Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 21, 2016
Document Release Date: 
June 23, 2006
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
July 31, 1975
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP78B02992A000100020006-9.pdf720.46 KB
uni to be the li people. - opposed by the p States. In order that the Nation may have the dicated article, I- quote remarks: 117801 Approved For Release -ki T1~72St5U`Z~9Z,'0020006-9 , July 2'9 1975 over the Zone will be proved st friends of the Panamanian fists in the Congress and not been authorized it is overwhelmingly (By Charles W. W Whale,\Jr;) It is ironic that as it approac,ies the two hundredth anniversary of its independence, the United States is one of the World's re- country continues to cling to a 553-s uare mile enclave in the heart of Panama in a headed by a presidentially-appointed govern- nor. Ordinances prescribing the- conduct of cuted by a United States District Attoj/ney and adjudicated by a Federal District qourt. Virtually all commercial enterprise and deep-water port facilities within thy' terri- tory are operated by Americans. For the use of its land we pay the government o Panama a miniscule $2.3 million annual! . Perhaps the most imperious manifestation. of our presence is the election every 4ur years of delegates to one of our countr_ 'e major po- The future of the Pananr Canal may be one of the most explosive 1,, ues to confront the Western Hemisphere /during this cen- tury. Panamanians are de 'ty concerned that an alien power operate? do facto colony cutting a 10-mile swath through the cen- ter of their nation. Cpnsiderable friction in United States-Panama relations already has resulted from the continuation of policies based upon the /1903 Hay-Bunau-Variila Treaty. The 1964 ",flag incident," for instance, caused 24 death( During the 1973 meeting of the United rations Security Council in Panama the United States cast the third veto in its lsfstory to defeat a resolution supporting tlfe?Canal posture of the Torrijos government, Recognizing the volatility of the situation, the Nixorsadrninistration in 1973 committed itself to..'ienegotiate the 1903 document. On February 7, 1974, Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and Panamanian Foreign Minister Juan/A. Tack signed an agreement embrac- ing the principles upon which future treaty discussions would be predicated. 'T'hese in- cltide: (1) a fixed termination date for the new treaty;, (2) a return to Panama of full jurisdiction. over the territory in which the Canal is located in exchange for assurances that the United States would retain the rights, facilities, and land necessary for its rived from the Canal.. Conclusion of a new treaty is ex snarp congressional attack. In the notion that the Hay-Bunau-Varll posal exceeds by thr a the 34 votes neces- sary to block treaty tification. A companion measure (H.R. 23) initiated by Representa- tive Daniel J. Flo d (D-Pa.), has 126 House cosponsors. On rune 26,prethe House, by a 246-164 vote, a opted Representative Gene Snyder's (R-K .) amendment to the State Department Appropriations Bi11' which denies funds "to negotiate surrender or relinquish- ment of any s. rights in the Panama Canal If the nate refuses to consent to a new treaty' w h Panama, what might occur? Latin American states (and, indeed, the en- tireiird World) will be severely strained. rul (a mood we- failed to detect in Indo- c a), we could become involved in a pro- + cted -- citizens, residing in Panama, could be need- lessly endangered. A distinguished American orr iJos. "\Vhat would you do with your National Guard," he asked the head of state, "if 5,000 Par rnanians stormed the Canal Zone?" Gen- eral Torrljos smiled and responded: "I would have 'a difficult decision, wouldn't I? I would have by choose between shooting Americans or my dtvn countrymen." Fourt the Canal Zone could be rendered inoperab e. It is vulnerable to sabotage. Fur- ther, ship pwners may be reluctant to route their vessel through- the Canal where they would be "s tting ducks" for terrorist activ- ities_ The forthco ng treaty debate, therefore, presents the Congress (the House may have to take certain{mplementing actions) with two important- challenges. The first is a test of congressional willing- ness to embark upop its own "new dialogue" with Latin Americ N. Panama is an ideal country with which e could invoke a hemi- spheric policy :based, \+4}n the words of Chief Treaty Negotiator Ellsv orth Bunker, on "new ideas, rather than old mories." Redefining our relationship with P nama will demon- strate United States' supp rt of the principle of self-determination. it a o will signal our intention to deal with our her Latin Amer- icon neighbors on a truly eq al basis. signal competence and respon 4bility in the foreign policy-making process. Will Congress' reaction to the new treaty be pchial, in- sensitive, and uninformed? Or wi the Sen- ate and House of Representatives crept the opportunity to avert a crisis before?it occurs by enabling an ally of long-standing to achieve a just and reasonable goal?\ - In Panama, the issues are well defined and the consequences of our failure to adapt a new treaty are pditbl If C recae.ongress' \\re- jects the treaty, the only question will \be egoti- under istaken Treaty ative critics represents a Approved For Release 2006106/23: CIA-R?P78BO2992AO00100020006-9 TO IMPEACH RICHAI%D M. HELMS-- AS U.S. AMBASSADOR TO IRAN The SPEAKER pro tedipore. Under a previous order of the House, the and M Helins,,,as Ambassador to Iran. Ml?. Helms was the Director of t'' he CIA dur- ing the years 1966 to 1973. During these years a long series of apparent violations of the charter of the CIA occurred under his direction. the only rPrt~hn remedy a.vallabl to th Contend t6 thy, gorain,~,rv to find~n tl?j< Lilt a1I___ Q1 the, abuses of the CIA and -toxemave 1mm-p1Wlrr9ffi eat least o`ne The weapon of impeachment may well be the only instrument available since the CIA made an agreement with the Department of Justice in 1954 that offi- cials of the CIA would not report illegal conduct on the part of CIA employees if the prosecution of such conduct would inevitably involve the revelation of secret testimony. Although this pact has now been declared a nullity, it might well be claimed by Mr. Helms and others as a protection for them since they relied upon it. Richard McGarragh Helms, born in 1913, .graduated from Williams College in 1935. He was in the OSS and the U.S. Navy in the years 1942 to 1946. He be- came associated with the CIA in 1947 and remained with this unit continu- ously until he became Deputy Director in 1965-66. Mr. Helms- was the Chief Ex- ecutive Officer of the CIA from 1966 to the time of his confirmation as Ambas sador to Iran in February 1973. Mr. Helms has testified himself in his con- firmation hearings that he. spent more time in the CIA than any present em- ployee. It is, therefore, not realistic to assume that there were activities of the agency unknown to this individual who gave the CIA almost 20 years of service before he became its Director. Before I come to the offenses poten- tially chargeable to Mr. Helms, it seems important to clarify two points: First,- the effect arid impact of the agreement between the Department of Justice and the CIA not to prosecute crimes by CIA employees, and second, precedents in the law of impeachment for removing an individual from a position for impeach- able offenses- committed by the individ- ual in a previous position. THE qrA-JUSTICE DEPARTMENT NON-PROSEC.U- TION ACREEMSNT In early 1954 the CIA recognized that legislation would soon be enacted by the Congress which would require all Gov- erninent officers and employees to report expeditiously to the Attorney General any violation of Federal law by govern- mental employees. In order to secure an exemption from. the forthcoming law, which became section 515 of t.itla 9Q of fend the status quo. "` ~uuowaa, uarc ~. j General Counsel of the CIA obtained an M0Rl/CDF1 Jury 29, 1975 C RES H 7803 Approved For Re easeIQ[7 ANC - &R 92A0001000200fl6-9 agreement from ,the then Deputy agreement by claiming that the statute W AMBASSADOR HELMS SUBJECT TO IMPEACH- ney General, Mr.. William P. Rogers, rer allows the Attorney General to dele- MENT FOR OFFENSES COMMITTED DURING IIL'S Secretary of State, that would permit the gate the prosecution of wrongdoing if TENURE AT THE CIA? . CIA to withhold information about it belongs to a "specified class of in- The essential thrust of impeachment -known crimes of its employees if the formation, allegation or complaint." is not punishment, but removal from prosecution of such crimes would involve The awful fact is that present and public office. Impeachment also brings the revelation of information which past officials of the CIA. have deliber- under the -Constitution the "disqualifi- would be embarrassing to the CIA. Iri a ately confused the law and misstated cation to hold and enjoy any office un memo of February 23, 1954, Mr. Houston the facts seeking to pretend that they der the United States." reports on his two conversations with Mr. will be law abiding while simultane- - Neither the Constitution-itself nor the Rogers and records the generally uni--- ously claiming that they have an ex lateral assertion of the CIA that it would, emption from existing law. continue its practice of not reporting for . The General Counsel of the CIA on prosecution crimes by its own employees. July 21, 1975 wrote to the Deputy As- In August, 1954 the following language, sistant Attorney General, Mr. Kevin now in 28 U.S. Code 535, became the law: Maroney, Esq., that the files of the CIA received in a department or agency of the Executive Branch of the government relating to violations of Title 18 involving government officers and employees shall be expeditiously reported to the Attorney General by the head of the department or agency,. unless, as to any department or agency of the government, the Attorney General directs otherwise with respect to a specified class of information, allegation or complaint. It is not known whether the CIA or any other agency prompted the inclusion of the language in this statute following the word "unless." It is, however, astonish- ing that on July 23, 1975, John S. War- ner, General Counsel of the CIA, testify- ing before a House subcommittee, could claim that he considered the CIA-Justice Department agreement of 1954 "consist- ent" with the exemption that follows the word "unless" in the statute noted above. Mr. Warner makes this startling claim, even though he himself is the author of a memo on January 31, 1975 revealing that on January 30 the Acting Attorney General-Mr. Lawrence Silberman--- ruled that the CIA should comply with the law and not rely upon the 1954 non-, prosecution agreement. Mr. Warner re- vealed in the same memo, however, that Associate Deputy Attorney General James A. Wilderotter ruled that there- port that could be given by the CIA con- cerning a crime could be "a summary of the' situation and not an investigatory report." The CIA summary should also -clearly state the security problems likely to arise in a prosecution and thus, in Mr. Warner's words, "certifying" that there could be no prosecution. Mr. Richard Helms undoubtedly knew of this 20-year-old pact with the Jus- tice Department and undoubtedly felt that he could rely upon its provisions. The fact is that the incredible arrange- ment between two Federal agencies to cover up the crimes of CIA employees in the name of national security has not really been repealed despite the pro- testations of Mr. William Colby, the present CIA Director, that the 1954 agreement has been rescinded. On Jan- uary 31; 1975 the General Counsel of the CIA set forth in a "memorandum for the record" the deceptive way by which CIA officials can evade the law binding on all other Federal officials a e and make certain that they cover up nor even criminal in nature. It should crimes by CIA employees by elaborating be remembered for example that Jud e , , g on the "security. problems likely to arise Archbald was removed from office for in a. prosecution." This nullification of conduct which, in at least the view of the law is so erroneous- and appalling some legal commentators, would have on its face that Mr. Warner on July 23, been harmless if done by a private 1975 felt constrained to justify the 1954 citizen. have revealed some 20 cases during the years 1954 to 1974 in which violations of criminal statutes were reported to the Department of Justice. These cases involved instances of CIA employees embezzling several thousand dollars of Government funds or pocketing $15,000 more than a_ person was entitled to for alleged medical expenses. Mr. War- ,ner pretends that the 1954 agreement was solely to relieve the CIA of its ob- ligation under the law. to report the personal crimes of its employees. The fact is, of course, that the 1954 agree- ment was negotiated in order to con- tinue the immunity which the CIA had always' claimed up to that time of not reporting any crimes associated ' with' the covert `activities of. the CIA. The duplicity and the deception man- ifest in the memos and statements of the present General Counsel of the logic of impeachment requires that the demonstration of unfitness occur during tenure in the same office from which removal is sought. In the case of the im- peachment in 1912 .of Judge Robert W. Archbald, the U.S. House of. Represent- atives adopted 13 articles of impeach- ment, 6. of which referred to abuses committed by Archbald in a prior judi- cial position on a?lower court. The Sen- ate voted to convict Archbald, sustaining ,at least one of the charges dealing in part with offenses in his prior office. It may be, as will be noted later, that in addition to offenses committed by Mr. Helms while serving as Director of the CIA, he may also have committed an offense of an impeachable character in possible perjury during the hearings on his confirmation as Ambassador to Iran. Although there is no direct precedent for the impeachment of an ambassador, Mr. Helms is clearly subject to impeach menu, as a civil officer within the mean- ing of the Constitution. I have received a written confirmation of that interpre- tation from the American Law Division of the Library of Congress. . that no present or former official of the CIA is likely to prosecute Mr. Richard Helms or. any other present or former employee of the CIA. The CIA can claim, without being required to prove, that such prosecution would require the revelation of facts affecting the na- tional security, all of which in most cases are merely facts which would be embarrassing to the CIA. If, therefore, it is virtually impossible for Mr. Richard Helms or any other former. official of the CIA to be prose- cuted by the Department of Justice, is there any way by which the Congress and the country can insist ,that justice be done? The one instrumentality available in such circumstances is the sword of im- peachment. The framers of the Constitu- tion did not intend that the American people would be required to allow public officials to continue in office so long as they did not violate the criminal law. The weapon of impeachment allows the Congress and the country to protect the public from conduct by high officials that undermines public confidence. It is a tool which enables the people to remove from public office individuals who are undeserving of high public trust. It is overwhelmingly clear from all of the precedents of 200 years that impeach- ment will lie for conduct not indict bl PEACHABLE - ' - - - In the following material I do not in any way state or imply that Mr. Richard Helms is guilty of any of the offenses suggested. It is contended merely that Mr. Helms has the duty of explaining his conduct and his statements and that, in the absence of any believable- explana- tion, the House of Representatives has the right and duty to investigate the con- duct of Mr. Helms during the years when he was the director of the CIA to deter- mine whether impeachable offenses have been committed, I will set forth very briefly some of the salient facts about first, operation CHAOS, second, Mr. Helms' involvement in the politics of Chile, and third, Mr. Helms' conduct -in -response to White House Watergate -requests.. 1. OPERATION CHAOS The Rockefeller Commission Report on CIA activities within the United States makes clear the horrifying details of ari operation initiated by Mr. Helms in August 1967 designed to collect informa- tion on foreign contacts with American dissidents. This is an operation which in some 5 years collected documents which include the names of more than 300,000 persons and organizations. This unit,. entitled "Operation CHAOS," prepared 3,000 memorandums for dissemination to the FBI, did exten- sive surveillance on the peace move- ments and furnished 26 reports to the Kerner Commission, some - of which related almost exclusively to domestic dissident activities, From even the 20 pages on Operation CHAOS in the Rockefeller Report on the Approved For Release 2006/06/23: CIA-R DP78B02992A000100020006-9 H 7804. Approved For Releafe'Qk -I '29 00020006-9 July 29, 1975 CIA It seems clear that Richard HelIW perjury In testimony before a Senate lose of the CIA for the objectives was Induced. Into this activity' by Presi- Committee. In-the testimony at issue Mr. sought by personnel of the White house. dential pressure. On November 15, 1967,? Helms told the Senate Committee that OTHER POTENTIAL, OFFENSES for example Helms delivered personally the CIA had played a limited role in un- to President Johnson the CIA study on derrnining the Allende government in the U.S. peace movement requested by Chile. the President. Although the studies of the A conversation occurred during the CIA showed that there was virtually no confirmation proceedings of Mr. Helms evidence of foreign involvement and no in the U.S. Senate on February 7, 1973. evidence of any foreign financial support The dialog was as follows: for the peace activities within the United Senator SYMINGTON. Did you try in the States, Mr. Helms continued fo do sur- Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow the veillance on those who protested the war. government of Chile? On February 18, 1969, Mr. Helms con- Mr. HELMS. No, Sir. fessed in a note to-Henry-Kissinger, then Senator SYMINGTON. Did you have any assistant to President Nixon, the illegali- money passed to the opponents of Allende? Mr. HELMS. No, Sir. ties of the CIA of which he was the di- Senator SYMINGTON. So the stories you rector. His memo to Dr. Kissinger noted were involved in that war are wrong? that the CIA-prepared document "Rest- Mr. HELMS. Yes, Sir. I said to Senator Ful- less Youth" included a section of Ameri- bright many months ago that if the agency can students. Mr. Helms said bluntly: had really gotten in behind the other can- This is an area not within the charter of didates and spent a .lot. of- money and so this agency, so I need not emphasize how forth the election might have. come out extremely sensitive this makes the paper. differently. (Emphasis supplied) Mr. Helms undoubtedly knew about The excessive secrecy surrounding Operation CHAOS and its isolation with- in the CIA demonstrate once again that Director Helms knew that it was Im- proper and beyond the scope of the au- thorized powers of the- CIP.A. The Rockefeller Report notes the grow-. ing opposition of CIA employees and of- ficials toward. Operation CHAOS. Al- though the Rockefeller Report soft- pedals the internal dissension over Oper- ation CHAOS, it quotes an internal memo of Director Helms on December 5, 1972 in which he insisted that Operation CHAOS "cannot be stopped simply be- cause some members of the! organization do not like this activity." Operation CHAOS, which ultimately had a staff of 52, was directly under the supervision. of Mr.. Helms. There is no way in which.he?can claim-that his sub- ordinates operated this unit without his knowledge and-consent.. . The. abuses of power and the countless violations of the privacy of American citizens might well be impeachable offenses imputable to Mr. Richard Helms. An impeachment inquiry Is the only available- method by which the covert $8 million campaign con- ducted by the CIA to bring about Dr. Allende's downfall.- . - .The foregoing conversation might or might not be perjury. Reading the entire transcript of. the 3 days of hearings on the ambassadorship of Mr. Helms, it is difficult,. however, to conclude that one is reading "the whole truth- and nothing but the truth." - " A report in the New ' York Times of July 27, 1965, claims that Richard. Helms, while Director of the CIA, prepared a. memorandum in the fall of 1970 inform- ing Henery Kissinger and Attorney Gen- eral John- Mitchell that the agency had supplied machineguns and tear gas gre- nades to men plotting to overthrow the Chilean Government.. ;. If the Department of Justice ever did In fact bring perjury or other proceed- ings against Richard Helms, the officials of-the CIA would undoubtedly claim that reasons of national security preclude their-giving to the Government for its prosecution or to Mr. Helms for his de fense a good deal of evidence which would be indispensable for a -trial. That Mn Helms can be made accountable for a - particular excuse is not. likely to .have long series of Intrusions into the lives of much effect or force in an impeachment American citizens.- inquiry,. as a unanimous U.S. Supreme Equally damaging to the- privacy of Court decision made clear in a case in- American citizens was the CIA program. volving Richard Nixon. to open first class mail. Mr. Helms might ~ a. MR. HELMS AND THE=POST-WATERGATE well have known from the very beginning WHITE HOUSE - " about these programs which ran from. On February 1, 1975, the hearings on 1953 to 1973. They were possibly the. the alleged involvement of the Central largest and the most clearly illegal pro- Intelligence Agency in the Watergate grams conducted by the CIA. Certainly- and' Ellsberg matters were declassified this mail-tampering operation was un- and .published. These hearings conducted der the direct control and supervision of before the Special Subcommittee on in- Mr. Helms during the 7 years he served telligence of the House Committee on as Director of the agency. In. addition, it Armed Services demonstrate that Rich- appears that Richard Helms deliberately - and Helms in the first 6 weeks after the deceived postal authorities into thinking Watergate break-in on June 17, 1972, that the operation was limited to the apparently ordered a high official of the copying of information off envelopes. Agency to withhold Watergate Informa- 2. MR. HELMS' INVOLVEMENT IN CHILE tion and to deny the Justice Department During the years in which Mr. Helms was the Chief Executive Officer of the CIA, that agency has been accussed of conducting break-ins and wiretaps in the United States without a warrant, using local - police credentials to gather information on anti-war groups, supply- ing surveillance to local police, using local police to conduct a break-in, con- tributing $38,635.58 to the White house In 1970 to defray the, cost of replying to people who wrote to President Nixon following" the Cambodian invasion, and administering powerful drugs to unsus- pecting individuals. I make no conclu- sion here as to the truth of these accusa, tions or the extent to which Mr. Helms should be held accountable for these ac- tivities, but clearly Mr. Helms should be given the opportunity to vindicate him- self if that is possible. It seems more and more clear to me that an impeachment inquiry is the only way that the Ameri- can people can obtain the full truth and judge whether Richard ? Helms is fit to serve in a position of high public trust. The American people have a_ right to know about those deeds of Mn Helms in the years 1966 to 1973 which may have violated the fundamental principles by which Americans live together as a peo- ple. Mr. Helms also has the right to a forum where he can vindicate himself against all of the accusations which day after day continue to increase and multi- ply. An impeachment inquiry is the, only instrumentality which the American Government has to bring out the truth of this dark era In American history. The American peonle have a right to know whether Richard Helms is a worthy representative of the people of this coun- try in Iran. The American peonle have the right to know whether the CIA, under'his direction, engaged In a pattern of deception, law-breaking, and abuse of power. Because neither the CIA nor the. Justice Department has done anything to vindicate the rights of the American people in this respect, the Coneress, with regret and reluctance, must initiate im- peachment proceedings against Richard- M. Helms. ON CORRUPTION IN OUR SOCIETY The SPEAKER. pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentle- man from New ?York (Mr. Kocu) is rec- ognized for 5 minutes. Mr. KOCH. Mr. Speaker, we live in a country that has no peer in terms of political freedom and the ability of its citizens to develop their individual ca- pabilities. Yet there is one. aspect of contemporary American. culture that deeply troubles me, which I fear may be our. Achilles heel, and that, relates to corruption. About the only evidence that has access to a key witness. I am not stating Corruption appears to be pervasive in emerged in the recent past indicating categorically that the 1,131 pages of our society. I am thinking not simply that the CIA might make its employees those hearings demonstrate that Mr. of the public officeholder who betrays accountable to the law was the revelation Helms committed impeachable offenses, his trust-a corrupt former President, in July 1975 that the CIA last year in- But the evidence that is available here a convicted Attorney General, police of- formed the Justice Department that and elsewhere clearly suggests.that Mr. ficers who extort bribes, building inspec- Richard Helms might have committed Helms was all too ready to. subvert the tors who exact illegal commissions. Approved For Release 2006/06/23: CIA-R DP78B02992A00'0100020006-9 ^ CONFl, _, TIAL UNCLASSIFIED E-1 U 'NLY L ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET Legislative Counsel .7D 49 TO: (Officer designation, room number, and building) George Carver D/DCI/NIO OFFICER'S INITIALS STAT 1 FORM USE PREVIOUS INTERNAL 3_62 610 1 EApp"rov o ' Jse 20W06 F',F- d i8B 92 a9~Yb~bo200 UNCLASSIFIED Representative Drinan on introducing H. Res. 647, the resolution to impeach Richard Helms as Ambassador to Iran.