JOURNAL - OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75B00380R000200130016-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 10, 2002
• Sequence Number: 16
• Publication Date: April 30, 1973
• Content Type: NOTES

Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP751300380R000200130016-3
17-77:
'?',1
IT t"7-'"n" ??
9NLY
Journal - Office of Legislative Counsel Page 3
Monday - 30 April 1973
10. (Unclassified - RW) William Cherkasky, Administrative Assistant
to Senator Gaylord A. Nelson (D., Wis.), called. He requested copies of
STATSPEC the which have been sent the Senator. I told him I would check
and see what we could do but that we do not keep copies of these items on
file.
STATSPEC
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
11. (Unclassified - LLM) Met with Robert Horner, House Internal
Security Committee staff, and provided him with a personal resume on an
Agency employee who will soon be retiring against the possibility that the
Committee may be interested. As it turned out, Horner was somewhat
familiar with the individual and said he would be glad to review his resume
in light of the staffing requirements of the Committee.
12. (Internal Use Only - LLM) Met with Robert Blakey, Subcommittee
on Criminal Laws and Procedures, Senate Judiciary Committee, and gave
him copies of the Morrison and Miskovsky articles which Senator Sam Ervin's
(D., N. C.) aide, Mrs. Margolis, had requested earlier. Blakey appreciated
our thinking of him in this connection. I tentatively set next Thursday as
the date we would come up with our revisions of S.1. Blakey said that
because of unfolding events he doubts very much that the bill will see the
light of day for some time to come.
13. (Internal Use Only - RJK) Delivered to the offices of Senators
Edward Kennedy (D., Mass.), George McGovern (D., S. Dak.), Gaylord
Nelson D. Wis. ), Henry Jackson (D., Wash.), and J. W. Fulbright (D., Ark.
in which their names were mentioned.
14. (Unclassified - RJK) Met with Ken Guenther, special assistant
to Senator Jacob Javits (R., N.Y.), and gave him a suggested reply for
Joseph Irving, a constituent who had written to the Senator asking certain
questions about the Central Intelligence
JUNINcc: 0/DDCI
Mr. Thuermer. Mr. Clarke
DDI DDM&S EA DDO DDS&T OPPB
odApproved For RMAgilitibtErfil./t3;::CIA.RDR7,63003WROW 30016-3
25X1A
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75600380R000200130016-3
Historical review of the problem
and some remedial proposals.
THE PROTECTION OF INTELLIGENCE DATA
John D. Morrison, Jr.
The unauthorized exposure of classified information is a chronic
problem for governments and intelligence agencies. Defense against
the conscious agent of a foreign power is different from, and in some
ways less difficult than, deterring revelations due to carelessness,
malice, or greed on the part of government employees. The problem
is particularly acute in a democratic society whose laws and courts
must provide broad protection to criminal defendants. The deterrence
provided by the espionage laws and related statutes is weakened
by the difficulty of prosecution under them. This is especially true
in cases involving disaffected or careless employees . of intelligence
agencies; the defenses usually include strong equitable pleas which
may excite a sympathetic public response.
No legislation or administrative procedure can offer perfect pro-
tection. It is submitted, however, that both our laws and our admin-
istrative procedures could be improved so as to provide more effective
deterrence. Some particular avenues that might be taken will emerge
from the following discussion.
The Espionage Laws: An Incomplete Structure
A review of American legislation in the field of criminal espionage
shows that historically there has been limited legislative effort directed
to the protection of intelligence data. As a result there is a startling
lack of protection for a governmental function of growing importance
and sensitivity. Perhaps the need for laws protecting intelligence
data has reached significant proportions only in the relatively recent
past.
The changes, technological and other, In the manner in which
nations deal with each other have caused some improvements in
legislation dealing with the protection of state secrets. Diplomatic
communications have traditionally been protected. As early as 1807,
the Supreme Court suggested that .the legislature recognize and
provide against crimes affecting the national security which "have
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP751300380R000200130016-3
Approved For Release 2002/01/23 : CIA-RDP75B00380R00,0200130016-3
1
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENY
WaWhinAgd.250 D. C.
I..;B;S:PI,04.,AqtaAWS!
, Introduction
The espionage lays' provide the basic statutory protection to the
Government against the taking and use of defense inforthation by those
whose interests are inthic1. to the national security Of the country.
As early as 1807, the Supreme Court suggested' that the' legislature
recognize and provide against crimes affecting the national security
'which "have not ripened into treaon."J- It was not until 1911, however,
that Congress passed the first important statute which dealt with the
broad problem of espionage. The language of the 1911 ,Act was amended in
1917 to read much as 'it does today. This paper deals with the background
and interpretation of the espionage laws bicb as codified are found in
Title 18 of the United States Code, sections 791-798.
the eSpionage lava are the principal statutory protection against :tal.?
authorized disclosure of intelligence materials 'and information,
?prosecution is rece=mended in iany given case, then the Department Of
Justice should be apprised of the facts and left to perform the arrest,
indictment and prosecution. A "citizen's arrest" night be made by 'a
. Central Intelligence Agency official, for example, under emergency
circumstances, but would Vr.. legally perilous as standard procedure. The
Justice Department would make the determination whether prosecution is
justified in a particular Case. It is germane to consider that specific
information "protected" under thel statute is a fact question for the
? jury and .b4,at the courts .!have taken the position that the Government, .in
a criminal:prosedution, musts mkt a full disclosure of the relevant 'feat
or fc1n its case.
Tho 1911 Tspionaere Act
? Upon recommendation. by 'the Justice ,Pepartment,' e. bill to prevent the
disclosure of national defense secrets was introduced in,,the 61st .Congress
' and, after seVeral changes Which necessitated four redrafts of the bill-in .
committee, it was sent t%the fl,00r of the Rouse' where a short debate todk
? place on 6 February 1911, The bill was said to be 'patterned after the
Bmish Official Secrets :Act, a major difference, however, resulted from A
chane,made in committee where the presumption of ,intent occurring in the ,
Zaglich Statute was stricken? because the cobmittee meObera. thought 'the
l'preoumption ftas not: faro"'
'
parto EoThrr ar&r..1'c parte SwarthOilt; 4 Cram& 75, -0.7;
/ 246 CONG; 2030 (1911)
Approved For Release 2002/01%23 ?CIA-RDP751300380R000200130016-3
?4.