(UNTITLED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00001R000100050026-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: November 11, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 1, 1998
• Sequence Number: 26
• Publication Date: September 9, 1968
• Content Type: NSPR

FOIAb3b
it
Septeia nifizdd&9Approve K'IM 1.LC1kRDp7-S ~IR0001000500 6-4 118415
about to be passed.
The document, with the word Secret
stamped on every page, was the 1060 Sprague
Committee Report to President Eisenhower.
Its authors included Allen Dulles, the Direc-
tor of the Central Intelligence Agency;
George Allen, the Director of the United
States Information Agency; Gordon Gray
and C. D. Jackson.
The pages contained secret draft texts still
being worked upon in the Executive Offices of
President Eisenhower and in the State Do-
partment and the United States Information
Agency.
Mr. Brubeck had importuned Mr. Gooten-
burg to obtain the document because the
race between John Kennedy and Richard
Nixon was then "neck and neck." The con-
tents of the secret report might win just
enough votes to give the election to John
Kennedy, Mr. Brubeck had said.
The Sprague report documented that pub-
lic opinion polls abroad had indicated that
the prestige of the U.S. had declined in
comparison to that of the Soviet Union.
Mr. Brubeck immediately communicated
with Robert Kennedy and then invited
friendly correspondents from the New York
Times and the Washington Post to read the
secret Sprague Report and to make extracts
from it.
After the New York Times and the Wash-
ington Post reported the contents, the story
was picked up nationally by the Associated
last two months of 1960.
The man on his way to the Civil Service
Commission was Otto F. Otepka, the State
Department's former top professional Se-
curity Officer, now dismissed from his se-
curity post, severely reprimanded and re-
duccd in grade by Secretary Rusk. The reason
for his disgrace? Without prior approval
of his immediate superior, John Reilly, who
since has resigned under the threat of a
purjury charge, Mr. Otepka delivered a classi-
fied document to the Senate Internal So-
curity Subcommittee. At the time, Mr. Otepka
was under. oath and felt he had to tell the
Senators the truth.
The man on his way to visit' close and
powerful friends in the State Department
was William H. Brubeck.
Like Mr. Otepka, Mr. Brubeck had also
become famous for delivering, without prior
authorization, a classified White House and
State Department document to someone else.
The only difference was that Mr. Brubeck
was not under oath and he had passed the
secret document to members of the press
not authorized to receive it:
At the time, Mr. Brubeck was Director
of Public Relations in the national cam-
paign headquarters of John F. Kennedy. in
November 1960, Mr. Brubeck's once was lo-
cated on the fourth floor of 1737 L Street
la the nation's capitol. A very close friend
was Robert F. Kennedy.
On?tho afternoon of November 3, Mr. Bru-
bock received Roy Gootenburg, a Federal
employee working in the Bureau of the
Budget but assigned temporarily to a sensi-
tive position in the State Department. Mr.
Brubeck and Mr, Gootenburg had had several
conversations about the secret document
American "mbnssy in London. He was now Press, the United Press International and
about to ;sit his friends in the State Do- the television networks.
partment just before beginning a year's Many persons believe this public relations
course at the State Department's coveted coup produced the margin of victory for Mr.
Senior Seminar in. Arlington, Virginia. Kennedy.
The other man, equally well known to In commenting on the usefulness in the
Secretary Rusk, was on his way to the Civil election campaign of the leaked secret
Service Commission building across the way Sprague Report, Carl T. Rowan, the Director
from the State Department. of the United States Information Agency
So far as the Secretary of State was con- under President Kennedy, wrote in October
corned, this second man was in deep dis- 196G, as follows:
grace. In fact, for many months now he had "The late John F. Kennedy raised the
received no pay at all from the State De- Issue of America's declining prestige shrewdly
partment. and effectively during the 1960 presidential
As the two men passed each other on July campaign. Using polls gained surreptitiously
31, they could reflect on the irony with he documented his charge that the Ameri-
which the fate of each was sealed In the can image suffered under the Eisenhower
administration. There can be no doubt that
this gambit won Kennedy some precious
.votes."
Both the late President, John F. Kennedy,
and his brother, the late Robert F. Kennedy,
informed Mr, Rusk of Mr. Brubeck's impor-
tant personal role in the unauthorized leak-
ing to the press of the secret Sprague Report.
This was done about the time Robert Ken-
nedy and Dean Rusk met with Otto Otepka
in December 1960 to consider the security
problems in connection with the appoint-
ment to the State Department of Walt Whit-
man Rostow.
Early in 1961 Secretary Rusk appointed
Mr. Brubeck as Director of the Executive
Secretariat in the Immediate Office of the
Secretary- of State. He was given, as is the
.case with many "political appointees," the
rank of Foreign Service Reserve Officer,
Class 2.
After a subsequent promotion to Foreign
Service Reserve Of 1cer Class 1, Mr. Brubeck
was named a "career" Foreign Service Officer
Class 1. He is one of the rare Foreign Service
Officers to have' begun his "career" at the
very top. It likewise developed that his. first
post abroad was the American Embassy In
London, one of the prize plums of the
American diplomatic service.
Thus the two men whose paths crossed on
July 31, 1068, on the corner of Virginia
Avenue and 21st Street in the nation's
capital could only reflect with irony on how
differently the Secretary of State Dean Rusk,
and Under Secretary George Ball, now Am-
bassador to the UN, have been able to react,
to the "unauthorized delivery" of classified
documents to persons outside the Depart-
ment of State.
'THE ACLU-LIBERTY OR LICENSE?
(Mr. ASIBROOK asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the REcoRD and to' Include ex-
traneous matter.)
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, Bar-
ron's, the national business and financial
weekly, is currently running a three-part
series of articles on the American Civil
Liberties Union which is both exhaustive
and highly informative. Written by the
author and reporter, Shirley Scheibla,
the articles present the Union's long,
stormy and controversial history in a
convenient form for consideration. Mrs.
Scheibla will be remembered for her re-
cent review of the abuses of the poverty
program In her book, "Poverty Is Where
the Money Is." As in the case of her book,
her treatment of the ACLU is laden with
specific information which could have
resulted only from persistent effort and
dogged investigation. Unlike some jour-
nalists, this author believes in letting the
facts speak for themselves, while holding
editorializing to a bare minimum.
It Is all well and good to say that ours
Is a government of laws and not men,
but it must be remembered that we are
presupposing just, consistent, prudent,
and balanced interpretations of such
laws. One cannot stress civil liberties to
the exclusion of civil responsibilities, nor
discard c,-n inunity, State and Federal
responsibilities under the guise of civil
rights. This, in effect, would be the end
result if the many ACLU positions in its
many areas of endeavor were to be up-
held. In fact, a good test of the overall
radical nature of ACLU policies can be
appreciated by supposing that X11 the
cases mentioned in the following two ar-
ticles were ruled in favor of the ACLU.
What a state of chaos would prevail in
this country, if indeed, there was any
country left at all.
Although the ACLU has assisted some
who have been members of the Commu-
nist Party, no Federal agency has found
that the organization is a Communist
front. As far back as 1939, Congressman
Martin Dies, the chairman of a House
committee which was the forerunner of
the present House Committee on Un-
American Activities, stated:
This Committee found last year, In its re-
port, that there was not any evidence that
the American Civil :Liberties Union was a
Communist organization.
In 1960, Mr. Richard Arens, formerly
counsel for HCUA, observed:
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU,
has never been investigated by the Commit-
tee on Un-American Activities, nor has It
been found to be a Communist front by the
Committee on Un-American Activities, or, so
far as I know, by any governmental agency,"
In 1961 the Senate Fact-Finding Sub-
committee on Un-American Activities of
the State of California, in its annual re-
port for that year found that the Cali-
fornia chapters of the ACLU were not
"so infiltrated by Communists or fellow
travelers at the present time to justify
us in characterizing any of them as a
Communist front." This subcommittee,
at the request of the ACLU in California,
reviewed the history, objectives, organi-
zational structure, operational tech-
niques and other detailed matter con-
cerning the national organization and
stated in part that:
It seeks to exclude Communists from hold-
ing any office or serving on its staff=yet it
permits them to become members and ap-
pears unconcerned about its representatives
belonging to Communist fronts.
One current illustration of an extreme
cause to which the ACLU seems to have
an affinity for is the banning from entry
into the United States of an issue of the
Crusader, the publication issued by Rob-
ert Williams, the revolutionary who fled
the United States in 1961 to escape a kid-
'napping charge and who turned up in
Cuba, Red China, and now Tanzania. Ac-
cording to the Washington Post of No-
vember 3-1967, the May issue the Cru-
sader for that year, "urges Negro service-
men In Vietnam to 'eliminate' their real
enemies, and to generally r.abotago the
war effort." According to t.: ?ost the
newsletter also advocated armed violence
in American cities. The Post Office con-
tends that using the mails for literature
of this nature is in violation of U.S. law,
but Melvin L. Wulf of the ACLU thinks
differently. According to the above-cited
Sanitized = Approved For Relbase : CIA-RDP75-00001 R000100050026-4