'FIRED BECAUSE I TOLD TRUTH ' - SECURITY AID

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040116-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: November 11, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 15, 1998
• Sequence Number: 116
• Publication Date: October 15, 1963
• Content Type: NSPR

(TOLD TRUTH
-SECURITY Al
Replies to Eharges b
BV'WIT.IATt `bt 'A
CCbksio tribune ass Seral
Washiilgrot , 0 ~` p A vet
officer'. c aged toll: ,that- h
lye;te` truth w~hgn que
did yf gya a ions, burea
filed a for rely tgpcharge
becoming a state aepartme
officer.
"I -bold that w n,., one i
speak the whole truth; he mu:
press the truth by congealmen
evasion, half-truths, r mislea
ing silence," he said. r
Under No Illusionns
In following'this code,, Otepk
said, he did not regard himse
dismissal of the charges again
'
him as unfounded. F .
Otepka and his t t o r n e
lusion that this plea. will b
ill
Oct. 23. He w` then appeal t
the civil service commissio
for a hearing which must b
given him.
In his lengthy reply, Otepk
reviewed the entire case whic
ure in a clash between th
ident Kennedy and Secretary o
cover-up of lax security in th
week that Rusk was ready
testify. The committee, whic
has been seeking Rusk as
witness since last July, ha
asserting his unwillingness t
with all the evidence, includin
randa; gathet !ld'%
into security procedures in hi
department. -
OCT 1 51263
vedgFor Re f
statement and renewing the det
Rusk presumably was, em
barrassed by one section o
Otepka's d of e n s e statemen
which noted that the secretar,
of, state in 1961 had taken ac
',.lion iflen gal to that for whic
etepknj gwfaces discharge;
ua lier Case. Cited
Rusk` ad, permitted Sen
Thomas J. Dodd I D., Conn.]
,vice ela rman of the Senat
internal?, segurity subcommit
tee, to'aa`t'hine "certain docu
ingots in' confidence," in con
nectio'n with the case involving
William W. Wieland, a state de
strong supporter of Cuban
comparatively "innocu
memoranda to the sam
fie was acting, he noted, t s""" t eas
give the subcommittee truthfu ec secretary of state for
uri security, also testified. J. G.
information and to "refute un Sourwine, the subcommittee's
warranted and scandalous chief counsel, informed Otepka
charges against me and my
r, that Reilly had contradicted
{
{ record." Otepka's testimony.
Otepka noted that he ha "After carefully reading the
been a government employe fo transcripts of Mr. Reilly's testi-
7 years and a security offices mony,I was both shocked and
since 1942. In 1953, he was trans mated" Otepka -;A rn rA_
s As deputy th director of f the the ==?e__ office buttal, I prepared a memoran
of security. in 1960. rust hefnr dum of 39 double-spaced pages, Denies (;lipping Paper
" Ken ` d a ~"""", hished a copy to Mr. Sourwine. { vicepxa uariy eenfeu anon t r
Itoa over, he was described by state departmentaciarge thus
1 superiors in these terms: "Disturbed by Statements" he "mutilated" a classtf> i
t~ is knowledgeable of coin- "I was especially disturbed a document by cutting offirhe
zn t$isltt' and of its subversive ~... stat eats m a by M 1 notation "confirientiai " ' did
Billy in, his testimony. First, 11 not clip the document ine;-
prospective appointees to the know who did it, or whys
advisory committee on inter- The clipped documen' ac--
national organizations, that cording to the state depart cn' , j
there was no substantial, derog- had been found in Ote a's
atory information respecting "burn bag," a receptacle for
papers marked for destruction.
There were three secretaries!
and three burn bags at Otepka's
office, he' noted, and discarded':
papers-were thrown into which-';,
e-,* `burn bag was most eon:
partment and international or a, memoranda, one recom ve t?
mending to Reilly that certain Mate department denied
ganizations which Otepka pro- tested, ? bf the appointees not be 0 and his attorney per-
to i
nd by Reilly
In November, 1961, and again Bleared, and a seco examine the contents
debags d placed
fr- t er hl self with respect to these burn
a.
in Och , 19x,2, he testified be cases. oth x restrictions on an
fense, he id
fore the Senate subcommittee tR he, aLmle department accused, tion I-
T
but his real tr oubles did no ' WhIen other state department
:, pk. qdLylolating-a 1948 dirge- officers have been accused of
1963, when the subcommitt t` lty..files,-when he'"'"' sL?vca `'"airUD than those
, placed against Otepka, he
again called him in an inquir fine ; here memo- noted
bmit that I had not !, they and their lawyers
fffi
to determine if its earlier re
L
! have amin ba end permint s nd pa-
. ommendations for tightening u i only the fight but the duty to
~J R 9*4 a(G$A 7 OG 149 R( WJ6 ~ 0-1
owe
1 demoted Otepka, and installed
CPYRGHT
CPYRGHT
CPYRGHT
CPYRGHT
this, be adds perspective, bal-
hce; and good judgment, pre-
ting his recommendations
decisions in- clear, well-
'easoned, a n d meticulously
Testifies in Probe iny' of them, and that the case
of oni one of them had even
y
been ,brought to his attention
prior to their appointment."
In rebuttal of this testimony
t ka supplied Sourwine with
FOIAb3b