NOTE FOR THE DIRECTOR FROM (Sanitized)

Document Type: 
Collection: 
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
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
October 19, 1976
Content Type: 
NOTES
File: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP79M00467A001700010002-1.pdf144.32 KB
Body: 
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:),