A NEW SECURITY SCANDAL?

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040158-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: November 11, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 15, 1998
• Sequence Number: 158
• Publication Date: March 20, 1965
• Content Type: MAGAZINE

Sanitized - Approved For Relea
E.ULI II EVENTS
,tEEY.LY - 140,000
i!?~ P. 2 0 1965
S' n" S r
CPYRGHT
The case of Otto Giepka, the security. -xpert
fired by the State Depa; ?ment, has :.till iot been
resolved as he awaits Dc-
partnlent hearings.. But in-
siders in Washington last week
focused attention on what they
believe is a new security ex-
pose brewing within the Ad-
ministration.
The story behind this poten-
tial scandal dates back to
March 19',4 and was first bared
by the American Security
Council's spe?cia1 `t1'a.iiiiit, ton Report. That report
detailed the story of how several associates of Otepka,
now dubbed "the Otepka men" for supporting hint
against the department's charges, were reassigned
from the State Department's Office of Security to
the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs in mid-March
1964.
At first blush, this transfer seemed an obvious
attempt to demote the Otepka-ites and a number
of them complained to the Civil Service Commission.
But the department assured these men they were
to be put on a highly sensitive assignment. The
job, as outlined by John Drew of the department's
Office of Personnel, was to come up with informa-
tion regarding some 40 Latin Americans working
for international agencies in Washington.
These employes were suspected of being Coin-
munist agents and many currently hold key posi-
tions with the Organization of American States,
the Pan American Union, Pan American Health
Organization and other agencies.
Reports of Communist infiltration of these or-
ganizations were known to the State Department
as far back as 1952, but no thorough investiga-
tion had ever been made. Then, in 1961, the case
assumed new and startling importance.
A President of a Latin American country warned
President Kennedy that this infiltration was very
serious and that lie should give it top priority. J;=,'.
turned the matter over to the State Deparur,--. at
which in turn handed it over to the Office of Sccii-
city. In 1964, with Otepka having been fired, the
Otcpka men were assigned to the task at the Bt:.cau
58-1
FOIAb3b
While it is not generaily kno%N n, of the six Otepka
rnen assigned to ferret Out the Communists, the
ite De ?:rtnient ha. now taken four of them off
k,i Raymond Luulhton has been given an over-
ignment. Frank Gardner has dropped from
asp. The department has ordered John Norpcl
to id Paso, Tex. and Howard J. Sh ~a to Deny er,
Colo. Both are to be gone f. om the r Washington
offices by April 1. Only Harry M. Hite and i.dA\in
A. Burkhardt remain.
Moreover, the evidence is that the State Depart-
ment sabotaged the investigation from the moment
it put the Otepka men in charge. For one thing,
these investigators were barred from obtaining es-
sential material which could corroborate existing data
on the suspected subversives. The State Department
would not forward certain security files considered
essential for determining the background of suspects.
The Otepka men were also limited to record
check:, and were not permitted to develop nev in-
formation on their own initiative. Contrary to the
job desci iption, the investigators were not alloys ed
direct contact with the CIA.
Moreover, these men feel they shouldn't have
beer. assigned to this job in the first place because
these cases required a political decision at a higher
level than the Security Office, which is not equipped
to conduct full field investigations of foreign na-
tionals in countries of their origin.
If the. State Department was out to sabotage
the investigation, why did it assign these prober
to 'hr job? According to one securit\ official
SiL:tc Department personnel hoped to cIen
n skirts by saying they assigned Otep>,
the case but even these "hard-liners" ii,
c,)uldn't develop anything.
At any rate, four years after strong warnings
about Red infiltration in important international
agencies in Washington the problem remains.
A suggestion is made that a committee of in-
telligence experts, drawn from the FBI, the Depart-
ment, the Pentagon, the CIA and the like, he es-
tablished to weed out the subversives. But so far
the Administration appears willing to drop the entire
mauler.
Sanitized - Approved or Release: