !tt the security the State Department.
partment of State since the era o1 Alger system. Therefore, those who cry loudest about
Hiss first brought lit. security weaknesses On the other hand, the two State Depart- congressional "witch hunts" now find them-
into the Iimeitght wilt suspect there to a meet offictats have admitted one lie in heir selves In the posttioa-because o1 their fail-
ure to protest the illegal harassment of Otto
good deal more to the firing of this employee testimony. Otepka-o[ condoning a witch hunt carried
than the public pet knows about. After
Senator Donn made his speech three State (Front the Lincoln (Nebr.) Journal, Nov. 12, out by high State Department officials.
Department officials "creme elean? with the 1983] Aa Senator TxOMAS Donn commented, the
SenatR committee, admitting that the tale- 4er+stsLS Tvax tIt OrErICA CAS= State Department should prefer charges
phone wiring 1n OteT'ka's office wan rigged A glimmer of sense finally 1a showing ug against its own gumshoera, rather than
with the purpose of mtmitoring his converse- iu the topsy-turvy case of Otto Otepka, the against Otepka_
ttons with counsel for the Beasts body. State Department security oIIicer diamlased (From flue Richmond (Va.) News Leader,
The statements of t'se three State Depart- for what his superiors regarded as gluing Nov. 13, 1963 ]
meet employees were volunteered to the Com- inforntatton w the enemy-In thin case, to IT's (,`I.ARIFYIIiG, ALL Rlcttr
mitres after Senator 'Donn had said in a Congress.
Senate speech that "although a State De- Ill one of the law understandable moves An officiffi printed transcript has just come
partm?nt o!licial has E.enied under oath that of the whole affair, the State Department to stand of the testimony given under oath
this (3 phone tap) Ras done, the 8tlbrnm- ltas given "adminlatratlve leave" to two of- before the Senate Internal Security Subcom-
mittee on Internal B+rCUI'ity has Proof that Sclals who "bugged" Otepka's telephone an4 mittee by John F. Reilly, Deputy Assistant
the rely wan instaile~." The three state- then Iced to the Stoats shoot it. They now Secretary of State for Security, and Elmer D.
menu agreed that the tap had not actusRy must stay away from their desks whllt their Hill, head of the Division of Technical Serv-
been used for two reasons. One of thesr activities are ermined. ices in lidr. Reilly's office.
was that 1t did not work. The second was At the same time, Otepka la net Lo file an The two men are now under what is eu-
that a careful acruttny of OtepYa's waste- t,ppettl of his dlamlasal order. phemistically termed "administrative leave."
basket gave his superiors in the State De- It is extabiished that the Senate internal Thls means that the taxpayers continue to
partment the information which theq ap- Security Subcommittee was' not given the gay their salary though the pair do no work,
patently sought. truth in earlier testimony by John F_ Reilly, pending a departmental investigation of
On Lhe face of it, i t Iooka as tt for a few Deputy Assistant Secretary of State fur ,their conduct in the Otepka case. The im-
days there was a tittb3 perjury involved here Security, and hip aide, Elmer D, Sill. median question is whether the two men
where these three State Department o}SCfala, Last summer Lhe two men, along mitb an- committed perjury in testtfying before the
who presumably engiaeerLtl Otepka's firing. ether Reilly assistant, Qtnted before the sub- Committee last summer, during the course
were concerned. committee that they had tapped Otepka's of an investigation into the dismissal of Otto
Idost of us wt11 aide with Senator Dona, tt phone In en attempt to gain evidence that ptepka, veteran State Department security
is bel[eved, when he said: ?Aa employee of Otepks was pasxtnq lntarmation to Members officer.
the State Departmen. came to our subcom- at Congress.' The foUowtng questions and answers are
mitres and, under of.th, sold that the tale- Alter ft became apparent that tht sub- reported as to Mr. Hill on 3uly 9:
phone had not been tapped-Which was an committee had learned differently. the three ~._ fWpaWII~tL (committee counsel). DO
untruth. This la the area who ought to be admitted Lheg had Lapped Otepka's phone. you know of any instance where a listening
subject to charges. Frhen an employee of the In an attempt to ezcuse their notion, they device has been placed 1n an employee's
4overnment comes before a congressional conunded that the device was never used office?
Cpnlgtlttee slid either makes willful misstate- and was removed after 48 bourn. But the ??~, HILL. Not to my knowledge.
mints ar tells untruths under oath,? believe only reason It was removed, It now develops, ??~. Sortawlrra. Spectflcallp, did you ever .
dismissal charges ahotld be preferred against was that they found the evidence they have anything to do with tapping Lhe tele-
hlm. $ut up to the present hour, the Iran wanted in Otepka's "burn bag," a depository photle of AQr. Otepka?
who has been dfamisl:e~ is the man who told for coafldentfa- material ?'Mr. HnL. No air."
Lhe truth, and eo far sa I know, the man who All Chia bolsttra Lhe demand of Nebraska On November 6, nearly 4 full months after
told the untruth has not Veen moved Senator fiasrAN HavsxA, a member of Lhe he Sa testified, Mr. Reilly wrote a letter to
against :' Internal Becnrtty Subcommittee, that the Senator EAgTI,AND, committee chairman. It
Doesn't the Senator front Connecticut re- men who lied Lo the subcommittee should should be noted that Lhe committee's ataft
member Where he i&-right fa the middle of be fired. "at a minimum." had been buslly inveatYgating various angles
the Kennedy administratIon'a "managed The separatr, and even graver, issue still ~ the Otepka case throughout this period.
news" operation? centers about OtepYa himself. If his din- Naw, in November, Mr. Hill reached an inter-
_ missal fa upheld, no employee of the Federni estirtg conclusion: He concluded that men-
[From Lhe Montgomery (Ala.) Advertiser, admiatatratton ever wotiid be free to enslist tton of an incident which occurred last
Nov. 13 1$63] the std of Congress, even if he were con- March ?'would serve to clarify my responses
AgyLaxT~atorLrnre vlaced that his superiors ware gluing jobs m ~. Sourwlne's questions." In his letter
La .security risks, as was tht case with ~ clariflcatton, Mr. Hill says this:
Judgment on Otfa P. Otepka, the State De- Otepka. "Oa Monday, March 18, 1983, Mr. John
partment security officer fired Iasi week, will This would be a highly dangerous altos- F, gay asked me to explore the pas-
have LO be reserved ;intil more evidence and lion and surely one not sanctioned by any slbilitq of arranging some way to eavesdrop
testimony are releastx! to the public. Sut al- appreciable portion of the U.S. public. on couversatlona taking place 1n Mr. Otepka's
ready the'Btate Dep:trtmeat has smudged tLS ot8ce. That evening Mr. Clarence J. Schnei-
case by admittedly 'yang to the Senate sub- ]~,,m Che Phoenix (Ariz.) Republic, der sad I altered the existing wiring in the
committeC that was hearing Otepka. Nov, 18, 19if3j telephone in Mr.Otepka'8 office:'
Last slimmer, th;~ committee asked John t;aHnarvlxc A WIrcB Hv:+r >~'? Retilq had testified under oath on
F. Reilly, Otepka'e toss, whether any Ilsten- August 6. At that time, this colloquy took
ing devices had be~;n lnetailed in Otegka's If it had bees discovered that otecials o[ place:
office. R,eilfy's answer: "No, sir" congressional committees laveatlgatiag Coen- ??~,, Sooawrxe. Have you ever engaged in
Tlie committee asked the same of Dewey monist tnfittence In the Government had at- or ordered the bugging or tapping or other-
HSIl, another security chief, "No, sir" tacked an electronic ~veadropptng device to wise compromising telephones or private
This was sworn testimony. lifter Otepka the telephone o1 s loyal U.B. employee, the oonversationa in the office of an employee
was fired, Senator Doan eatd the colamtttee Na'tion's newspapers, radfa, and teltvisfon of the State Department?
had clear evidence that a tisteniag device was networks would be up in arena. "Mr. REn,LT. No, sir.
installed in Otepkr.'s office in the hope of Fet although two State Department offi- ?Mr. Somtwlxa. You never did?
catching him passing information to the elate recently admitted that they attached '?Mr. Rau.Lr. That is right, sir.
committee. just such ? device to Lhe telephone of Otto F. ??Mr. Sovawrxs. 3peciflcallp in the case of
After this, 81Ii sad 'Reilly seat ]otters to Otepka, former Chief Security Evaluation Of- Mr. Otepka you did not do so?
the committee admitting they tried to [ttstalf fleet of the State Department, there has 13eeII ?Mr_ REII.LY. Thal is COrrecL, sir.
a llsteniltg device. little ar no protest Tram the Nation's moat pa November 8, precisely 9 months later,
Their expianat3o?a Leave something to be conapicttoua opinion moulders. Mr. Reilly also was struck with second
desired. Rerily said he orderod the tap to The reason for the sSienCC~-even though thoughts. Now he would like "to amplify
sea if it coup be d~ae "without undue rink the pair, In atcret sworn testimony to the my testimony." In a statement to Senator
of detection:' HIIi said he made Cite tap and Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, pre- EASTLAND, be added this amplification:
tack It out after ~ !lays because he couldn't viouely denied knowledge of the lnstailatlon "On March 18 ? I aeke~ Edr. Elmer D.
hear anything. NuIther of them sought to of a ilstening device !n Otepkab office--Ls H-Il ' ' to undertake a stu'vep of the feas-
deiend oVttat he did. Chat the investigators were not checking on 1b111Ly of intercepting conversations in Mr.
One other salient factor is that rile Stt~te Otepka'a loyalty to the IInitad States. They Otepka's office. On March 19, Mr, Hill told
Department keeps saytag Lhat Otepka vio- were looking for a wag W get rid of Otepks ma that he and Mr. Schneider ? ? 'had
Approved For Release 2005/01/05 :CIA-RDP66B00403R000200200016-9
 Apprbved'For R~~~I~~~~~.C~i~6B0~~0200200016=9
COndt~.ct~d ~,iQasibiiity survey by connecting .arid bg December 31, 1962, Russia had 1,002
.spare telephone-wires from the telephone in ships as compared to 843 of the United States.
Ii~~, (}i;epkafs office to the blvision of Tech-
Yi[C0~ ~e~ices la`~orator~.T' [From the Pittsburgh (Pa.) Press,
fie}? tr,[Ie }y;eiplled `7`o~In Profumo was Nov. 13, 1983)
~C~,'ught`~lyfng ifithe House of Commons last -. ~ ~DiSCOR.a_AT STAxE
spring, in the midst of the Beeler case, there It sounds like a pretty mess at the State
w~ s?i~yer the slightest question od his in-
starlt r@signatpn from the British Govern- Department with nne official fired for slip=
-m~i?t, -fie was p-u-t. Here we seem fio'view, Ping unauthorized information to Congress
''? questions of honor rather differently. The `and three others charged with snooping on
st1`angc~st aspect oY ~this`rwhole Otepka ease,- the first man, then denying it to a committee
so fax, is that IvYessrs T~1TI and Eteillq are still of Congress.
oIi the payroli;~aud Otto'Otepka, whose only Otto F. Otepka, former Department se-
siXl, was tp assist the U.$, Senate, is the only curity risk .evaluator, provides the affair
;; ptle ~[xed3 , ~f the U.S. Sena(;e does not -force `with .its name-the Otrpka case. His dis-
,a~11,pS4doyal} in,.the Hi11-FteiIly case, the U`.S. `missal was based, among other things, on
Senat~,.9~i,11 _~ayG.~, degenerated -into a far the charge he gave a senatorial committee
feeblpx;, bey than the powerful institution confidential information from security files
w8 believe it ~o be so touchy it is supposed to be released only
with the _ ersonal a roval of the President.
- [Froni-. the San Antonio (Tex.) News, Nav. " `He has a right to appeal but if the charges
'stand u
h
l
arl
was insubordinat
and
p
y
e
e
e C
12,7963].
._.__~..~ ................: u^,.,, ~~;: ought to stay fired.
Th0 public is permitted a brief glimpse 1n- .powerful figures as Donn, of Connecticut, and
t?~ tlig nner workings oY the Mate Depart- EASTLANR, of Mississippi, consider the case a
1'nel~j;,~s a xesu}t af, dismissal pf Otto F. test of-the powers of Congress as opposed to
Otapka, veteran department security' officer. the- executive powers of the President. This
$e?yeas flrec~~on charges of unbecoming con- .recurring conflict provides the case with
~cluct, Wi~h the principal accusation being he added drama.
su~ipiied `c"onfidential employee loyalty"infor- Senator -Donn- demands ~ that, instead of
-mati~,i,~, to the U.S, Senate Tn?ernai Security .firing Mr. Otepka, the Department get rid
Subcp~ixriittee. of three. other officials, at least two of whom
~_ Iia .t~~ cpuxse of the Senate panel's in- ,.denied to a Senate subcommittee- they had
:.vG,S,tigation, department authorities dis- .installed a# listenilg device in Mr. Otepka's
Clalmed,.any knowledge of a Iistening device office, then later admitted it. These charges
hgying been placed on 'Otepka's telephone. are under investigation. These men, it
Vllde~?t~e b~eful eye oY Senate investi- ,.seems to us, also have placed their jobs in
Bofors, the officials refreshed their memories .grave jeopardy, if not Yor spying on Mr.
~at0r,.~nd ilQGi~;ed such a device had,-been ?Otepka, then for misleading the Senators.
employed, but that it didn t work well. But all question of degrees of guilt aside,
'x'he bold logs of, memory under oath by the incident lifts the curtain -on a nasty
highly placed members of the executive internal condition at State which is highly
' , branC~ g~ ~oggrnment should not be con- :disturbing.
dpriGfLl?y the a~enate aubcommlt~ee. `~?trong This is the Department which works fn
.ei~Gxt Should ll~e made to,punish,'tile uncoop- a thousand ways to uphold the dignity of
ex~tive_witnesses and to, bar them from re- ,the United States around the world, and
spansible positions. to keep us out oY war. Whether speaking
}?~1 elLteSlsiye ixi~estigation of the Otepka .~, Congress or to Khrushchev the Depart-
lillyidgpl:. sh~"f~l be conducfzd to see what . ment should speak one voice and that voice
1tlr, cloak and dagger 'revelations are -should be the voice of the Secretary of State.
Qltji~,Q~g 'l''he firing of the department If tenure imposed by civil service regu-
_gppllf`J,t:y ollicer suggests-as onYy one possi- -lotions prevents this and institutionalizes
b3liLy-that security risks in t1~e Department disharmony, then there fs something badly
sCar$d& XiGtO~~yy. .wrong with civil service regulations. The
Qr, if the: dismissal stemmed from Yntra- Security of the United States, upon which
departmental' poll?ics, the public and the .the smooth function of this Department
Senais_internal,securf~y`panel are`entftled to measurably depends, is vastly more impor-
~iiow, with full, truthful answers to the orig- ta,nt than the right oY an uncooperative Gov-
e
ti
1
S
s
qu
11a
ons, eFXlznent_ Employee to hold on to his job.
.. .~
[From the Vicksburg ('ivlriss) Post Nov: 17,
~ _ [From the Des Moines (Iowa) Register,
i18~
1
j
r ;-,.,I`TQy.,.13, 1$63]
ANOTaER TYrE 9a? FSpREIGN Am
'
'
IINTRU~z~FVr.
I
ESTibtoxY ,,devices had been installed in the office of
While., the sieba~e goes on i`n the ~`enate Whatever the rights of executive privilege Otto F. Otepka. Otepka is a veteran State
'oYi a fpr n aid bill -t1`ie one which in-
- to withhold certain information from Con- Department security officer who was fired,
yfSlvGS axi$ piny- of money ~~iere is another . gress-and every administration in recent over protests of some Senators, on the charge
type 8f foreign aid wh-fell has been disclosed- years has been out of line in trying to con- that he supplied them with confidential sn-
ail 0 1'e~,pOrt i"saued b~ the Senate internal, teal embarrassing situations by such formation from employee loyalty files.
$ecu?1~ty Subcommittee oY w~i~cii Senator -claims-there can be no defense for giving Late last week, the three State Department
"'i7AME$ . 1?AST~pr1I1 ?~S c,[ialrT,~,a~~~t l~uolyes. -false or deliberately misleading testimony men sent statements to the Senate subcom-
~he,Tapid strides which R.ussfa is making to- .to congressional investigators. mittee admitting that they did know that
m~xd tl~e ellpansion of her mar~ime fleet, ..This is why the Kennedy administration listening devices had been installed in
a~l~ a,T~o displays the deterioration of our now is faced with the problem v~Yiat action Otepka's office.
;'b~ strength`in that area While we have to take against three State Department of- They said no actual interception of con-
,.be(;ii 11P _1~usy bolstering up foreign riations~ , ficials, -The ofdCials testified under oath , versatfons had taken place, none was au-
bur ou+ix lifeline our merchant sliiapping, lids .before the Senate Internal Security Subcom- thor]zed, and the wiring on Oteplca's phone
been, allowed ~o's~eas~~ly `decrease '1"he $g- , mittee that they had .no knowledge of tap- was disconnected within 48 hours after a
`urea oY t~e co,~uni~~eQ ,~x.G ~],~Q~at alri- -?ping the telephone wires of Otto F. Otepka, test of the reception showed it unworkable.
ang, and they `should ~e a ma ter of~-deep ..,y,hp R,gy diami$sQd 1_art_week ~ chiQf_se- It can be presumed that if the t7ontraption
conce#`a to the: Congress and to -the ~adxnin- cuxlty evaluations officer in the State IZe- had worked, it would have been us@d.
3stxatign r _ ,~ artment. .The moral to be drawn from these two in-
P _ _ ,
`' ~cc~,~trig to the re ort fn 190 the R,us- 'lie Senate committee. had information cidents is obvious.
sisn,~, ~~~ a ,i:9,t~ R~ 4,3?~ n?Gxpn~ ;ships, ,about the wiretapping incident and made Senator THOMAa J. DODD, Democrat, of
wk%icl~y xe resented 1,997;Obd deadweight tone this public. after' the officials had testified. Connecticut oY the Senate Internal Security
A,t thai ime the Tlni~+~d t,9,tQ~ ~?~s~ 1 090 TWO officials thereupon -made additional Subcommitee, draws it weR He said:
,.. ..
Eh~ps, SS440,OOA~tons. is was a ratio oY ,.statements. to "amplify" and 'clarify their This is a_s'hockingJmatter. The [State]
2%z to in our favor in`tlie number of "ships testimo~._ The amplification and clarifica- Department ought to move on this-and
and .~ 7 -gyp 3 advantage in deadweight: _ Sy '.tion made St clear that -their earlier testa- quickly, When three olRclals of the State
>.__
1@62 this advantage had been filtered down;- mony was"deliberately misleading. Department admit, 1n effect; -that they ]fed"
_.
Approv~tf ~or.``Reiease 2005/01/05 CIA-RDP66BOb403R00020020k}016-9
There have been no charges, o_r indications,
that either-the- President or Secretary of
State Dean Rusk had.knawledge of the wire-
tapping or the falsification of testimony.
They, of course, have the responsibility of
disciplining the guilty individuals. Indica-
tions are that Rusk will ask for the reaigna-
tion of at least two of the officials. One df
.them, John F..Reilly, Deputy Assistant Sec-
retary of State for Security, now accepts full
responsibility for the telephone tapping in-
cident.
Reilly and his assistants wanted to fire
Otepka because of disagreement about se-
curity policy and because Otepka was giving
information to the Senate investigating
committee. They claim Otepka was releasing
confidential information.
Otepka may have bee:I guilty of doing this,
which would give the State Department
oalise~.to oust him. .Whether fife infprma-
tion he gave investigators was properly clas-
sified as confidential is a .question that can't
be answered at this time. This has a bearing
on Otepka's conduct. He apparently takes
.the view, judging by his comments, that out
oP loyalty to his- country, he felt impelled
to give information to investigators, that
the State Department was attempting to
conceal, The investigation may throw more
light on his phase of the case.
Tlie Senate committee apparently thinks
there has been laxity, or too much "softness,"
in security matters. It believes the Depart-
ment isn't living up to the standards pro-
vided by law. Whether this view, which is
also the view of Otepka, is correct or not,
State Department officials have made serious
errors in harassment of Otepka and in mis-
leading a congressional committee. The
State Department will be making equally
serious errors if it does not glue the investi-
gators all information essential for the study
and If it does not get rid of those employees
who -have misled the investigating com-
mittee,
[From the Abilene (Tex.) Reporter News,
Nov. 12, 1963 ]
LYING IN HIGH PLACES HARMS CONFIDENCE IN
GOVERNMENT
In Alabama, the Justice Department de-
nied that one of its rented oars was loaned
to the Rev. Martin Luther King and two
others to drive from Birmingham to Selma.
Later, the Justice Department admitted
that one of its. attorneys did, in fact, loan
such a car far that purpose, The Depart-
ment said the attorney had since resigned.
Two Alabama grand juries, at Montgomery
aid Selma, are nevertheless investigating.
In Washington, three State Department
officials denied under aath before a Senate
subcommittee any knowledge hat listening
 24134
Approved F~~I~I(~1CDF~f~~~Q3R0002002000~e~em~er 2D
ssader oath to a Senate ooanrnittee, every
Ameris;aa and every 5dembar of Congress
ought to be concerned.
' Them are the feAo?~va the State -Depart-
ment should prefer ~:harges against, not
Otepka-"
The Senate subcoaanllttee should turn its
information over tog Federal grand jury
and press for perjury indictments against the
tale.
We have come to rile time When occur-
rences such as the ones; cited here, who! not
everyday happenstancel;, are corl;mon enough
that the oonfldence o! the public In !ta Gov-
ernment is being eroded.
The State Department ahovId, without any
coaxing, move tmmedlately to dismiss the
three officials involved, and any of their su-
periors who might have had knowledge of
their perjured Senate testimony. Anything
less will Ieava sertoua doubts of integrity in
the public mind.
(From the Austin (Tea:} Btateaman, Nov. 13,
196:1]
INFO$M/yTIONCHALLENGE
In 1943, Otto F. Otepka became a wart[me
aecurlty officer for the ~rivil Service Commis-
sion. He was recruitei s year later by the
late Scott McLeod, a z;alous investigator of
security risks, es hie chef evaluator of eecu-
rltp clearance at the State Department.
Dismisefed from his !616,900 a gear job, a State
Department spokesman said Otepka is "out of
step with the time: We era not witch hunt-
ing asp more. We hs,ve no security risks,
sad he knows it."
However, that is nat suite} the way Senator
THOnsA3 J. DonD, Connacttcut Democrat, sees
it. Aa vice chatrman ci the Senate Internal
f3ecuritp Subcommitt~ox~ilnate~ should. be senate Internal Becurity Subcommittee is Yet, if the charges against Mr. Qtepka are
lisp eyed o the Nation, so that a resultant showing a great deal of interest in how and true, there is solid justification, based on
Clean4u~t,~oi' p~1, gy,~'~IO persist in triis type of why his dismissal came about. well-established precedent, for his dismissal.
detipn _sv~,~l ~e ,sieman4ed by the public. Facts behind the. case are strange. Otep- Mr. Qtepka, who had been with the State
The la~ryst ,~t~te, D~partxnent mess smells.. ka was Charged- with 13 violations of regale- Department for 10 years, was chief of the
to high heavens, and even that is a chars- t#oAS, but,most if not_all of these were tech- Evaluation Division of the Department's
table st~te;nelat., a ;.. ,, , nicalitfes, Flis real. "crime," in the eyes of Office of Security.. He was charged with
"'"""- top State Department officials, was his co- giving the Senate Internal Security Subcom-
[From the Bismarck (N. Dak.) Tribune, Nov. operation with the Senate subcommittee in mittee information from loyalty files that can
;S4 19~3j, . its investigation o~ alleged laxity in security be released only with personal approval of
Ax-iMrpR~Axa`r~3,xglxT AT S~nxE , in the Department. _ t11,e.,President, because of the damaging char-
The current dispute aver the firing of a "Moreover, the State Department apparently acter of the information. Ii he wishes, Mr.
State,.Pepartment employee because- he, a1- resorted to illegal wiretapping in its effort Qtepka may appeal the dismissal.
? Segedly gave information to a Senate sub- to "get" Qtepka. Senator THOMAS Donn, The firing of Mr. Qtepka has brought
vice chairman of the subcommittee, said his an ished cries from some Members of Con-
Cohlihittee m$~ indicate why a "freedom of gu
infoxmatlon" bill slow pending in the Senate gI'oup has prcoP that Otepka's phone was gress. Senator Donn of Connecticut charged
#s important. tapped, State Department officials first that Mr. Qtepka did no more than to cooper-
One Otte E 4~epka, chief of the evalua- denied, then admitted, that at least an at- ate with the subcommittee and provide ft
tion division, of the Iepartment's Office of tempt was made to do so. with information "that some of his superiors
$ecurity; was fired because he answered man also reported that Qtepka was locked Pound embarrassing or objectionable."
_ out of his office, was denied access to his The feud between executive de artments
questions 21f a Senate subcommittee. _ p
Senatgrs regard his firing as an attempt to files which were rifled, and was humiliated and congressional investigators dates back
muz~Ie ,Stye FS~partment witnesses before before his fellow employees. many years
Senate c,OZ,nmitte~s by showing- .them the But the heart of the issue is .whether a The House Un-American Activities Com-
cons?quences of testimony not agreeable- to Federal employee should be harassed and mittee, seeking information in 1943 about
.their State 15epartment superiors... fired for talking to a committee of Congress. the loyalty of a Government employe, in-
Ii it is?possible to keep Members, or tom- The subcommittee had aright to the in- strutted the Secretary of Commerce to
mittees, of Congress, ~or the Senate and the formation it wanted. transmit to it the lull text of a letter from
89use the~xlselves,,from getting at the truth Qtepka has been dismissed for telling the J. Edgar Hoover, director of the Federal Bu-
pf wiaaty goes on, in the. execu]ive branch, truth--his right under the U.S. Civil Serv- reau of Investigatioli, reporting an the
What cf~ance d9;the people have,to,get at ice Code which states that such "shall not employee. The committee was rebuffed by`-
the truth? be denied nor interfered "with." He has-been President Truman, .who ordered all Federal
The 'jFeCd921i of inforlnatioll'-proposal- is the victim of illegal tactics-wiretapping. officials to reject any request from Congress
aimesl~ to ,Clarify and protect thg_public'a The 1Senate committee should pursue the for material from the loyalty files. He said
tlf, governmental agencies, It woulcj amend
the 1~s1mn3~tr~Live Procedures,~iCt of .1946,
Which ostensibly was intended?to .,keep gov-
ernnlent agencies from imposing secrecy on
administration actions.... t%yli: vgi~irll, it _is
feared; has been twisted to do tlae apposite.
,Examp'1es_ of this subversipn 0$ .the pub-
lic's Tight to know have .been .given:.
A Tist of private offices rented_by the Fed-
eI`aI Government in Philadelphia was- de-
died the public because the fnr9rmation
tfom the. landlords was Go1~fl~e~.tiaL
T'he naizxes of .persons granted the priv-
Slege of & Federal- ea5port .license are with=
held because the;nformaton filed to qual-
ify for the privilege is "submitted fn con-
` Retail's oi, compromise settlements of liq-
'QOr law violations .Were covered- up because
they involved material of a "Secrsa nature."
Tile list is long, and none of the atellis are
even relnfltely related to national Security.
'One Was ~.sCcurity tem: in reverse, however.
In the laxter case, Senator. WII,I.IAMa. of
DelawarQ re~erre~l tD, .fie Agency for' Inter-
national Devel9pment_ a report -which
Charged that under our ~oxglgn aid program
we Were fur"nlshing gasoline for use by So-
viet planes flying to Cuba,, hie .received a
reply denying the allegation-but the reply
he received was.,marked.."seCrQt"..and there-
fore Coup not by [trade public.
'Rod, even?. Congress, which provides the
funds, these bureaucrats spend, can get the
SnfprlxiatiQn, it ought to have to guide its
deliberati9ns,and decisions.
~1~nyone who is interested in the preserva-
tion of the dexnoCratic ,system of govern-
,- ment has an intexest in. the- information
a,tnendtneizt.,
A,gov~rnment which can o
-
._
p
erate in secrecy can operate free of respon-
sibility to its .people. Thev can't P.YPY~ a
the request should be referred to him for
such response as he might determine to be in
the.public interest. ,
Era, Nov. 16, 1963] Similarly, President Eisenhower refused to.
OTEPKA TALKa give the late Senator ' McCarthy access to
-
The fh?ing of Otto Qtepka raises a stench
in the State Department. Though Qtepka
has been ejected from his job as a depart-
ment security officer,. the last has not been
heard of his case.
Qtepka has the right of appeal, and the
Sedate Internal Security Subcommittee is
showing a great deal of interest in how and
why his dismissal came about.
Facts behind the case are strange. Qtepka
was charged with 13 violations of regulations,
but most if not all of these were technicali-
ties. His real "crime," in the eyes" of top
State Department officials, was his coopera-
tion with the Senate subcommittee in its
investigation of alleged laxity in security in
the Department.
Moreover, the State Department apparently
resorted to illegal wiretapping in its effort
to "get" Qtepka. Senator THOMAS DODD,
vice chairman of the subcommittee, said
his group has proof that Otepka's phone was
tapped. State Department officials first
denied, then admitted, that at least an at-
tempt was made to do so.
DODD also reported-that Qtepka was locked
out of his office, was denied access to his
files which were rifled, and was humiliated
before his fellow employees..
privileged papers
relating to the loyalty of
Army personnel..
Mr. Truman's order, which is still in effect,
was cited by the State Department as the
basis for Mr. Otepka's dismissal.
Mr. Qtepka, as a veteran security officer
in the State Department, surely was aware
of his obligation to safeguard confidential
information which only the- President is
authorized to release. Yet he professed a
"higher loyalty" to tell the truth, overriding
the "letter" of any regulations. On this
basis, he slipped information from loyalty
files to the counsel of the Internal Security
Subcommittee.
The trouble with Mr. Otepka's reasoning
is that he had his loyalties confused. As an
employee of the executive branch of Govern-
ment, Mr. Otepka's primary obligation was
to abide by the rules governing communica-
tions within the executive branch. Con-
gress has never contested the validity of
those rules. It can hardly condone a breach
of the rules, even by an employee who did one
of its committees a favor.
[From the Atlantic City (N.J.) Press, Nov.
15, 1983 ]
COVERUP CHARGED IN STATE DEPARTMENT
But the heart of the issue is whether a Three State Department officials are in
Federal employee should be harassed and trouble-and two of them have been "fur-
fired for talking to a committee of Con- Toughed"-because they willfully deceived a
gress. The subcommittee has a right to the Senate committee. At the same time, Otto
information it wanted. Qtepka, until recently the chief security eva-
luations officer at State, is fighting to get
[From the Winston-Salem (N.C.) Journal, back his jab. The State Department reluc-
Nav. 14, 1963] tautly-0acted agafnstythe-three officials-and
- -
-
??---?? -~ ?
-
-- -------- ocuauOr ixvMAS JJODD OI 'C%OrineCL1CU.L. !t
doing. Involved is a fundamental right Unfortunately, the controversy surround- acted ruthlessly against Qtepka, whose only
which badly needs protection. fag the dismissal of Otto_~',-Qtepka from a crimewas to obey the law by cooperating
_ ` State Department job has been. clouded by with the Senate Internal Security Subcom-
[From the Greenville (S.C.) Piedmont, . ~ the disclosure that Mr. Qtepka was the victim mittee then probing lax security procedures
_~T,2v. 18, iS63 j of electronic eavesdropping by security offi- in the sievelike State Department.
REPZ:EiCUSSIONS orr O}'~PKA cers in the Department. What this proves is that the Department
To make n}attera worse, the eavesdroppers remains unchanged. It continues to think of
The Bring of Otto Qtepka raises a stench had testified earlier that they knew nothing itself as a.private Club, privileged above ordi-
!ti the .State .Department. Though Qtepka about the installation of a listening device nary society. It continues to act as if it were
has been ejected from his job as a Depart- in Mr. Otepka's office. more important to cover up its misdeeds than
No. 211-10
Approved For Release 2005/01/05 :CIA-RDP66B00403R000200200016-9
 Approved For Release 2 01/ DP 380002002000 9
2413G CONGRESSI - eeember 29
St is to think iri terms of the natieasl ae- Moreover, the Hints Department apparently
sanity, resorted to 1Aegal wiretapping in Sts effort
The Otegka Case is important because the to "gat Otepka. Senator TaolaAS DoDD, ales
man was heated unjustly But !t >& ateo one ctisirmsa of the subcommittee, said his
more exhibit Sn s lenti~thy Iiat which shown group has proof that Oteptca's phone was
that II3. officials cannnt seem to understand tapped. State Department officlais first de-
the dangers bi bad sec=unity. The State De- hied, then admitted, that at least an attempt
partment !s still doing Its best to hush up the was made to do so.
scandal-and for a wh!!e it:eportedlyy had co- DoDD also reported that Otepka was locked
operation from 8enat~s O BAS~i'1.ArrD, out of his Discs, 'was dented access to h1a
chairman o1 the Senates Judlciarp Committee. _ files which were rLSed, and was humlllated
which is parent to Internal Sactirity. before his fellow employee.
It was Senator DoD'.3 Who forced Into the But the heart Of the i~ue is whether a
open some of the mole unsavory aspects of Federal employee should be harassed and fired
the Department's treatment of Otepka. In Tor talking to a committee of Congress. Tae
this way he made !t iinposaible for the Sen- subcommittee had a right to the Saformatioa
ate Internet Security Subcommittee to sit tt wasted.
on evidence in its flies. Otapka has been dismissed for telling the
On July B, IB83, Elmer Dewey 8111, chief truth-his right under the II$. Civil Service
of the Division of Tec:hnicai Services, teats- Coda which states that such "shall not be
tied under oath before the Beasts subcom- dented nor interfered with." Ifs has bees
mSttee as follows: the atctim eX illegal incites--wiretapping.
?Question. Do you know of a single in- The Sonata commutes should pursue the
stance in which the Department has aver scent.
listened in oa the telephone of an employee?
"Answer. I cannot recall such an iaatance.
"Question. Do you 'snow of any instances
where a listening dev.ce hoe been placed In
en employee's office?
"Annswer. Not to my knowledge. ' ? ? Z
Nava never engaged in this--tn that type of
security measure ' ? '
"Question. Did you ever have anything to
do with placing a itateniag device in Mr.
Otepka's office?
"AnsW@r. No, s1r."
Oa November 6, 1983, after Senator DciDD
had begun to make xis charges of gerjurp
against unnamed Sta+:e Department officials,
ffill wrote to the suixbmmtttee amplifying
his testimony o1 July. Hear this:
"On Monday, March IB, IB83, Mr. John F.
Reilly, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Secur-
ity, asked me to explore the poeafbiilty of
asraagtag some way t~ eavesdrop an convar-
sationa taking glace in Mr. Otepka's office.
? ? ? Inter that day T discussed the technical
aspects of this matter with Mr. Clarence J.
Schneider. ? ' ? We agreed oa the approach
to ba used. ? ? ? 'f'h st evening Mr. i3chnei-
der and I altered the eaisting wiring in the
telephone in Mr. Ots a breach of the standard of con-
duct expected of an officer of the Department
of State.
4. You have conducted yourself Ln a man-
ner unbecoming an officer of the Department
of State:
Sgeciffeally: You furnLshed a copy ai e `
claselfled memorandum concerning the pro-
cessing of appointments M members of the
AdvSsorp Committee on International Orga- -
nizatlons Staffing to a person outside of the
Department without authority and in v)o1a-
tion of the Presidential directive of March
13, 1948 (13 Fed. Reg. 1399) . This directive
provides:
"All reports, records, and files relative to
the loyalty o1 employees or prospective em-
pioyees (including reports o1 such investiga-
tive agencies) , shat! be maintained Sn con-
fldeace, and shall not be transmitted or dis-
etased except as required in the efficient
conduct of business."
You ware reminded of the prohibition con-
tained in this direct[ve on March 22, 1963,
when you received and noted a copy of a
letter from Mr. Dutton, to Senator Ei+sxr.~xn,
dated March B0, 1883. A Copp of this letter,
indicating that you noted it, Ss enclosed as
ezhibit C.
Zn your sworn statement, referred to above
and enclosed as eahibit A, you stated on
page 9 that you gave a Dopy o1 a classified
memorandum entitled "Processing of Ap-
pointments o1 Members of the Advisory
Committee an International Organlzationa
Staffing," to Mr. J. G. Sourwine. This memo-
randum concerns "the loyeitp of employees
oz prospective employees" of the Department
within the meaning of the Presidential direc-
tiue of March 13, 1948.
This !a a breach of the standard of con-
duct expected of an officer of the Depart-
ment of State.
8. You have conducted yourself in a man-
ner unbecoming an officer of the Department
of State.
Speciffcallp: You furnisher! a copy of an
investigative report concerning a prospec-
tlva employee of the Department to a per-
son outside of the Department without au-
Lhoritp and !n violation of the Presidential
directive of March 13, 1998 (13 Fed. Reg.
1359). This directive provides:
"Ali reports, records, and files relative to
the loyalty of employees or prospective em-
ployees (including reports of such inveati-
gatlve agenelea), shall be'maintainad in con-
ffdenca, and shall not be transmitted or dls-
cloaed except as required in the efficient
conduct of business:'
Yau were reminded, of the prohibition con-
tained in this directive on March 23, 1983.
when you received and noted a copy of a
letter from Mr. Dutton, to Senator Eesrr.axn,
dated March ~. 1988. A copy of this letter,
indicating that you noted it, is enclosed
sa exhibit C.
In your sworn statement, referred to above
and enclosed as eahlbit A, you stated on
page 10 that you gave a copy o1 sn inveati-
gatlve report dated Map 27, 1860, to Mr. J. G.
SourWine, concerning Joan Mae Fogltanz.
This report concerns "the loyalty of em-
ployees or prospective employees" of the De-
partment within the meaning of the Presl-
dential directive of Marcll 13, 1848..
This Is a breach of the standard of conduct
expected of an office of the .Department of
State.
4. You have been responsible for the de-
elassiflcation of a elasaiffed document con-
taining clasalfled information without fol-
lowing the procedures sat forth in volume 5,
section 1970, et seq., 02 the Department's
Foreign Affairs manual sa supplemented by
FAMC 103, dated January 30, 1883. This
document, which wsa classified confidential,
was addressed to Mr. McGeorge Bundy, the
White House, and was signed by Mr. William
H. Brubeck, special asslatant to the Secretary
and Executive Secretary of the Department:
Speciflcalty: On June 18, 1963, the T~eroxed
espies of the tops and bottoms of the pages
of the aforementioned document were re-
trieved from your burn bag. This burn bsg
was obtained from the man room in accord-
once with the groCedure outlined above.
be upheld. This is unfortunate, For, as
Senator Donn added, "Ta the topsy-twvy
world. ei the State Deportment, security vio-
lations have come to a mean, not trying to
turn over information to an alien power,
but testifying truthfully before a body of
Congress."
[From the Springfleid (Ohio} Sun, Nov. 12,
1B68j
Tres Ovsasxenowso Ma. Rvas:
Dean Ruak, who has astabllshed himself as
anything but a contentious flguia as Secre-
tary of State, seems Yeaded for shot-spot
over the Otto F. Otepke case.
Mr. Otepka has been dismissed as chief
security evaluating ofl,cer in the Stair De-
partment. Ha 16 charged with passing on
confldentlal documents from the Department
to the Senate Internal Security Subcommit-
tee.
But Benatar Taoxa3 J. Dorm, vice chair-
man of the aubcomnlittee, saps that Mr.
Otepka was punished i~ecause he Bimglg tes-
tified honestly on matters relating ko security
in the State Department. Tha Senator,.
backed bg other Members of Congress, is
thundering that the c:lamiasai of Otepka is
an as:aF.ult on the cheese and balances of the
three divisions of Federal Government.
That's the sort of talk which coulQ Iead
to a congressional scalping party tar Mr.
Ruak. This could be 3 mistake, since there
is no proof that Mr. R+xsk has been anything
but Secretary of State in name only. The
man they want might ~uat as likely be Yaund
in the Attorney Geners,l'e office or some other
division o1 the esecutlve branch.
Darea~icaxx os i3ae'n,
Washington, September 23, 1963.
Mr.O?rro F. 02arxn,
Office of Security,
Department of State.
Ds,ea Ma. OraPxs: This is k notice of pro-
posed adverse action to accordance with the
regulations of the Clv l Service Commission.
You era hereby notifiad_that It is proposed
to remove you from your appointment with
the Department of State, as augervlsorp per-
sonnel security spacial at, [3S-lb, in the Omca
of the Deputy Assistant Secretary foT Secur-
ity, 30 days from the date of this Ietter.
On August 18, 19&9. at Washington, D:C.,
you eaeeUted s voluntary sworn statement,
dated August 15, iB83, before C,-rl E. Gra-
ham and Robert C, Blrnea, speclss agents of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation. A copy
of this statement is attached ss axhiblt A.
Information coata{ne1 therein wilt ba re-
ferred to speciflcallp in some of the Charges
listed below.
Furthermore, durlni; the period March 13,
1983" to June 18, 1983, Mr. Jahn F. Reilly,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Security,
cauaen the following ;7rocedures to ba inat!-
tuted:
(a) Mrs. Joyce M. Eichmelzer, secretary to
Mr. Frederick W. Traband, supervisory per-
sonnel security specialist, periodicalip ob-
served your Classified trash bag (hereinafter
referred to as "burn bag"} which was in
possession of your [ecretarg, hire. Eunice
Powers. Mrs. Schme: zer and Mre. Powers
were :orated in the dame roam and across
from one another.
(b) When Mrs. SClunelzer saw that your
burn bag was fail, ahj would oak Mrs. Paw-
era if she wanted her (Mrs. Bclemelz~er) to
take ;tour burn bag to s Department mail
room with Mr. Traba~rd'e.
(c) When Mrs. l'awera accepted Mrs.
Bchmelzer's offer, Mrs. Schmelzer would in-
form ~3r. Trabasid of -:his fact. Mr. Traband
would then call Mr, ~ Rosetta, supervisory
security specialist, or Mr. E3hea, sugervisarg
generril investigator, if Mr. Rosetta was not
available, sad inform him that your burn
bag was being delivered to the mail room.
(d) Wh11e carryin[; your burn bag and
Approved For Release 2005/01/05 :?CIA-RDP66B00403R000200200016-9
 ? 193 Approved For Reg~~~}LCI~-BO~A~200200016-9 24143
These tops and bottoms had been cut from "(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates,
a XOroaed copy oP the Brubeck document and conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same,
have been matched with a complete copy for destroys, or attempts to do so, or with in- shall be fined -not more than $2,000 or im-
identification purposes. , - tent to do so takes and carries away any rec- prisoned not more than 3 years, or both;
The act of cutting the classification indica- ord, proceeding, map, book, paper, docu- and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified
-tors from a copy of a document declassified ment, or other thing, flied or deposited with from holding any office under the United
that copy of the document. Exhibit D is a any clerk or officer oP any court of the States. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat.
statement tram Messrs. Belisle, Rosetti, and United States, or in anq public office, or with 795.) "
Shea, attesting to the fact that they have any judicial or public officer oP the United This document, which was classified Con-
identifled these clippings as having come States, shall. be fined not more than $2,000 fldential, was addressed to you from Messrs.
from the classified document referred to or imprisoned not 'more than three years, Traband~ and Levy, and was on the subject
above. ~ or both. "SY Evaluative Services to ARA and OIA.^
6. You have been responsible for the muti- ` (b) Whoever, having the custody of any Specifically: On June 18, 1963, a xeroxed
lotion of a classified document !n violation such record, proceeding, map, book, docu- copy oP the taps and bottoms of the pages
of 18 U.S.C. 2071, which provides: ment, paper, or other thing, willfully and oP the aforementioned document was re-
"(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, ob- trieved from your burn bag. This burn bag
conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or literates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall was obtained Prom the mailroom in accord-
destroya, or attempts to do so, or, with in- be fined not more than ig2,000 or imprisoned once with the procedure .outlined above.
tent to do so takes ,and carries away any not more than three. years, or both; and shall These tops and bottoms had been cut from
record, .proceeding, map, book, paper, docu- forfeit his office and be disqualified from a .xeroxed copy of the subject document and
ment, or other thing, filed or deposited with holding any office under the United States. have been matched with a complete copy for
any clerk or officer of any court of the United (June 25, 1948, ch. 64b, 62 Stat. 795.) " identification purposes.
States, or fn any public office, or With any This document, which was classified con- The act of cutting the classSflcatfon indi-
judicial or public officer of the United States, fldential, was addressed to SY-Mr. Belisle cators iiom a document "mutilates" that
shall be fined not more than $2,000 or im- from SY/EX-Mr. John Noonan, and was document within the meaning of 18 U,S.C.
prisoned, not more than- three years, or'both. on the subject "Security meeting". 2071. Eafhibit D is a statement Pram Messrs.
"(b) Whoever, having the custody of any Speciflcallq: On June 18, 1963, aThermo- Shea, Belisle, and Rosetti attesting to the
such. record, proceeding, map, book, docu- Faxed copy of the tops and bottoms of the fact that they have identified these clippings
ment, paper, or other thing, wlllf1111y and pa~ea oP the aforementioned document was as having come from the classified docu-
unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, ob- retrie'ved from your burn bag. This burn went referred to above.
literates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall bag was obtained from the mailroom in ac- 10. You have been responsible for the de-
be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned cordance with the procedure outlined above, classification of a classified document con-
not more than 3 years, or both; and shall These tops and bottonpa had been cut from taining classified information without Pol-
forfeit his office and be disqualified from aThermo-Faxed copy oP the document and .lowing the procedures set forth in volume b,
holding any office under the. Uxlited States. they -have been matched with a complete section 1970, et seq. of the Department's
(June 2b, 1948, ch, 64b, 62 St~,t. 795,)" copy for identification purposes. Foreign Affalra manual as supplemented by
This document, which_was classified con- The act ?of cutting the classification in- F'AMC 102, dated January 30, 7963. This
fldential, was addressed to Mr, McGeorge dicators 'from a document mutilates that document, which was classified confldentfaI,
Bundy, the White House, and was signed by document within the meaning of 18 United was drafted by ARA/RPA: JMBarta (inter-
Mr. William H. Brubeck.. , States Code 2071. Exhibit D is a statement . national relations officer) , and concerned the
Speciflcailq: On June,18 1983,, the Xeroxed from Messrs. Shea, Belisle, and Rosetti, at- .procedure far reviewing and disposing oP ad-
copies of the taps andbottoms of the pages testing to the fact that they have Identified ,~ yerae information on employees of Inter-
oF the aforementioned docuxXlent were re- these clipings as having come from the national Organizations dealing with Inter-
trfeved from your burn bag. This burn bag classified document referred to above.
.was obtained from the mail room in accord- 8. You have been responsible for the de- American Affairs:
once with the ,procedure outlined above. classification of a classified document con- Specifically: On June- 18, 1963, a xeroxed
These tops and bottoms had. ~becn cut from taining classified information without follow. copy oP the tops and bottoms of the pages.
a Xeroxed copy oP -the Srubeck document ing the procedures set forth in volume 5, sec- oP the aforementioned document was re-
ared have been m
t
h
t
i
d
ith
c
e
r
a
w
eved from your burn bag. This burn bag
a complete tion 1970, et se of the De artment's Forei n
copy for identification ur q? P g -was obtained from the mailroom in accord-
P Poses- Affairs manual as supplemented by FAMC
The 'act of cutting the classification indi- 102, dated January 30, 1963. This document ante with the procedure outlined above.
cators from a document "mutilates" that which was classified confidential was, ad- These taps and bottoms which were cut from
document within the t;leaning aP 18 U.S,C. dressed to you Prom Messrs. Traband and a xeroxed copy of the Berta document, have
2071. Exhibit,D is a statementfrom Messrs. 7.a.,,, re,,,,o..,,-,,,....,,._;.,....._, ______,.__ __ _._ been .matched with a complete copy for
?~
a
'
--~,. w.= vii YalO 6UN~GG4 Ai ~vaiuasive
fact that they have Identified these clippings -Services to ARA and OIA: '
The
act
oi cutting the classification indf-
as having come from the classified document Specifleally? On June 18, 1963, a Xeroxed cators from a copy of a document declassi-
referred to above, copy of the tops and bottoms oP the pages fled that copy of the document. Exhibit D
6. You have 'been responsible for the de- of the aforementioned document was re- is a statement from Messrs. Shea, Belisle,
classification of a classified document con- trieved from your burn bag. This- burn and Rosetti, attesting to the fact that they
taining classified information without fol- bag was obtained from the mailroom in have identified these clippings as having
louring the procedures set forth in volume 5, accordance with the procedure outlined Dome from the classified document referred
section 1970, et seq, of the Department's above. These tops and bottoms had been to above.
Foreign Affairs manual as supplemented by -cut from a Xeroxed copy of the subject docu- 11. You have been responsible for the mu-
FAMC 102, 'dated January 30, 1963, This ment and have been- matched with. a com- tilation of a classified document in violation
document, which was classified conflden- piste copy for identification purposes. of 18 U.S.C. 2071, which provides:
tial, was addressed to SY-Mr. Belisle from The act of cutting the classification in- "(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully
SY/EX-Mr. John Noonan, supervisory se- dicators -from a copq oP a document, de- conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or
curity specialist, and was on the subject -classified that copy of the document. destroys, or attempts to do so, or with in-
security meeting", Exhibit D is s statement from Messrs. Shea, tent. to do so takes and carries, away any
Specifically: On June 18, 1963, aThermo- Belisle, a.nd Rosetti, attesting to the -fact record, proceeding, map, book, paper, docu-
Faxed copy of the tops and bottoms of the that they have identified these clippings as ment, or other thing, filed or deposited with
pages of the aforementioned document was having come Prom the classified document any clerk or officer of any court of the United
retrieved from. your burn bag. This burn referred to above, States, or in an
-bag was obtained from the, mail room in 9. You have been res onsible for the muti- Y public office, or with any
accordance with the procedure outlined lotion of a classified document in violation shall ibe fl ed not more than $2 000 or im-
above. These tops and bottoms had been -of 18 U.S.C. 2071, which provides: prisoned not more than 3 years, or both.
cut from aThermo-Faxed. copy of the docu- ^(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully "(b) Whoever, having the custody oP any
ment and they have been matched with a conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or such record, proceeding, map, book,- docu-
complete copy for identification .purposes. destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent- ment, paper, or other thing, willfully and
The act oP cutting the classification indi- to do so takes and carries away any record, unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, ob-
cator~ ixom .a copq oP a document declassi- proceding, map, book, paper, document, or literates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall
fled that copy of the document. Exhibit D other thing, flied or deposited with any clerk be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned'
is a statement from Messrs. Shea, Belisle and or officer of any court of the United States, not more, than 3 years, or' both; and shall
Rosetti, attesting to the fact that they, have or in any public office, or with any judicial Forfeit` his office and be disqualified Prom
identified these clippings as having come nr public officer. of the United States, shall holding any office under the United States.
from the classified document referred to be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned (June 26, 1948, ch: 645; 62 Stat. 795.) "
above. not more than 3 years, or both. This document, which was classified con-
(7) You have been responsible far the "(b) Whoever, having the custody of any fldential was drafted by ARA/RPA: JMBarta,
mutilation o,F a classified. document in vio- such record, proceeding, map, book, docu- and concerned the procedure for reviewing
Iation of 18 U.S.C. 2071, which provides: ment, paper, or other thing, willfully and and disposing of adverse information on em-
No. 211-11
Approved For Release 2005/01/05 :CIA-RDP66B00403R00020020.0016-9
 24144
Approved CQr~ e~s~~(~~/~15~RDP~~~~O3ROOO2OO2OOO~~~9~~~~~, ~~ -
piope~ of international organizations deal- wish to make should be addressed to mp employee receive such a report annually, and
ing with interAmericar+ affairs. attention, You may furnish atastavits 4r I have an several occasions requested my
Specif1cally: On June 18, 1983, a Serozed ether evidence in support of pour reply u superiors to give me mp efficiency reports.
copy of the tops and bottoms of the pages you eo desire. It you wish to make as oral However, until recently none of my superiors
of tho eSorementioned document was n- reply you map call lids. Draw, extension aver complained to me about mp perform-
trieved from gour burn bag. Thin 'burn bag 82b1, for an appointment. once of duty.
was obtarlned tram the mailroom in accord- As soon m possible, after your answer is Beginning in November i981, an investiga-
ance with the procedure outlined above. received, or after the expiration of the IO- lion into caztaia security practices of the
These tops sad bottoms Which mere cut from day limit, if you do sot answer, a written 'Department of State was conducted by the
a Xeroxed copy of the Parts document, have decision will be flailed to goo. Internal Security Subcommittee of the Cam-
been matched with a complete copy for tden- During the SO-dap aatlce period to which mittee oa the Judiciary of the U.S. Senate.
tiflcatioa purposes. you are. entitled, you wll7 amain in sn ac- E first appeared before that committee at its
The act of cutting the ciaesiflcatioa ladies- rive duty statue at your present grade and request and with the express perarlssion of
fora from a document "rnutiiates" that docu- aelarp, the Department of State, together with two
meat within the meaning of 18 U.S.O. 2071. Sincerely yours, ether members of the Bureau of Security
l~hibit D is a statemert from 14Sesars. Shea, Jaxx OaDWaa, and COnaulsr Affairs. i responded to the
Belisle E:nd Roaetti, attesting to the fact that Chiej, Personnel Operations 1)Ivisfan. questions of liir- J. G. Bourwine, the sub-
they have identified those clippings ss hav- committee's chief counsel, frankly and
ing come from the clasaifled document re- Wxaazox, MD., October i4, 3983, truthfully to the best of my knowledge and.
ierred to above. Han. Joex OaDWAY. ability. 8ubaequentlp, 1n April 2962 I re-
12. You have eondi~cted yourself Sn a Chie/, Peraonrzei Operations Diaiaian, appeared before the subcommittee e7so at the
manner unbecoming an officer of the Depart- Department of State, committee's request and with the permission
meat of Btate: Waahinpfarz, D.G. ai my superiors. Also agpearing at or about
6peclflcally: On 1ldarch 19, 1983, carbon Dena I+dn, Oanwar: This la my answer to that time were my superiors. I1t October
paper consleting of seven pages was recov- the charges preferred against me by your 1982, the committee publicly released the
Bred from your burn bag. This burn bag Iettcr o1 September 29, 1963. transcripts of my testimony and that of
was obtained by l~dr. 19osettl from the matt cxaaas r axD sasses z other Department of Bute personnel, to-
room sitar it had been,placed there in ac- Before turnlag to the specific charges, a gether with a report of the committee con-
cordaace with the procedure outlined shave, general statement of the background of taming the committee's coac7usions and
The burn bag was li~epacted and carbon this entire matter !s 13i-oMEr. reeommendationa with respect to the secu-
paper recovered from tt by ldr. Shea. Mr. I Nava been sn rm i ea of the UB. Ciav- ritp practices and procedures of the Depart-
Rosetti'a signed statement regardi this in- boy men of state,
ng ernment for 27 pears. Pram 1938 uatll Beginning fa 7'ebruary 1883, and during
cadent ie enclosed a8 exhibit $. Mr. Shea's 1842 I occupied minor positions in the March 1883, I appeared on four occasions
statement is enclosed ae exhibit F. The Farm Credit Admiafatratlon and the Bu- before the same subcommittee in accordance
carbon paper has been reproduced and c~piea resu of Internal Revenue, and f~ 9 pears ~~ fie request and with the knowledge of
thereof are attached as exhibit C3. This car- during that period. attended 1sW achooL Ia my superiors. I was given to understand
bon pager contains questions which you pre- 1842 I was appointed to favaetigator sad t7i8t the ccmmfttea Was leaking to ascer-
pared and iraalehed t,r s person oz parsons security officer with the U~= CIvII Service leis .from the I]apartment of State whether
outside the Deps,rtmer+t for the use of Mr, Cammisaion. I served in that capacity un- or not the Department had lmpiemeated the
J, 4. 8ourwine, in the interrogation of Mr. " tit 1843, when I enteral the i7.8. Navy as committee's recommendations to improve
Itatlip. Mr. Bourwine eubsequentlp asked ~ apprentice seaman, i served in the Navy serials security practices found by the com-
these questions of lldr. Reilip when ha ap- nom 1943 unto 1848, being discharged with mitten to be deficient. During April and
peered before the U.S. Senate Subcommit- the grade of patty officer first class. Return- Map 1888. mp immediate superior, Mr. John
tea To Investigate the Adminiatratian of the ing ~ the Civll Service C.Oa1nY18~On in 1848, g, }3,elliy, tzstifled before the committee on
Internal Security Act and Other Internal I served Chore as sn [nvestlgatiez sad se- Sve occasions. Prior to hie first appearance,
Security Laws, of th+r Committee an the cudty officer unto 1869 when I Dame tx9 the and at hie request, I obtataed from 11dr.
Judiciary. lidr. Reilly':i signed atnteanent >a Department ai State es a security afIIcer. I 8ourwine the stenographic transcripts of my
enclosed as ezhlbit S. have been with the Department ever sines teatlmonp of Pebrnarp and March 1963, and
This is a breach of the standard of eon- i9b3. I furnished those transcripts to Mr. Relllp.
duct expected of sn officer a1 the Department My efficiency ratings at the Civll Service ~. B,eillg ladicated ttr ma ha had not read
of State: Commisaton for the pears 188-b9 were ail mp lpta before. Ida not Ynow the
13. You have conducted pauraelf in a man- ?'ezceAent;' the highest rstiaga attstnable reason Why, sa the transcripts had been
ner unbecoming sar officer of the Department under the system rhea In eIIa~t. During my avaiisbia to him through regular Depart-
oi State: service !n the Department of State, all of
$peeiScally: On June 10, 1@63,. a one-time my efficiency t'ePe'~ have been bight favor- meat chsnneU.
typewriter ribbon wsa recovered from year able. ploy ezsmple, toe the pear 19b8-80, Following the appearance of Mr, Reilly, he
burn bag. This burs bag Wes obtained by when I served as Depot Director of the time to my office and informed ma that Bena-
Mr. 1?osettl from the ~aailroom after it had p tar Txor+rwa F, DaD6, the presiding chair-
been laced there !a accordance with fire Office of 3ecuritp, mp efficiency report Dan- man of the subcommittee, had given him.,
P tamed the following comment by the Dt- Mr Reilly. "a bad time" on that day. Mr.
procedure outlined e.bova. Mr. RoaettYe rector ,~ that office, Mr. BoeWeil: R.eilip riilated to me that ha had told the
signed statement regaMtag this iacldent is ??ga has had long azperience With and has subcommittee that I had voluntarily dis-
enclosed ss exhibit I. This type writer rib- acquired as extremely bread knowledge ad qualified myself from the evaluation of the
bon has been read end the contents sra laws, regulations, rules, cQitaria sad prn- case ~ WilLam A. Wieland. Mr. Reilly
reproduced as exhibit J. Tha ribbon cos- CedUrCe !rr the $e7d of personnel security. ~~ ~ I could `?straightEa out" Mt. DODD
tsined 24 questions Which you prepared and Ha ~ kaowiedgeable at communism sad of ?a ~~ matter, I said I did sot knout Mr.
furnished to s person ar parsons outside the its subversive efforts la the United Braise. DaDD but were I 4o ba again questioned by
Department for the use of Mr, J. 4. Sour- ~ this, h? adds perspective, balance, and the subcommittee I would be very hapgy
wine Li the interrogation of Mr. Belisle. 1Kr. geed judgment, presenting his recommeada- to state for the record what- had transpired
Sourwine subeegneatly asked 16 of these lions and decisions is clear, well-reasoned, between me and Mr. Rellly when on a prior
questions of Mr. Belisle whoa ha appeared sad moticuloualp drafted documents, He occaaioa ha discussed With me, at his re-
befora Lire U.B, Seae:te $ubcammlttee To has brought these attributes tit bear during quest, my future role in the reevaluation of
Investigate the Admiaiatratiaa of the In- perm totaling almc>tst 4 maatha when ha the Wieland case.
ternal Security Act and Other Internal Bec- has been Acting Director is mp absence and }~o7iawing the oonciusloa of Mr. Re111g's
urity Laws, of the Caatmlttee an the Ju- thtoughaut the rating period sa the State teatimang, Mr. J. 4. Bourwfne, the chief
diciary. Mr. Be7lale's signed statement 18 Department representative on an intragov- counsel of the subcommittee, requested. that
enclosed as ezhlbit 11;. eramentat committee concerned with aecu- I coma to sea him, which i did, after work-
This Se s breach of the standard of cos- rite matters." - ing hours oa the day of his request. To the
duct expected of an officer of the Tiepsrt- ~ April 19b8, Y received s meritorious lsest o1 my recollection this Was on Islay 23,
meat of State. service award signed by Secretary of State 1963. Mr. BourWine voluntarily informed me
Copies o1 the mamc?randa end documents Jahn Foster Du31ea far austaiaed and meri- that there were aonflicta between my testi-
referred to in the charges which are ciaasi- Carious aeCampllahment in the discharge of mony and the testimony o1 lidr. Reilly, He
fled and concern ?'thn loyalty of amplapeea my assigned duties, The juatiflcation for ag~?gaj is let me read the stenographic tran-
or prospective 'emplagaes" of the Depart- this award included the following state- scripts of Mr. }7,e1]ly'a testimony and said
meat are available for inspection by you meat: "He has shown himself conalstenttp that when i had Jana ao, I should give him
and your attorney upc+n request to Mr. John to be capable of Bound, independent judg- a memorandum. that would answer point by
W. Drew, Jr., of mp staff, in room 2239. meat, creative Work, and the acceptance of point all of those portions of Mr. Reil7y's
You are hereby gi~~en 10 days from the ~~~ reaponaibllitp:' test#mony Which conflicted with my testi-
date of this letter to answer these charges. It may be noted that I have received- ao mony or Which I found inaccurate ar untrue.
You map reply both Iersonstip and in writ- efficiency report since September i980, al- After carefriliy reading the transcripts of Mr.
ing tf you so desire. Any written reply you though the regulations require tl-at each Railly'a testimony I Was both shocked and
Approved For Release 2005/01/05 :CIA-RDP66BOO4O3ROOO2OO2OOO16-9
 .T 963 Approved For Rg2~~?#~~L ~1~6BQ0200200016-9 24145
amazed, I therefore prepared amemoran- Applying this doctrine to the present case, civil service oY the United States, either in-
dum consisting oY 39 double-spaced pages and assuming without conceding that the dlvidually or collectively, to petition -Con-
annotated by exhibits, and I furnished a memoranda of September 10 and September gress, or any Member thereof, or to furnish
copy of this memorandum to Mr. Sourwine 17, 1962, fell within the letter oY the Press- information to either Souse oY Congress or
together with copies of the exhibits men- dential directive, oY March 13, .1948, I submit to any committee or member thereof, shall
tinned therein. This memorandum was fur- that those memorandums were not within the not be .denied or interfered with. As
nLshed to Mr, Sourwine as the chief counsel spirit of the directive nor within the inten- amended June 10, 1948, c, 447, 62 Stat. 3b4;
and authorized representative oP the sub- tion of its author. As President Truman 1949 Reorg. Plan No. 5, elf, Aug, 19, 1949, 14
committee. It was intended to serve as mq stated in his letter to the Secretary of State, F.R. 5227, 83 Stat. 1067".
reference in. rebuttal, explanation, or clarifl- dated April 2, 1952,, the purpose oP the direc- If the provisions of the directive are con-
cation of statements made by Mr. Reilly, in tive was "to preserve the confidential char- strued to prohibit the disclosure by me of
any Puture appearance I made before the . acter and sources oY information, to protect the memoranda here involved, under the
committee. I was told that I would be re- Government personnel against the diasemi- circumstances of this case, then i submit
called to testify again before the committee. nation of unfounded or disproved allege- the directive is in violation of the statute.
I was especially disturbed by two state- tions, and to insure the fair and just disposi- It must be emphasized always that I gave
ments made bq Mr. Reilly in his testimony tion of loyalty cases." The memoranda oY the memoranda in question to Mr. Sourwine,
which was shown to me bq Mr. Sourwine. September 10 and September 17, 1982 re- not as an individual, but as the authorized
First, Mr. Reilly testified, concerning eight ferred to no confidential information, die- agent of a committee of the U.S. Senate; and
prospective appointees. to the Advisory Com- closed no eonfldential sources, and made no T gave them to him only to be used as ex-
mittee on International Organizations, that allegations, My memorandum oY September hibits in connection with my forthcoming
there was no substantial derogatory informs- 10, 1982 merely referred to matters of public testimony before that committee in eic-
tfon respecting anq of the prospective aP- record and recommended that these matters ecutive session.
pointees, and that the case- of only -one of should be investigated. There was no loyalty cxeacE s
them had even been brought to his atten- .case, pending or contemplated, involving any Charge 3 alleges. that in violation of the
tion prior to their appointment. This tests- of the individuals mentioned. In short, in presidential directive of March 13, 1948, I
moray I knew to be incorrect, ,for on SeP^ the context of -the Presidential directive of furnished to Mr. J. G. Sourwine a copy of an
tember 10, 1982, before the appointments March 13, 1948, the two memorandums were investigative report dated May 27, 1980, con-
were made, I had submitted to him amemo- completely innocuous and clearly not the cerning Joan Mae Fogltanz.
randum with respect to each of the indi- ,kind of papers that the directive was de- My answer to charges 1 and 2 is in large
viduals in question. This memorandum signed to protect. part, applicable to charge 3 and I adopt it as
strongly recommended that certain oP the My interpretation of the Presidential di- part of my answer to charge 3.
prospective appointees not be cleared with- rective OP March 13, 1948, is apparently in Specifically, the facts relating to and
out further investigation. On September 17, harmony with the interpretation placed upon justfying my delivery of a copy of the
1982, M;. Reilly himself dlreeted a memoran- the .directive by Secretary oY State Rusk. Fogltanz report to Mr. Sourwine are as Yol-
dum to ~ulr. George M. Czayo in the office of Thus, the statement of Senator Tsonaea J. lows: In his testimony before the commit-
, Mr. Harland Cleveland-with respect to these DODD, appended t0 the report oP the Senate tee Mr. Reilly swore that in a memorandum
cases, and this document reflected that Mr. Subcommittee on Internal Security in the dated. October 29; 1982, I had made certain
Reilly -was familiar with mq memorandum matter oP State Department security, pub- recommendations for the improvement oP
of September 10. lashed in 1982, contains the following: the organization and operation oY the Divi-
I gale to Mr, Sourwine a copy of my-memo- "Subsequent to the preparation oY this re- aion of Evaluations; and that I thereafter
randum of September 10, 1982, and a copy oY port, I had occasion to discuss the Wieland complained when the very changes I had
Mr. Reillq's memorandum of September 17, case with Secretary Ruak and to examine recommended were put into effect. He pro-
1982. While these- documents were classified certain documents which he showed me in duced a copq of mq memorandum of October
"eonfldential"-the one of September 10 hav- confidence. 29, 1982, introduced it into the committee
ing been classified by me-theq contained no "On the basis of these conversations, I sm record, and discussed it in detail. Further-
investigative data, The only substantive satisfied that, prior to September 16, 1961, more, he said that my "recanting" oY that
data contained in my memorandum of Sep- Secretary. oY State Rusk had examined the memorandum caused him to question- my
tember,l0 consisted ai references to certain. material pertaining to the Wieland case in integrity and my emotional balance. This
matters which had been mentioned in pub- considerable detail, including reports of the was the second statement by Mr. Reilly that
dished reports or liearinga of the Senate In- Federal Bureau of Investigation:' disturbedume.
ternal Security Subcommittee or which were See Senate report,.. State Department One specific recommendation which Mr.
otherwise in the public domain. The Reilly Security, "The Case oY William Wieland, Reilly claimed i had repudiated was my rec-
memorandum of September 17 contained no etc., 87th Congress, 2d session-page 197. ommendation that "short-form reporting"
substantive data whatever with respect t0 the The intendment of Senator DoDD'a state- be used in the case oY certain applicants for
moateCart top hen roceduralrste sdinvolved ment is that Secretary Rusk disclosed to him, employment. By short-form reporting I
P P P documents from the security file of Mr, meant a rocedure whereb invests ative re-
in their clearance. Wieland, in order to establish that the Sec- ports on applicants Por minor clerc al posi-
Charge 1 in your letter is based upon my retary did examine this material prior to Lions which.-were entirely favorable would
aotio~npitnembernl ~, c1982 Y~ yMr 6ourwium September 15, 1961. It seems obvious that, be condensed and summarized eliminating
in the judgment oP Secretary Ruak, a rev- long and repetitious endorsements and de-
Charge 2 related to my action in giving 11dr, sonable and commonsense interpretation scriptive statements. ' I recommended that
oI Se tember 17~1982.RYou aimless that m of the Presidential directive did not prevent such short-form reporting be used only in
P g y the disclosure of the security material to cases oY applicants for positions in grado
aationa were in violation of the Presidential Senator Doaa, Ii it was proper for Secre- (;~-4 or lower, After receiving my memo-
directive of March 13, 1948 (12 Fed. Reg. tarq Rusk to show such material to a mem- randum and contrary to mq recommends-
- 23b9) which forbids the disclosure, except as ber oY the Internal Security Subcommittee, tion, Mr, Reilly ordered that short-form re-
required in the efficient conduct oY business, then it was proper for ma to disclose the porting 'should . be used. Yor all reports of
of "reports, records, and files relative to the innocuous memoranda of September 10 and investigation, including reports on prospec-
ployeeys: of employees or .prospective em- September 17, 1982, to an authorized agent tfve appointees to high office in the Depart-
St is a familiar rule that re ulations, like oP that subcommittee, in order that the went. Since Mr, Reilly'a order was not in
g committee might know the truth and to accordance with my recommendation,. i
statutes, must be interpreted with common- .refute unwarranted and scandalous charges respectfully opposed it.
sense, that a thing may be within the letter. against me and my record. In view of Mr. Reilly's testimony, !t was
of a regulation and yet not within the regu- Mr. Reilly's testimony that the cases oY the necessary for me to explain to the eommit-
lation, because not within its spirit, nor prospective appointees had not been brought tee the matter oY short-form reporting and
within the intention oP its makers, This to his attention seriously disparaged my per- my consistent position on the subject. It
has been the law for centuries. PolYendof Yormance of duty and impugned my integ- was in this connection and for this purpose
mentions the judgment that the Bolognian rfty. In other words, had I failed to bring alone that I gave Mr. Sourwine, as the agent
ins the st seta should be whoever drew blood .such matters to his attention, I would have oY the subcommittee, the Fogltanz report.
utmost severity," did not nextend ito the been guilty oP a dereliction of duty, In this This report was marked "Official use only:"
context,' I submit. that I had not only the The report, relating to an applicant Yor a
surgeon who opened the vein of a person right but the duty to defend myself, to cor- minor clerical position ih the Department of
that Yell down in a street in a fit. Plowden rect the committee record, and to support State, consisted of Yive and a half single-
cites the ruling that the statute oY 1st Ed- my oral testimony by the memoranda of spaced typewritten pages. -and reflected- in=
ward II, which enacts "that a prisoner whe September 10 and September 17, 1982, terviews with a large number of people. All
breaks prison shall' be guilty of a Yelonq," The provisions of the United States Code, oP -those interviews attested that Miss
does hot extend to s prisoner who breaks out title 5, section 852 (d) plainly gave me the Fogltanz was a young lady of splendid char-
of prison when the prison is on Sre "Yor he right to respond to the request of the Senate acter, a loyal American, moral, religious, and
is nOt to he hanged because he would not committee and to answer Mr. Reilly's attacks in every waq suitable and qualified for ap-
etay to be burnt" -See Church of the Holy upon me. .That statute provifles: pointment. In short the report was com-
Trtnity v. United States, 143 U.S. 467.. "(d) The right of persons employed in the pletely favorable and completely innocuous.
.Approved For Release 2005/01/05 :CIA-RDP66B00403R000200200016-9
 24146
Approved C~~~1~~~~5~~1/~~C~DP(~0~03R0002002000~,~ember i~0
I gave the report to flee subcommittee ss s piste answer to the charges od clipping and Bp his letter of October 4, 1969, my coun-
striking examgie of flee needless repetition mutilation. It may be appragriate, how- set asked that you specify the regulation
and prolixity which m;r recommendagon for ever, to point out the IIimsy nature of the aIIegeci to have been violated by mp conduct,
short-farm reporting n'as intended to ellml- circumstantial evidence vpoa which these which is file basis of charges 12 and 19. in
Hate, Along with this report, I atao pre- accusations against me are based. You ap- pour tatter of October 8, 1963, Sou responded.
sensed an example of the same material patently nip upon the theory of guilt by that "no allegatinn !s made that the conduct .
digested in a shoat-form report. Mp purpose association dtith mp burn bag. The tarts of?dr. Otepka referred to in charges 12 and
and mp onip purpose, wa6 to explain the ens that there were three burn bags and 18 violated a specifle Department of State
recommendation I had made to Mr, Retllp three aecetariea is the reception area where regulation" It thus appears that mp con-
and to make !t clear that I had not deviated mp burn bag wen located. 'The secretaries duct is to its judged under soma vague and
from that recommendation. sat within a few feet of each other and here amorphous standard, setting out no ob-
All chat I have said in my diacusslon of was a burn bag beside the desk of each jective gufdellnea, but existing onip in the
charges 1 and 2, to 3emonatrate that the secretary. There was na rule or custom that minds of mp superiors, and subject to change
memoranda involved 'a those charges were trash from the office of each official would according to their notions or whims of the
not within the scope of the Presidential dl- be deposited onip in hla bum bag, oa the moment. Such a standard, I submit, dcea
rective of March 13, 1!148, applied with even Contrary, trash might be thrown into which- not meet the fundamental requlrementa of
greater force to the itmocuous P`ogitanz re- Byer bum bag was the mast esonvanient. St fairness and due process, nor does a charge
port. follows that even i2 the r3fpplags here ia- based upon such a standard fulfill those re-
CHABGFS 4-tt volved were found in mp burn bag thin dose quirementa.
Charge 4 alleges the, I wan "responsible for not demonstrate that they came from my The vagueness of the standard of conduct
the de~lassifleation of s classified document" office or had any connection with me. In to which gnu refer and the need far a mare
by cutting the classifl~atlon iadicatora from other wards, the presence of such clippings precise deflaitlon and explanation of that
the tope and bottoms of the pages of a xe- in mp burn bag is entirely consistent with standard are well illustrated by-the fasts of
taxed Dopy of the document? It is alleged the hypothesis that they Coma from one of this case. Ln addition to the surveillance
that the severed top!: and bottoms of the the other two offices in the suite. It should of mp activities dlscioseQ by pour letter, I
pages were sound. in my burn bag on June be added that both Mr. Traband and Mr. have reason to believe that is recent months
18, 1943, It is charg~sd that such declassi- Levy had copies of the documents in qua- emplayeea erf the Department of State have
Station violated various sections of the De- lion. aetreily employed listening devices to eaves-
partmAnt's "Foreign. Affairs ManuaI." Further anaipaing the tlrcumstantiei evi- drop on conversations in mp office. I hays
Charges 6, 8, and lU made similar charges dance, it fie eigntflcant that sae page of the reason to believe that my office telephone
with respect to the Xe -oxed or Thermo-Paned four-page document involved to charges ! hea been tapped and that my desk and mp
copies of other documents, it being alleged and b and one page of the two-page dacu- safe hays been surreptitiously opened and
in each instance that the severed toga and mast involved izt Charges 8 and 7 were not searched.. These things have bees done with
the bottoms Were recovered fratn my burn clipped at all. If the purpose of whoe9er the knowledge and approval of my superiors,
bag. clipped the documents was t4 deelasaifp 11 not by their express direction. They were
Charges b, 7, 9, and ii relate to the same them by removing. the claseiflcation fadtca- done is the absence of any effort whatever
Xeroxed of Thermo-TPaxed copies and the tore. tt sa singular that the lndf+catore oa to secure from me, by direct and open means,
same clippings referred to In charges 4, 9, B, these Pages were left untouche4. the information which wen desired and
and 10. It is alleged that I was "responsible" An I have said. I do not know who clipped which I would have been glad to furnish.
for the clipping of these documents, and that the documents in question. You have Hat Whin the Department of State approves
such slipping constituted a "mutilation" of answered file request of my tounael for ape- such conduct and adopts sorb methods the
the documents to violation of iB U.S.C, 1d71, ciflc infarmatiaa e8 to who is alleged to have meaning of your Phr~ "the standard of
relating to the mutilation of official docu- done the clipping. Were I permitted to conduct eagected of an officer of the De-
ments and records. examine mp burn bags and their contents. partment^ becomes lost in obscurity.
Sy letter of OttolH~r 4, 1963, my counsel referred to in your latter, I might be able Turning to the factual allegations of
requested you to specify the particular man- ref reach some cencluaioa on this point, how- charges 13 and 19, it is true that I furnished
Her in which it is claimed that I failed to aver, you have dented mp cefunsei's request, to Mr. Sourvrine, as the thief Counsel and
iotlow required declassification procedures as by his letter of October B, 1983, that we be authorized representative of the Senate sub-
slieged in charges 4, 8, 8, and iii. He also permitted to eaamtae the bum bags and committee, questions to be put to Mr. Reiifip
requested you to adv'se whether or not it 1a their contests. I moat sap, with great se- and Ms. Belisle when they testified before
chargefl that I personally slipped the docu- apart, that your ruling is puzzling. especially the committee. Some of these questions are
menu, and it not, then who Sa alleged to have since it is alleged that the contents of the reIIected is the exhibit8 attached to Sour
done the clipping. Bg pour fetter of October burn bags came cram me, sad aisle the De- Ietter, although in many inetaaces they have
8, 1965, you responded to the Srat question partment of State in the rase ai Jaha BteWart been garbled in transcription.
by stating only that "The methods by which Service permitted him and his tounael to Mp action in furslahing these questions to
the ctsaslfled documents is questiaa were eaamine sit documents sad papers in the Mr. BourWine was clearly within the protec-
detlasaifled sae not authorized by the above- Elea which ware prepared by him or !n con- . lion of b United States Code, section 662(d),
Cited reference" ito -ate Department's "P'or- taection with thn missions on which. hs quoted above on page 6.
sign Aitalra Manual"). This response of served. which might be material to his of an officer ofethe Departmeatdof Bt emQp
toursa does not anmyer the question. Aa- defense.
awering the second question you stated that Finaltg, it should be noted that iB U.S.C. be, it Sa mp convietian that nay standard of
it is Hat Charged that I personally declaast- Z07i, relating to the mutllatiaa of records Conduct worthy of Lhe name demands
Sed or mutilated thy: docurnente, You did and documents, furnishes ao support ioz honesty and integrity. Certainly honesty
not respond at all to the! request for specific pour Charges. It is plain on the fate of this and integrity are the fundamental tenets of
information as to who 1a alleged te> have. done statute that it is intended to prohibit, and mF personal standard of tandutt. Consist-
the clipping or mutilation. does prohibit, only the mutttatloa or de- entlp with this belief, I hold that when one
in the absence of :he specific information struction of record ar ale copies. The statute is tailed upon to speak he must speak the
requested by mp ooi.nsel's letter of October by its terms relates tcs papers "sled ar de- whole truth; he moat not attempt to per-
4, 1969, these charges ors defective. i do posited s ? ' in sap Public office, ar with vent or suppress the truth by conceatment,
not waive this. point. any ? ' 'public officer of the United evasion, bait-truths, ar misleading silence.
' Turning to the facts, the allegations con- Staten ? It has no application to work pa- I believe that everq man has the right to
rained 1n charges 4-11 inclusive can be aa- P~'a or Working Copies which of course map defend himself against isles accusations. I
swertd is $ few words. I did sat clip the be destroyed when they have served their believe in the Code of Ethics for Cfovernment
documents 1n question. I was not rayon- PurPcee? If this were not ao, there would Service, expressed in the House concurrent
Bible for the cllppin; directly, or indirectly. be tittle need for trash baskets and burn rewiutioa agreed to em July 11, 1968, and
i do not know who did it, or why, or wino ham- Fa this connection, you are of course Promulgated by the U.S. Civll Service Com-
laced the cif pings: in m burn b -aa- familiar with the departmental Tula that mission to departmental Circular 982 on De-
psumiag that the vfere there, In chart, I unnereded caopiea shall be destroyed by tear- camber 3, i9b8. That erode states that "any
had absolutel nething to da with Cllppiag fag them sad depositing them in s burr: bag pen;aa !n C3averament service should put
ere s d know nothin about it, for ciasalfled trash, toyait~ to the highest moral principles and
theca pap g to country above loyalty to persona. Party
What has been said fa a lull and tom- csAacz 13 Axo CHAIit'E to or Oaverament department " When I ap-
I The charge alleges that the document in
question was signed hp Mr. Wtltlam H. Bru-
beck. The document exhibited to me and
mq counsel by pout office, as a copy of the
one referred to in firs charge. is signed "J, T.
Rogers, for Wllliam H, Brubeck: ` The lnat-
tsuracy is of course tmimportant,
Charges 13 and 13 allege that I 7[vralahed peered as a Witness before the Senate sub-
to Mr, eourwlne certain questions, to be ,committee I, of course, had this credo in
sated of 3dr. $ellly and Ildr. Belisle when mind. I believed then and I believe now that
they testified before the Senate aubcommit- 1L was mp duty to tell the. committee the
tee. IL 3a charged that mp action in Sur- whole truth. By the same token, i believed
alahing these questiana "ia s breach of the then and E believe now that I would have
standard of conduct expected of as officer been derelict in my duty. si by mp silence I
of the Department of State." had permitted untrue and inaccurate state-
Approved For Release 2005/01/05 :CIA-RDP66B00403R000200200016-9
 Y96~ Approved For~~Q~(Q5R~$P66~~2000200200016-9 2447
menu,. of_which I ha,d personal knowledge, to case. There shall be no relaxation rof the
remain unchallenged in the committee rec- provisions of this directive except with my
ord, or if I had otherwise failed to give the express authority."
committee my full cooperation in ate search `The directive recognizes that, because- of
2or the truth. It was and is my understand- the nature of the material they contain, re-
ing that it was my duty to assist the com- ports, records, and files relative to loyalty of
mittee to develop the truth, and it was ior Government employees and prospective em-
this purpose, and for this purpose alone, that ployees must be specially safeguarded. Only
I cooperated with the committee counsel by in this way can the personnel loyalty-secu-
suggesting to him fair, proper, and imper- rity program be carried out with appropriate
sonal questions designed to bring the-truth regard Por both national security and indi-
to light. It is difficult to understand whq vidual rights. The directive does not pra-
the Department and the witnesses did not habit the disclosure of such information ab-
welcome such questions. In any event, I soluteiy, but provides a special procedure for
cannot believe that my action was a breach determining whether it is in the public- in-
oi any standard of conduct properly expected terest that such information be disclosed.
of an officer of the Department of State. Under the procedure, that determination is
I submit that the charges against me are made by the President, to assure that all
without foundation and should be dismissed. relevant considerations will- be taken into
Very respectfully, account and given proper weight. The di-
OTTO F. OTEPKA. rective thus removes from the purview of
I, Otto F. Otepka, being first duly sworn the individual employee's judgment the
depose and say that I have read the fore- many questions that .may arise-whether the
going answer subscribed by me and know the source oP the information must be protected;
contents thereof; that thg matters and things whether the information is substantive in
stated therein as of my personal knowledge character; whether it is innocuous; whether
are true and those stated. upon information a proposed disclosure is accompanied by ade-
and belies I verily believe to be true. quote safeguards; in sum, whether a partic-
'~~ OTTO F. OTEPKA, ular report or record contains information
Subscribed and sworn to before me this that should not be disclosed in the circum-
14th day of October 1963. Tf stances.
(Signed) .CHARLOTTE D. ,[arMBALL, Accordingly, the only relevant question is
Notary Public, District of Columbia. whether the documents were "relative to the
My commission expires August 14, 1968. loyalty of employees or prospective employ-
- sea." Oi the documents you gave to Mr.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SOUTW1ne, the September 10, memorandum
Washington, November 5, 1963. specifically deals with the loyalty of pro-
Mr. OTTO F, OTEPKA, spective employees and, in fact, contains at
Office of Security, least two statements clearly based on infor-
Department of State. motion contained in investigative reports.
- DEAR MR. OTEPKA: On September 23, 1963, The September 17 memorandum specifically
you were notified of 13 charges on.the basis refers to loyalty matters with respect to the
of which it was proposed tb remove you from prospective employees. The third document
your appointment as supervisory personnel is an investigative report and is thus of a
security specialist, GS-Sb, in the Office of .class expressly named in the directive, The
the Deputy Assistant Secretary _ior Security documents thus fall within the classes of
in the Department of State. Your written papers protected by the directive.
reply, dated October 14, 1963, has been care- You also contend that the memorandums
fully considered. As you know, you did not and the investigative report were furnished
request an opportunity to make an oral to Mr. Sourwine to correct inaccurate teati-
reply. I find that you have not refuted the moray of your superior, Mr. Reilly, and that
charges set forth in my letter of September under b U.S.C. 852(d), dealing with
23: 1963. ~ the right of persons employed in the civil
Charges one and two allege .that you gave service to furnish information to or peti-
copies of classified memoranda relating to tion Congress, you were free to give the
the loyalty of prospective employees oP the documents to Mr. Sourwine. in spite of the
Department of State to a person outside the Presidential directive. .
Department without authority and in vio- I cannot agree with this position. No or-
lation of the Presidential directive of March ganization, especially a large one like the
13, 1948. Charge three alleges that you gave `Department of State, could function iP aub-
a copy of an investigative report concerning ordinate officers disregarded established pro-
$ prospective employee of the Department to cedures as they chose. As you know, there
a person outside of the Department- without are a number oP such procedures by which
authority and in violation of the Presidential you could have brought your disagreeemnt
directive. with Mr. Reilly to the attention of superior
In your reply you admit giving these docu- officers in the Department. In addition,
ments to Mr. 3. G. Sourwine, chief counsel you could have sought the opportunity to
of the Internal Security Subcommittee of the testify again before the subcommittee to
Senate Judiciary Committee. You argue, in make any necessary clarifications. IP you
defense, that the Presidential directive, prop- believed disclosure of papers relative to the
erly construed, does not apply to the docu- loyalty of employees or prospective employ-
ments in question because the memoranda ees was necessary, the procedure prescribed
contained no investigative data a_nd no sub- in the Presidential directive was available.
stantive data that was not in the public
domain and the investigative report was
completely favorable acid innocuous.
The Presidential directive provides that:
"All reports, records and files relative to
the loyalty of employees or prospective em-
ployees (including reports of such investi-
gative agencies), shall be maintained in con-
fidence, and shall not be transmitted or dis-
closed except as required in the efficient con-
duct of business:
Title 5 U.S.C. 652(d), is not de-
signed to permit employees to short cut
such. procedures. The question of the scope
of that section was raised during the Senate
select committee hearings concerning cen-
sure charges against the late Senator Mc-
Carthy. It was argued that under the stat-
ute "no qualifications or restrictions are
imposed upon the right of Federal employ-
ees to take up matters with and give in-
formation to Members and committees of
"Any * * * request for information, re- the Congress of the United States" This
ports, or files of the nature described * * * interpretation was rejected by the select
shall be respectfully declined, on the basis of committee. It concluded that the section
this directive,. and the * * * request shall does no more than "affirm that Federal em-
be referred to the Office of the President ior ployees do not lose or YorPeit their rights
such response as the President may determine merely by virtue of their Federal employ-
to be in the public :interest in the. particular ment." An employee does- not forfeit hie
rights. when he complies with reasonable and
orderly procedures ior the exercise of those
rights. The committee recognized that the
President could prescribe reasonable regttla-
tiona to safeguard information "notwith-
standing that .the regulations might
indirectly interfere with -any secret trana-
miasion' line between the executive employ-
ees and any individual Member of Con-
gress." Senate Report No. 2508, 83d Con-
gress, 2d session, page 35.
Accordingly, I find that charges 1, 2, and 3
are sustained.
Charges 4, 6, 8, and 10 allege that you were
responsible for cutting the clasaiflcation indi-
cators from the tops and bottoms of certain
classified memorandums thus declassifying
the documents without complying with pre-
scribed procedures. Charges b, 7, 9, and 11
allege that, by the same acts, you were re-
sponsible for mutilation of the documents
in violation of section 2071 of title 18, United
States Code.
In reply you deny that you clipped the
documents in question or that you were re-
sponsible, directly or indirectly, for the clip-
ping. You argue that the presence of the
clippings in your burn bag is consistent-with
the hypothesis that they came from one of
the other two offices*in the suite. You also
argue that section 2071 of -title 18, United
States Code, has no application to work pa-
pers ar working papers, which may be de-
stroyed when they have served their purpose.
With respect to section 2071 of title 18,
United States Code, you are not, of course,
charged with destroying the documents, law-
fully or unlawfully, but with unlawfully mu-
tilating them. Since only the carefully
clipped classification' indicators appeared in
the burn bag and not the remainder of the
documents, .the inference arises that you
were not seeking to destroy the document in
accordance with prescribed procedures or in
the ordinary course of business.
Although the documents involved were
not originals, they are .not thereby exempt
from the protection of .section 2071, which
covers "any-paper, document, or other-thing
flied or deposited with any- public officer of
the United States."
As to the factual issues, each of the other
two officers. occupying the suite has made a
statement denying that he clipped the dacu-
ments in question, or placed the documents
or portions of them in your burn bag, or
that lie knows who did. Each of the secre-
taries of these officers as well as your own
secretary has made a statement denying that
she clipped' the documents in question, or
placed them or portions of them in your burn
bag, or knows who did. The clippings were.
found in the burn bag available specifically
for your use. The documents all dealt .with
the same specific subject as 10 o~Gher docu-
ments which, in a signed statement dated
August 15, 1963, you admitted giving to Mr.
Sourwine. In these circumstances, I have
concluded that you- were responsible for
clipping the documents.
I find that these charges are sustained.
Charge 12 alleges that you prepared and
gave to a person or persons outside the i7e-
partment a series of questions for the use of
Mr. Sourwine in the- interrogation of your
superior, Mr. Reilly. Charge 13 alleges that
you grepared and gave to a person or per-
sona outside the Department a series of gttes-
tions foT the use of Mr: Sourwine in the in-
terrogation of another officer: of the Depart-
ment, Mr. Belisle.
In your reply you admit having prepared
the questions and given them to Mr. Sour-
wine to be put to Mr. Reilly and Mr. Belisle
when they testified. You argue that the
standard of conduct you are charged^ with
violating is so vague as to be unfair and lack-
ing in due process and that, as with charges
one, two; and three, your action was justi-
fled under b U.S.C. 662(d), and .was
taken to defend yourself against false testi-
Approved For Release 2005/01/05 :CIA-RDP66B00403R000200200016-9
 2414$
Approved F~r~Re~eti~SSI 0 /01/05 :CIA-RDP66B00403R00020020001 9
C; N tip AL RECO - S~N~4TE ecembe~??~2D
mony. You also start Ghat you considered
it your duty, 1a loyalty to your country and
consistent with the Gale of Ethics for Gov-
ernment Service, to a+;alst the commltt+ee to
develop the truth.
Departmental Regulations (BEAM 1811)
provide:
"The policy of the Department is to pro-
tect its employees agssinst arbitrary separa-
tion or removal for ruasone having no rela-
tion to the good of t:ze aesvice. Employees
are required, however. to render honest, ef-
flcient, and loyal service and shall be sepa-
zated or removed when necessary to maintain
the required discipline and efficiency of the
service."
This standard of s