RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78B02992A000100040017-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 28, 2005
• Sequence Number: 17
• Publication Date: September 11, 1975
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP78B02992AO00100040017-5
OGC 75-3313
11 Sep tember 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Central Intelligence
SUBJECT: Responsibilities of the Director of Central
Intelligence
1. The question posed is what are the responsibilities of the Director
with respect to giving classified testimony to a congressional committee in
executive session when there are indications that such testimony would be
publicly released, It is assumed that no opportunity would be afforded
the Director to sanitize and delete the classified information before
public disclosure. The Director is charged by law with the protection
of intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure. It would
appear that the Director would be derelict in his responsibilities under that
law if he were to proceed to give the classified testimony containing sensitive
intelligence sources and methods if he were on notice that it would be publicly
disclosed either by the committee or by any individual member of the com-
mittee. Furthermore, Executive Order 11652 prescribes procedures for
safeguarding classified information from public disclosure. Again, I believe
the Director would be acting irresponsibly in the face of E.O. 11652 to give
testimony in executive session when he had reason to believe that it would, be
publicly disclosed. Also, in my opinion the Director would not be subject to
legal action even if he were under subpoena in such a situation. The
matter clearly becomes a political question.
2. Depending upon the rules of the particular committee concerned,
there might be rQqu4red a vote of the full committee to release publicly.
In any event,, an.indiviclual member could release it within the Congress
with impunity under the law because of the immunity clause in the Constitution.
It is possible that there may be disciplinary aspects under either the Senate
or the House rules or the committee rules, but the member would not be
subject to any criminal action.
JOHN S. WARNER
General
Approved For Release 2006/10/20 CIA-RDP78BO2992A000100040017-5
 A
Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP78B02992A000100040017-5
cc: DDO
DDI
DDA
DDS&T
D/DCI/NIO
D/DCI/IC
Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP78B02992A000100040017-5
 3 ?_ t
Approved For Releas /10I0 : IA-RDP78BO2992AO00100040017-9 ?/
Ex-
ecutive Pz;s: y
L TELLIGENCE AGENCY
L'/ASHINGTON, D.C. 20505 5-_
6 SEP 1975
Honorable Edward H. Levi
Attorney General
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530
Dear PvMr. Levi,
A number of civil actions have been filed in various Federal courts
naming CIA employees and former employees as defendants. In these cases
plaintiffs clair;z damages arising out of actions allegedly taken by the individual
defendants in the course of their official duties. Recently the Department has
refused requests by some former employees for representation in civil actions
on the grounds that on-going investigations of certain CIA activities by the
Criminal Division create a potential conflict of interest.
This refusal to represent former employees is particularly disturbing
in the Rhode Island case --- Rodney Driver, et al. v, Richard Helms, et
al, (U.S.D.C.D.R.I. Civil No. ?50224) , The problem here is that there
areoformer Agency employees andiurrent Agency employees listed as
defendants being sued in their official and personal capacities. Specifically,
the former employees have been served with summonses which require an
answer to be filed within 20 days. This time for an answer would be proper
if they were sued only in their personal capacities. However, there would
be a 60-day period for an answer if they were sued in their official capacities.
These former employees have requested representation in their personal
and official capacities and have been refused by the Department of Justice
due to a pending investigation of the CIA mail intercept program. If they
do not engage private counsel, the court may enter default judgments against
them in their perso.al capacities. At this stage in the proceedings, there
appear to be valid defenses available to them such as the jurisdiction of the
Rhode Island 'Court. If the former employees are required to engage private
counsel for these procedural actions, they will have assumed an unwarranted
expense.
~`a~urro y
m
r jT~'G-i9~F'
Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP78BO2992A000100040017-5
 Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP78B02992AO00100040017-5
I am distressed by the difficult position of our employees and former
employees because of the Department's refusal to give them any representation
or counsel in civil matters arising out of their official duties until the
ultimate resolution of the investigations by your Criminal Division. These
individuals enjoy not only a presumption of innocence, but a presumption.
that whatever acts they performed were in the normal course of their
duties and under proper orders from their superiors. The Department's
position places an unwarranted financial burden on a great number of
Government employees and former employees, most of whom cannot afford to
retain private counsel. To me it seems un cons cion4b le, for the Government
to pert a civil action to proceed to the point where a judgment may be
obtained against a Government employee or former employee simply because
it has not completed its own criminal investigation. In view of the
statutory responsibilities which you have under 28 U.S.C. 516, I would
appreciate your answers to the following questions:
1. If the Department of Justice cannot prcvide counsel to
employees or former employees, will you retain private counsel
to defend them?
2. Until the Department of Justice (Criminal Division)
recommends the indictment of the employee or former employee being
sued, may the Department of Justice (Civil Division) defend that
individual?
3. If the Department of Justice refuses to defend Govern-
ment employees or former Government employees, can you delegate
to me the authority to hire private counsel for them?
4. Are you aware of any statute which precludes my using
appropriated funds to retain private counsel for present or
former Government employees?
The attorneys in the Civil Division have advised my attorneys that
these problems will continue as long as the Department is investigating
CIA activities which might be related. to civil suits filed against
present or former?employees.
I would appreciate your earliest response to this problem since
the time for some of these answers expires on 20 September.
Sincerely,
Director
Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP78B02992AO00100040017-5
 Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP78B02992AO00100040017-5
SEC. CL.
Un
ORIGIN
0GC
DATE OF DOC DATE RECD
11 Sept 7~ 12 Sept
DATE OUT
75
TO DCI
FROM John S. Warner
sues. Responsibilities of the DCI
0GC 75-3313
CONTROL NO.
NI0#2039-75
CROSS REFERENCE OR
POINT OF FILING
DATE
SENT
D/NTO
Approved For Release 2006/10/20: CIA-RDP78B02992AO00100040017-5