NOTE FOR THE DIRECTOR FROM (Sanitized)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79M00467A001700010002-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 3, 2005
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: October 19, 1976
• Content Type: NOTES

Approved For Ruse 2005/03/16 : CIA-RDP79M004671700010002-1
I
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE ACEN
19 October 1976
NOTE FOR: The Director
,V z`?5P 4f~' -r-L) YCU'L. &.e- '7e,*-J
Other than the two articles (attached)
written by Greg Rushford, formerly of the
House Select Committee staff, I do not know
of any other articles published under the
by-lines of former HSC or SSC staff members.
There have been articles, however, which
show every sign of House and Senate staff
input, such as the Taylor Branch article
(New York Times Magazine, 12 September 1976)
which alleges that CIA managed to "outfox the
Congressional investigators".
The Searle Field article you referred to
is just what I would have expected from him -
whining, dishonest and pathetic.
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
Approved For Release 2005/03/16 : CIA-RDP79M00467A001700010002-1
 . Approved For Release 2005/03/16 : CIA-RDP79M00467A 01700010002-1
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
FROM TSE DESK OF
TIE DIRECTOR
7-4 /z;, t 7- 7G
TAT
Approved For Release 2005/03/16 : CIA-RDP79M00467A001700010002-1
 Approved Fo eleasgTM3yf13 -RIK-RQ1? WA001700010002-1
ecuurig 9
By A. Searle Field
MYSTIC, Conn.-National silence is
not the same as national security, 17r.-
fortunately, that was not the mes_u ,e
from the House of Representatives
when it suppressed the House In'c:'.i-
gence Committee's final report and
then investigated those who had un-
covered the United States misdeeds.
National security is not guns and
secrets. It is the quality of our people,
the strength of our national character,
and the ? integrity of our leaders. We
cannot be secure if we lack the cour-
age to test actions undertaken in our
name. By this standard. the Mouse sub-
stituted an act of insecurity for na-
tional security by retreating to a si-
lence that is a nationa' shame.
Our report did not reveal secrets: it
revealed policy. It did not name agents,
because names were not under inves-
tigation. It reve4led no secret tech-
niques, because technical matters wera
not at issue. it was written to be pub-
lisl:ed, by patriotic people.
Scare tactics that intimidate elected
representatives and prevent them from
reporting on the conduct of unelected
executives cannot be tolerated, with-
out a fearful silence next time.
Our committee tried to report that
the United States undermined demo-
cratic elections in Italy in 1972 with
bribes and dirty tricks. If this seems
academic, consider that many of the
same officials who rigged the Italian
election planned the Watergate opera-
tion a few weeks later.
We uncovered a decision by Richard
M, Nixon. and Henry A. :Kissinger to
involve the Central intelligence Agency
in a war by the Kurds against Iraq
four years ago without telling Con-
gress or the Secretary of Defense
(never mind the A.nerican periple).
Even s,), the House ended up investi-
gating those who asked questions,
rather than those who made war in
bock rooms.
Congress often finds silence more
comfortable. Oversight co;nmittees are
notable f ;r their liir.dsignt and being
gut-of-'i:ht. We revealed that in some
recent years not a sirg;e congress-
man o: senator showed up to hear thr
C.I.A..'s annual pro3ra:n review. that
one C.I.A. oversight committee had no
staff, and that rrh;res re?.n!*.ed to .,.
once
House Ethics Committee following
Daniel Schorr's publication of our com-
mittee's final report was far more
threatening. They photographed`, my
house, questioned friends about my
wife and social occasions at my home,
asked details about phone calls that
they somehow knew about, interro-
gated colleagues I had not seen for
years. Others were questioned about
their sexual relationships.
'The Ethics Committee did nQt want
facts; they wanted a scapegoat. I had
no evidence of who gave Mr. Schorr
.our report, so committee members ar-
gued with me, insulted my testimony,
questioned -my patriotism, compared
me with Watergate conspirators, mis-
led others about my testimony, and
then forbade me to speak publicly.
When I refused to falsely accuse their
chos an scapegoat, a "committee source"
leaked that there were "discrepancies"
in testimony by top staff members and
implied that all of us were suspects.
That was untrue.
The Ethics Committee people did not
leak that we had been denied open
hearing, that I had been denied seven
requests to cat during tq hours of tes-
tirnony, or that they had dcmanded
that I reveal conversations with my
attarney. Even though our staff had
uncovered corruption and law-breaking
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
every Ethics Committee investigator
was an ex-F.B.I. agent of Ion.- stand-
ing. Some of these former agents are
currently associated with F.B.I. men.
who may go to jail as a result of our
work.
Sound fair? When our staff had'
asked the House for lawyers to protect
us from a witchhunt-as CBS and the
C.I.A. had done for their employees-
we were turned down. We were easy
targets, without current ties to power.
Every staff member was interrogated
privately and forced to testify pub-
licly. No one from the White House,
the Defense Department, or the F.B.I.
ever testified publicly before the
Ethics Committee. Three people were
called from C.I.A. and one from the
State Department.
Was a leak the problem, or unpieas-
ar.t n1:?-,vs'? To those v ho, as a Last re-
sort. say everybody else, especially the
Russians. keeps lawless conduct secret,
I would point out that we expect our
people to rise to greatness, not emulate
? , rai .., d er Ic rim of
u rcc:ror
proved,Fpr F eletase W05%Q3/1,6 c;CIA."RiDP,79M0Q467AOQ1-70O "N2-1
leiile- Ine as w l! As my :'; i( Corr f is;tee t,'t !nie,lig.mcs (the Nee
ao( s.'n.. 1;=2t the ir:qu's::i'ti by t4" v:,`%'?;iiltO:),