Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 19, 2016
Document Release Date: 
July 25, 2000
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
December 21, 1972
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7.pdf8.79 MB
110ijSTON , TEXAS POST ApprovediFor Release 2006/01/03 M - 294,677 - 329,710 C E C 2 197a? Court upholds CIA to require review of Marchetti data By DONALD Ii. MORRIS Post News Analyst . A number of federal agencies are breathing easier in the wake of a recent Su- preme Court decision. The - 's injunction to prevent Victor ? larchetti from pub- lishing material based on his service with them has been upheld by the highest court in the land. - As usual in such cases, the Issues are far from clear and generate considerable 'emo- Post analysis tion. Marchetti claimed that the injunction iaterfered with his freedom of speech, was centrary to a 1971 ruling per- mitting the media to publish portions of the Pentagon Pa- pers, and would IParl lo a sys- teniatie scheme et censorship. He supported by the Au- thors ler.s.ague of America. the Association of American Fh- lithe's the American Civ- il Eiberties Union. Th injunction, issued by a U.S.: Circuit Court in Septem- biees lkitarchetti to ad- here to the secrecy agree- ment he signed when he went to work for the CIA in 1956. The agreement does not pro- hibit Marchetti from publish- ire. It only requires him to submit relevant material to the agency prior to publi- ption for review on security gtrainds. I) pite the dangers Frylnine:y present in such an am/eve:tient, the CIA has an evflle?1 track record in pre- \loth eases. Marchetti, in fact.. IS' the fftst former em- ploye the agency has taken to court in a quarter of a centu- ry.- The agency's stand, which the record bears out, is that it makes no effort to interfere with attacks on its policies or operations. It will, however, take action to prevent dis- closure of operations, tech- niques or the identity of per- . sonnel not already known to opposition intelligence ser- vices. T h e key phrase is not "classified material" but "previous disclosure." All pa- perwork is classified as it is generated, and the level is unimportant because "Con- fidential," "Secret" and "Top Secret" are simply internal routine indicators and all boil down to "internal use only." Over the years, much of this material becomes known to the Soviet services ? the KGB and the GRU ? and thus loses its sensitivity. The K G B discovers techniques and identifies agents, and op- erations are terminated. The material has been "dis- closed" and is no longer "sensitive," although it is still technically "classified" ? and will remain so until some one faces the chore of declas- sifying it. A previous employe might write a book based en- tirely on such material with- out upsettine the agency a whit. It would only intervene to delete reference to materi- als which would aid the clan- destine activities of the KBG or th,! cau. Declassifying dated mated- is a major headache. An agency official once showed : CIA-RDP80-01 601R000400030001-7 me a' letter. "Here is a major newspaper," he said, "asking for all documents we hold bearing on Viet, Nam from 1953 through 1953 ? the 47 volumes of the Pentagon Pa- pers are simply extracts from the mass he is asking for, in its entirety. There are over 3 million microfilms for the pe- riod in question, warehoused. To review for declassification would involve making hard copies of all, screening them, and having them reviewed by the officials who drafted them ? several thousand of them no longer in government ser- vice and other thousand scat- tered all over the world. Over 5.030 foreign names would have to be traced to deter- mine current status. We have no Congressional appropria- tions to hire the task force of a b ou t fifty people needed even' to start such a job. Even if we made hard copies and just handed them over without screening, they would fill a'.:out six trucks, and just what would the roan who asked for them do with them then? How am I supposed to an- swer such a letter?" Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 STAT 'cEll; YORK..11,D, Approved For Release 200,:?;16)F00 101A-RDP80-01601 Watch on the Media -1 ?? By Herbert Mitgang More than five years after the Free- dom ? of Information Act became Federal law, it is still difficult for Journalists, historians and researchers to obtain information freely. The idea - behind the law was to take the rubber stamp marked "Confidential" out :of the hands of bureaucrats and open up public records, opinions and policies of Federal agencies to public scrutiny. It hasn't worked that way. When President Johnson signed the bill, ho declared that it struck a proper balance between Government con- fidentiality and the people's right to know. In actual practice, it has taken court ,actions to gain access to Gov- ernment records. An effort is finally being made to declassify the tons of documents by the Interagency Classit fication Review Committee, under the chairmanship of former 'Ambassador John 'Eisenhower. This historical sur- vey will take years. But more than mere documents are involved. There is a matter of the negative tone in Washington. The White House and its large com- munications staff have lengthened the distance between executive branch, Congress and the public. Of course, every Administration has instinctively ? applied cosmetics to its public face, but this is the first one operating for a full term under the mandate of .the Freedom of Information Act. The re- sult is that official information ? especially if it appears to brush. the Administration's robes unfavorably ? is not communicated but excommuni- cated. The other day Senator Symington of Missourira former Air Force Secre- tary who has been questioning the wisdom of the President's 11-52 foreign policy in Southeast Asia, said: "I would hope that during this session of Con- gress everything possible is done to eliminate unnecessary secrecy especi- ally as in most cases this practice has nothing to do with the security of the ? United States and, in fact, actually operates against that security." This point was Underscored before ? the House Subcommittee on Freedom of Information by Rear Adm. Gene R. La Rocque, a former Mediterranean fleet commander :who since retiring has headed the independent Center for Defense Information. Admiral La Rocque said that Pentagon classifica- tion was designed to keep facts from civilians in the State and Defense Departments and that some Congress- men were considered "bad security risks" because they shared informa- pproved,For Reler4a0datsge: fCr14413kV:01,6011R000400030001-7 tion witfi the?puAle? Reputable historians trying to un- earth facts often encounter Catch-22 conditions. The Authors League of America and its members have resisted those bureaucrats offering "coopera- tion" on condition that manuscripts be checked and approved before book publication. The Department of Hous- ing and Urban Development has denied requests for information about slum housing appraisals. The Depart- ment of Agriculture turned down the consumer-oriented Center for the Study of Responsive Law in Washing- ton when it asked for research mate- rials about pesticide safety. The unprecedented attempt by the Administration to -block publication of the Pentagon Papers, a historical study of the Vietnam war, took place despite the Freedom of Information Act, not to mention the First: Amend- ment. And the Justice Department is still diverting its "war on crime" energies to the hot pursuit of scholars who had the temerity to share their knowledge of the real war with the public. Such Government activities not only defy the intent of the Free- dom of Information Act; they serve as warnings to journalists, professors, librarians and others whose fortunes fall within the line of vision ? budgetary, perhaps punitive? of the. Federal Government. The executive branch's battery of media watchmen are busiest with -broadcasting because of its franchises and large audiences. At least ?one White House aide, eyes glued to the news programs on the commercial networks, grades reporters as for or against the President. In one case that sent a chill through network news- rooms, a correspondent received a personal communication from a highly placed Administration official ques- tioning his patriotism after he had reported from North Vietnam. Good news (meaning good for the Ad- ministration) gets .a call or a letter of praise. The major pressure on the commer- cial and public stations originates from the White. House Office of Telecom- munications Policy, whose director' has: made it clear that controversial subjects in the great documentary tradition should be avoided. The same viewpoint has been echoed by the President's new head of the Corpora- tion for Public Broadcasting, which finances major programs on 'educa- tional stations. This Government cor- poration is now engaged in a battle to downgrade the Public Broadcasting Service, its creative and interconnect- R000400030001-7 STAT Long before there was a- Freedom of InfOrmation Act, Henry David Thoreau was jailed for speaking out and defying the Government's role in the Mexican war, last century's Viet- ? nam. "A very few men serve the State with their consciences," he wrote, "and they are commonly treated as enemies by it." Grand juries, sub- poenas and even Government jailers. will be unable to overpower today's men of conscience. Herbert Mitgang is a member of the editorial board of The Times. WISHING TON POST Approved For Release 2o46ogke :laa-RDP80-0160 diet Fai N. By Lewis Gulick . - Associated Press presidential order aimed! at, prying the secrecy wraps, from old government papers ! has produced only a trickle of new public information since it took effect five months ago. The .White House edict will show greater impact later on, Officials say, as declassifiers delve into a mountain of aging documents, and controls crimp the flood of new secret writ- Ings. . . But an effort by The Asso- ciated Press to dislodge some documents under one portion : of the order has met with vir- tually no success so far. Other inquirers have had similar ex- periences. - Under President Nixon's I June 1 directive, any paper more than 10 years old is sup- ' Posed to be made available to a member of the public if he asks for it unless a review by officials finds it should be kept secret. The order calls also for au- - tomatic declassification for all documents when they become 30 years old, unless specifi- cally exempted by a depart- ment head in writing, and it pares sharply the number of officials allowed to impose se- crecy stamps. ? Of eight requests made by the AP since June 1 under the 10-year proviso, seven have yet to produce any once-secret ma- terial. ' CIA Refused The lone exception was a re- quest for a National Security Council document from the Kennedy administration. Nearly two months after the request was submitted, the NSC noted that it had already been declassified. All other AP queries have proven fruitless to date, in- chiding a request for the rec- ord of NSC recommendations made to former President ? Dwight D. Eisenhower during the 1958 Lebanon crisis. David Young, an NSC aide supervising the declassifica- tion proram for the adminis- ? tration, has acknowledged that the request for the ? 1958 pa- pers falls within the guidelines of .Mr. Nixon's order. But the papers have yet to be made available. R000400030001-7 A to.ultir.Deggs.. ? However, the CIA refused to say what additional informa- tion was needed and a follow- up request, couched in more specific terms, was turned down. . ? The ? AP has appealed the CIA's -rejection to an Inter- agency Classification Review Committee set ?up under Nix- on's order. Study on-Access A June 1 request to the De- lense Department for some Korean war documents pro- duced a July 11 response that the material was not in the files of the assistant secretary for international security 'af- fairS and an Aug. 8 response that a search for it would re- quire "an unreasonable amount of effort." After a newsman noted that Eisenhower referred to the material in his memoirs as coining from the Joint Chiefs of 'Staff, the Pentagon search- ers said they would look some more. - - A book-length report on scholars' access to documents? covered by the June 1 execu- tive order says the new review procedures "will not be of much assistance to the scholar:" The study, published by the nonprofit Twentieth Century Fund, notes that the 1966 Freedom of Information Act already allows citizens to ask for. declassification of docu- ments, of whatever age, with appeal possible in court. The June 1 order, which covers, only documents that are at least 10 years old, pro- vides for appeal within the ex- ecutive branch, where the se- crecy label was applied in the first place. . The directive requires also that the request be specific enough that a government search can locate the docu- ment "with only a reasonable amount of effort." Countless Files However, only insiders know just what secret docu- ments exist. An outsider can guess,- .but serious ? scholars usually prefer to have access to an entire file to make'sure they don't miss something im- portant. . Just how many requests have :been made ? under the The 'CIA responded to a new ' directive is uncertain. query fdr docuApprovedfgor Relleatitte52qp(9040Sre oke_ RDP80-01601R000400030001 7 to an incident in the early been more len a tundr s . 1950s by saying that the re- tar, with most still in various I . ? nuest was not specific enough. ? 'stages of processing. , ? Thus, k early signs are that the June 1 executive order Will not prove of much imme- diate 'help to scholars or news- men searching for secret pa- pers tucked away in countless government files.- !Index System .which, hope- Prospects are much bright- fully, will start . giving up-to-I er, however, for creation of . date accounting on the secret .an internal-control system Paper flow in 1973. ,stemming the flood of new se- The end of the line for most i ;cret writings and for yanking old government papers, and away the secrecy of govern- counting duplicate copies and 1 ;ment documents by the time minor items which are de- . *they are 30 years old. stroyed, is the national Ar- No one knows exactly how chives. than government documents Remove Secrecy are under lock and key, hid- And here, say the.archivists, den from public view by seen-. the outlook is bright for even- rity classifications ranging tuallY putting nearly all once- from "confidential" to" top Sc- secret docUments, into the pub- cret." - ? lie domain. STAT Flow But, by conservative esti- mate, there are more than a billion pages of such material. That's enough paper to circle the earth a half-dozen times if placed end to end along the equator. NSC Directive ? .And, with the help of mod- ern photocopying gear, federal officials were spewing an esti- mated 200,000 pages of newly classified documents into their files daily as of June 1. All that secrecy is expen- sive. A General Accounting Office study covering just four ag,en- eies?the' State Department, Defense Department, NASA and the Atomic Energy Commission?rated their an- nual outlay for administering the security-classification sys- tem at $60 million. Since June 1, the White House says, the number of persons authorized to wield se- crecy stamps has been slashed 49 per cent or from 32,586 to 16,238. Those figures do not in- clude the Central Intelligence Agency, which keeps the num- ber of its classifiers secret. By NSC directive, each agency IS supposed to report by July 1,.1973, all major clas- sified documents on file after the end of this year, giving their subject headings and when they should become available to the public. . This information is to be fed into ?a computerized Data Approved For Release 2006/pEMMARKT430-01601R0 - 22 NOV 1372 Nixon Order Fails to Easegre riskr because of a tendency Conssmen as "bad security to "tell all to the public." Access to Classified ata Other former high Govern- ment officials acknowledged ? the existence among some Bureaucratic Obsta bureaucrats of the extreme cies and High Costs view that "public business is no business of the public. On the other hand, one of the most eloquent statements of the public's "right to know" was given by President Nixon in promulgating the June 1 order. BELAIR JR. "Fundamental to our way of life," he said, "is the belief New York TIrnes ? Are Impeding.. Efforts, to .Obtain Older Government Documents By FELIX Special to The WASHINGTON, Nov. 21? President Nixon's pledge "to lift the veil of secrecy" from needlessly classified official pa- pers is being throttled by bu- reaucratic confusion timidity ? and prohibitive costs, in the opinion of historians, other t scholars and newsmen. Five months after the Presi- dent's order on June I, direct- agencies in the five months information more .difficult re- :. ing a freer flow of information through October, 83 were grant- tiler than the reverse, to the public from secret and ed in full and four in part; 521 The order provides that, after confidential, papers more than were denied in full and 38 are 10 years old, the output is still pending, the White House Mill no more than a trickle. figures show. ? The breakdown, however, More requests for documents does not take into account that that ? when information which wraps and by whom." A House properly belongs to the public watchdog committee has is systematically withheld by charged that the President's those in power, the people soon June 1 order was issued to become ignorant of their own head off such a bill, on which affairs, distrustful of those who it was then holding hearings, manage them, and?eventually Figures compiled by the ?incapable of determining White House staff suggest that their own destinies." results under the new order? Despite this endorsement of the first "reform" since 1953 a better-informed public, the ?.have not been too had. Of language of the President's or- 177 requests made to various der makes access to classified have been denied or labeled Mending" than have' been granted. Those seeking access to the some of the information grante was not responsive to a re- quest. One of the features of the 10 years, secret material on .na- tional security and foreign pol- isy mat be reviewed for de- classification on request, pro- vided that the information is described "with sufficient par- ticularity that it can be ob- tained with only a reasonable system is that the person re-amount of effort." 'documents are searching for in- t'ormation ? that might throw questing declassification must i ? Drawback Cited ; new light on the origins of the agree n advance to buy the The drawback in this require- material. He must agree in ad- United States involvement in ment, those who have made the vance to pay the cost of lo- the Korean and Vietnam wars effort say, is that only the of- andg,identifying and review- the Cuban Bay of Pigs invasion'. ficial.s. know what is in the ; other matters relating to ing the material even though classified files and how it is the nation's military and for- eign policies. i In an interview on results 11 of the Presidential edict, Prof. the process the outsider must 1 Lloyd C. Gardiner, chairman of ued classification, hinder ac- agree in writing to assume any the history department at Rut_ cess to old papers on defense costs entailed in identification gers University, said that "for and foreign policy, it has been and location of the material and misdirection, subterfuge and charged. Some of these offi- . security review. circumlocution there lias been it may not answer his question. ? Balked by Officials Officials' attitudes, as much as the rules permitting contin- identified. Outsiders can guess at what is there and provide approximate dates. But to start caals relax prestige and the ire- . : nothing like this bureaucratic portance of their jobs to the The average citizen and most ?performance since the old-fash. volume of secret information news media consider this cost limed shell game." coming across their desks, ac- prohibitive. . . Professor Gardner, who has cording to testimony before the The ? Washington bureau .of been trying for nearly 10 years,HouseSubcommittee on Free..., Th . . e New York Times, within a to obtain State Department pa- pers on the origins of the Ko- rean war, has also been a lead- ing critic before Congressional . committees of efforts to devise a secrecy classification sys- tem by Executive order. Future Effect Seen Those in charge of carrying out the President's order say it will have a greater effect in years to conic as more papers are brought under review and new restrictions inhibit the use of secrecy labels. To Professor Gardner, how- ever, "the brightest pros civilians in their own service; pect is in o n -n o ation. week of the effective date of Rear Adm. Gene R. La the President's order, submitted Rocque, who retired from the 31 foreign policy questions to Navy after 31 years and who the State Department and re- received the Legion of Merit for quested declassification of the his work on strategic planning material presumably containing for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the 'answers. All together, 55 told the House panel that: Pentagon elssification was or, requests went to five Federal agencies. dered for a variety of reasons . Three weeks later the State other than the legitimate one of Department responded that "we preventing information from, have concluded that your re- tailing into the hands of a po- quest does not describe the tential enemy. records you seek with sufficient He listed among the other particularity to enable the de- reasons: "To keep it from the other partment to identify them, and military services: from that as described, they cannot that Congress will put an end from civilians in e Defense amount of effort,. the he obtained with a reasonablei to secret classification by ad- Department; from the State ministrative orriefTemadllpRate ,Refleaseu2006101403sv,q14WOKOVAPakOW:ii) Reference in. Memoirs. Among the June .1 requests by The Associated Press was one to the Defense Department for certain material on the Ko- rean war, The Pentagon replied on July 11 that the material was not in the files of the As- sistant Secretary. for Interna- tional Security Affairs. Another reply on Aug. 8 said that the material could not be located "with a reasonable amount of effort." When. it was pointed out that the material had been referred to in the memoirs of former :President Eisenhower as corn- ing from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Pentagon searchers said they would go on looking. Before its rejection of the re- quest by The Times, the State Department advised that the cost of identifying, locating and reviewing the material could be "as much as $7,000 or more" but that this was not to he taken as an estimate of any validity and none could be at- tempted. In any case, The Times was told it would have to state in writing in advance that it would assume whatever cost ? was as- signed, to producing the ma- terial, even though the review process determined that it could net be declassified and re- leased. Pending the outcome of a written protest to David Young, head of declassification opera- tions at the White House, The Times on June 21 withdrew its requests to the State Depart- ment and four other Federal agencies. In a letter to Mr. Young, Max Frankel, the Washington corre- spondent of The Times said that , "we will not ' buy a pig in a ' poke, nor should the Govern- ment ask us to play research roulette,. even if we acknowl- edged some responsibility for sharing the costs involved." - Mr.- Frankel's chief complaint was that "the bureaucrats mis- understand virtually every issue involved. in this whole proceed; ing." He said, "We have, first, the admission (and in the case of the Pentagon papers, the demonstration) that vast amounts of information have been either misclassified or wrongly held classified for too long." Mr.. Frankel, who is also chief of the Washington bureau of; The Times, said that the ob- vious intent of the President's order had been to correct both categories of error and said: "If the Government intends to honor the intent and the spirit of the President's order, then it should facilitate access, not raise one barrier after an- other. In short, if the Govern- ment means what it Says and G.301001114rate credit for so say- - - ? ? out in legislation w material from the Congress." He said - Seven have yet to-be answered. C 0 'sit ran be nut under securitylth-at many officers regarded with a ?yea or no, Approved For Release 2090/941/#11FE80-01601R000 19 NOV 1372 ? By Toni Wicker The Supreme Court ruled .last .week , that despite the Government's wire- tapping of a member of the Daniel EllSberg defense team, the trial of Mr. Ellsberg and his friend, Anthony Russo, Could continue. But it does not seem to be widely recognized that the charge's against these two men, if sus- tained, will provide the Government 'with far more sweeping powers of secrecy and censorship than it has ever had. ? In that case, John Kincaid has writ- ten in.the magazine of the War Resist- ers League, ? "The executive branch will have succeeded in using the judi- 'Cial branch to produce a new, repres- sive information control law which the legislative branch has always refused to enact!! :The little-known truth is ?, ,that there is now no statute?none? ? which gives the President the explicit right to establish a, system of classi- / fying 'information. The classification system ("top secret," etc.) rests in- stead on Executive orders, and those who have violated it in the past have suffered , only administrative repri- mands or the loss of their jobs?not criminal prosecution. :It is.a crime, declared so by statute, to make public certain information dealing with codes and atomic energy; -neither Mr. Ellsberg nor Mr. Rusk. did - that, nor are they so charged. It is also a crime, under the Internal Secu- rity Act, to hand classified informa- tion to a Communist country; neither defendant did that either, nor are they charged with it, Among other things, Mr. ElIsbell; and Mr. Russo are charged with conspiring :to "defraud" the Fed- eral Government of its "lawful func- tion" of withholding 'classified . infor- mation from the public.. But Congress has never by statute declared that to be a 'lawful function" nor made re- leasing classified information a crime. In this case, the Government is 'con- tending that setting up a classification system is an inherent or implied power of the executive function?which it may be; but to prosecute Mr. Ellsberg and Mr. Russo 'for a crime in violating an Executive order rather than a. stat- ute, the Government also hat to claim' that it has inherent or implied power to declare certain behavior criminal, when Congress has never done so. The Ellsberg-Russo Indictments also charge them with violation of the Espionage Act. In every other ease brought under that act, the Govern- ment has had to show that the de- fendants acted, as the statute requires, "with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used tq the injury of the 'United States or , to the advantage of .any THE NATION foreign natiort.". Bitt the Government, despite this plain requirement, does not so charge . Mr.. Ellsberg and Mr;? Russo; instead,? the indictment charges them with .communicating the ? Penta-?? .gon Papers "to persons not entitled to receive them," a very 'different thing:. The "theft"- part of the indictment? moreover, charges Mr. Ellsberg with stealing, converting and communicat- ing information, and ideas?not docu- ments the ,actual documents were Xeroxed, and the Government retains possession of the originals). The Ells- berg defense maintains that the Gov- ernment has 'never been construed by the courts or Congress to have propri- etary rights over information; it has, for instance, no right to obtain a copy- right, on the theory that no govern- . ment should have the 'power to ? own or control information, and that a government's information is a collec-' tive possession of its people. These are the remarkable issues that now must go to trial. If the Govern-- . ment gets a conviction on these issues,, and the conviction is sustained all the waY through the Supreme Court, it , will mean that making public classi- fied information will have been tie- .,dared a crime, although no statute ..,ma/ces it a crinie. It will mean, fur- ' ater, 'that the Government will not even have been required to show that such an act was intended to injure ,.,.the country or to aid a foreign power., ? ?only that information was passed to. _persons "not entitled" to have it. And, the Government's proprietary L. right to Control information?not just physical documents, plans, films, etc. _have been established. , Honest men may debate the wisdom and motives of Daniel Ellsberg and ::Anthony Rut's? in releasing the Pen- %,tagon. Papers; but the implications of the ' the Government seeks to s Make against them transcend such . questions. For if that case is sustained, the Government will be enabled to , make. .it a ilrime? to make public any.-- ; thing on Which it chooses to place a ' ? classification stamp. Then, anyone whodiscloses such information?say, "Air.'anForge colonel "leaking" .infor- 'Illation about a faulty weapon or a wasteful:. program?and anyone who ' receives it?for instance, Joseph Alsop? ? , or...,Rowland Evans being clued in by the.C.I.A7?will be committing a crime 1:4014t*P3MOrrosecuted.? .i limit on the Government's capacity Approved Fpr Release 2006/01/03 .: CIA-RDP8070160 t tappens, here will be almost V no :,to act in ? secret?which is to say its Approved For Release 2006119005:71:51A-RDP80-01601R0004 NOV 1972 00030001-7 A STA Immolsw"Tes"naly2213"'"!rt-11. Although Judge Byrne and various fully, that a jtiry could be. seiectea in lawyers on both sides would insist perhaps three days. - THE PENTAGON from time to time, when it was useful That estimate dropped the jaws .of for the point they were trying to even the three prosecutors, led by make, that the case must be treated David R. Nissen. A slight, dapper just like any other one in every re- man, he achieved his reputation for - "When a juror says he's going to be spect, jury selection for the Ellsberg- toughness while handling racket- fair, he doesn't really know if he is," Russo trial posed some very special eering cases for Byrne when the judge observes Marie Goldstein with a long problems. Inevitably political, the was United States Attorney in Los . sigh. She is something of a newly self-- Pentagon Papers case is a decisive Angeles. As the federal courts have ? 'discovered expert on the subject. Af- test of the federal government's. ca- increasingly become a -forum for po- ter sitting for several days as a tenta- pacitv to control the disclosure of in- litical issues over the past several - tive juror in the Pentagon papers trial formation stamped "secret," of an in- years, and have been used for crimi- in Los Angeles, she became the first dividual's right to ;defy the security nal cases testing the limits and styles person excused for cause by U.S. Dis- classification system, and at least pe- of dissent and protest against na- trict Court Judge W. Matt Byrne, Jr.. ripherally, of the press's ability to rely tional policy, jury selection hasdevel- What did her in was the frank admis- on "leaks" in government circles: oped into a complex and sophis- sion-that if she were not a juror in the Neither the prosecution nor the de- ticated process. case, she would have "definite sym- fense was about to let onto the jury Prosecution and defense attorneys path)," for the defendants, Daniel anyone who seemed to share idea- generally find out in advance far Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. logical bonds with the other side. The more about the individuals sum- Mrs. Goldstein was disappointed to problems were complicated, doubt- moned for jury duty in such cases be dismissed so quickly. "I think I less, by the fact that the case looked - than they tell about themselves from . ought to be able to be a good juror," ? to the public like a controversial, no.- the jury box during voir dire. For ex- she says with a trace of good-citizen torious, even exciting one. To many ample, federal prosecutors have the indignation. So willing, indeed enthu- prospective jurors it would seem the increasingly computerized resources siastie, was she to serve that she had opportunity for a brush with fame of the Flii at their command. In Cali- decided to give up a scheduled vaca- and publicity. This was the kind of fornia it is a simple matter for the de- tion trip to Japan if she were chosen jury on which all but the most timid fense to learn each juror's party regis- for the final. panel. She would have or nervous among those who were tration, when he voted, and whether preferred to be the object of a called seemed eager to serve, he ever signed referendum petitions . , 'peremptory challenge by the govern- on such issues as the death penalty, 'tient prosecutors (peremptories re- Musical chairs pollution control, and open housing. quire no statement of reasons and are. Sometimes both sides case the pro- merely an - indication of each side's The defense. attorneys, so numer- spective jurors' neighborhoods and preferences and prejudices) rather .ous that they had to take care not to find out how and with whom they than a declaration by the judge, in ef- stumble over each other while play- spend their spare time. During jury feet, that she.was unfit to serve. Re- ing musical chairs at the defense selection in the Pentagon Papers case, fleeting on the experience, she ac- table, insisted that the only way to se- Ellsberg's and Russo's attorneys dis- knowledged that "I did it to myself lect a fair jury would be to allow de- covered that one man, eliminated by what 1 said. . . . But then my hus- fcnse and prosecuting attorneys to from the panel, was "probably gay." band [a doctor in Pomona, thirty- participate personally in the voir dire, Another was peremptorily excused by three miles east .of Los Angeles] said the process by which each venireman the defense, despite his avid corn- maybe this was just My subconscious is questioned to elicit information Plaint during voir dire that while in way of telling them I could not be a about his background and attitudes. the service he saw many documents good juror." They repeatedly pressed Judge Byrne classified which should not have There was, in fact, no chance that to permit them to interrogate the pro- been, because a background investi- Mrs. Goldstein might have had to spective jurors. gation portrayed him as a "Gold- forgo ,her trip to Japan for jury duty. Standard practice in the federal water type." Had she not been the first potential courts is for the judge to conduct the As each new group of veniremen juror eliminated for cause, she would voir dire himself. l'ut, as Ellsberg's was called to the jury box, staff from surely have been the government's chief counsel, Leonard B. Boudin, of- each side?FBI agents and members first peremptory choice. What she ten reminded Byrne, Judge R. Dixon of the defense "law commune"? "did to herself" was to reveal that her ?Herman had only recently departed nearly collided with each other as daughter demonstrated at the 1968 from that procedure in the Harris- they scurried in and out of the court- Democratic National Convention in burg conspiracy case. As a result, five room to assemble information for the Chicago, that she herself had a col- weeks were spent in picking the liar- lawyers. Aware that the jury which lege degree in economics, that she risburg jury. , acquitted Angela Davis in a Califor- supports George McGovern for Presi- Herman's indulgence was exactly ala state court had been selected with dent, and that she has a draft-age son w Byrne, .ATIle, a brand-new judge Nvith the help of a panel of black psy- i ligiiiikl FOIFReciki4s20016109Y0dxVIIF46101101t16gliMogists sitting in the courtroom, (with- Selective SerAcop - her 10, although that fact never sur- ciency, intended not to emulate. Vit 1 YI-VAPP4POIMI &cense brought ' 0 faced): For a murder, rape, burglary, a characteristic glance at the clock, he in psychiatrists to watch from the au- ' ' -'--? ----- -" ???^?" 1-sg --.:---,-1 t?c, ,i,,, ci,,,i ,-,r ,,,,? dicnce and sort out the people they ----PAPERS TRIAL Approved For Release 2006/01/03: CIA-RDP80-0160 3311Vfilii'i3HAIA., ALA. POST-HERALD 'OCT - 81,277 ? I rAr? IL tZl t 1,01 By Richard Hollander seripps.newarr( Newspapers Along with a myriad of other matters, the Department of Defense is presently engaged in trying to digest the contents of a weighty tome which lays down regulations "governing the classifica- tion, downgrading, declassification and safeguarding of classified information," sten-lining, no doubt, from the dust-up over the leaking of the "Pentagon Papers" some months ago. ? Like so many examples of military and civilian gobbledegook produced by all .governments at all levels, this particular effort could only have been written by recent honor students in the graduate school of obfuscation at in waters state teachers college. However, and fortunately, military and civilian bureaucrats seem to he able to understand aach other, even though few of the rest of us do, and it's to be hoped that the new regulations covering security of documents and equipment will make more sense than sometimes has been true in the past. National security controls as they were learned, perforce, long ago by older, more sophisticated nations, are ?relatively new to us. Even as recently as in the months belnre Pearl Harbor we were naive by corn parson, It was then. for instance, in that hot: summer of 1911, when Hitler's forces were sprawled fatly across most or Europe, and Britain stood alone, trying to fashion a continuing military miracle out of the escape front Dunkirk, that a small, new American agency was set up - in Washington by order of President Roosevelt. Its responsibilities were somewhat. masked by its innocuous title: Office of the Co-ortIMator. of Information (C.01). Mostly, though, it Was called "the Donovan Office" after its chief, Col. (later major general) William ,11. (Wild nipers get Bill) Donovan. From it eventually stemmed two yvar-time agencies, the Office of' Strategic Services (OSS) and the Office of War Information (OWL). And from these einer;:,7ed two post-war agencies, the Central Intelligence Agen- cy (CIA) and the United States Informa- tion Agency (USIA). Well, the COI had a security officer, in addition to seeing to it that all black-gloved young ladies who wanted In become secret agents, a in Mata Hari of' World War I. signed their names. before entering the offices, he ordered that each document, paper, etc., deliver- ed to the agency be stamped with a classification. corne "Secret" meant that the material, if it were to fall into the wrong hands, might endanger the life of the nation. "Confi- dential" meant that the material might endanger U. S. interests. "Restricted" meant that the information should not be given to the generai public. The security officer's order was followed to the letter. One of my proudest possessions dating From that time ?? since thrown out with other memorabilia of by-gone days --- was a copy of the Washington Evening Star newspaper red-stamped "restricted." Thus, even so long ago, lunation had hit the classification business. "Restrict- ed" lost whatever value it might have had, and it no longer appears in the Pentagon lexicon. As World War 11 progressed, "confi- dential" became pretty thin gruel and even "secret" wasn't anythmg to lose much sleep over. It was superseded, first by "very secret," then "top secret," and, later, "most secret." Later still come "eyes only" which meant that. the message should be STAT R000400030001-7 new rues shown only to the high-ranking person to whom it was addressed, apparently overlooking the fact that the person who showed it to him had already seen its Finally, in the months before Nor- mandy D-Day, there was a special classification working on invasion plans. For reasons that are shrouded in the mists of the past. this was called 'bigot." Before sitting down to a meeting on, say, the. projected distribu- tion of toilet paper to liberated French- men in the neighborhood of Cherbourg, people- asked each other the somewhat incriminating quest ion: "Are you bigoted'?" In those simpler times, it was a proud thing to be able to say yes. You proved it by showing a card that had been run off a mimeograph machine. As history will attest, 1)-Da' was an eminently successful operation, and our side won the war in spite of everything. The new Pentagon regulations recog- nize only "confidential," "secrete" and "top secret." Fortunately, the literal- mindedness of the ('()l 't security of in 1041 is sternly interdicted in the new Chapter IV, Section I, Paragraph R-102, titled "Exception," winch states cate- gorically: "No article which, in whole or in part, has appeared in newspapers, magazines or elsewhere in the public domain, nor any copy thereof, which is being reviewed and evaluated by any compo- nent of the Department of Defense to compare its content with official infor- mation which is being safeguarded in the Deprtment of Defense by- security classification, may be marked on its face with any security classification, control or other kind of restrictive marking. The results of the review and evaluation shall be separate from the article in question." At 'last the comic ;free. Approved For Release 2006/01/03: CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 pages are home Approved For Release 20NR1113?5.0919P80-01601R0004000 18 OCT 1972 By ALAN HORTON Scripps-Howard News Service The Pentagon is in the proc- ess of distributing throughout the massive Defense bureauc- racy a 106-page book which may vastly reduce the number of secret documents. Classifiers throughout the federal government have been using their Top Secret, Secret and Confidential stamps 30 million times a year. The blue -b ound volume being passed out is a new reg- ulation called "Information Security Program Regula- tion." Its Nixon administration authors say it will reduce the of classified material and increase the declassified. The number of classifiers has been chopped significant- ly already. Under tile old rules there were 52,114 federal workers with the power to classify. Now there are 20,695, a 60 percent reduction. In the Defense Department alone the number has been cut from 30,542 to 3,809. The State Department total is down from 5,435 to 2,233. Those with top secret stamps govern- ment-wide is down 77 percent, from 7,134 to 1,671. About half are in the Defense Depart- ment: ? But reducing the nurriber of classifiers is no guarantee the number of 'documents classi- fied will drop, hence the new regulation. Classifiers now must idea- ? thy themselves by title when they stamp documents. Gov- ernment monitors call this an "Audit trail" so auditors can later track down those guilty of over" or under-classifying. The regulation also is full of reminders to set a declassifi- cation date that will arrive sooner than the automatic de- classification date. Classifcrs are, in effect, asked to balance the values of non-classification against the benefits of classifi- cation. The automatic declas- sification date now is a maxi- mum of 10 years, instead of the old 12, from the classifica- tion date. Nothing may he classified for more than 30 years under the new rule, and anyone may ask that a document by de- classified after 10 years. The declassification request must be decided quickly. Only clas- sifiers with "top secret" stamps may grant exemptions to the 10-year rule. The old regulation allowed classification if information "could" damage the interests of national defense. Now infor- mation "must reasonably be expected to damage the inter- ests of national defense or for- eign relations." Behind the new concepts are potential teeth. An Interagency Classifica- tion Review C om mi tt ee (ICRC), headed by former ambassador John S. D. Eisen- hower, is responsible for seeing that the regulation is followed. ICRC already has asked the National Archieves to set up a quarterly reporting system by Jan. 1 to see how well the regulation is working. Computers keep track of clas- sified documents. Department inspectors are checking up on classifiers, and the General Accounting Office, the federal watchdog, may be asked to make and annual ran- dom audit. The top secret stamp may be used only when information would "reasonably be expect- ed to cause exceptionally grave damage:" secret, "seri-, ous" damage, and confiden- tial, "Damage." The Pentagon already has received 60 or 70 requests for declassification, but Declassi- fication request forms haven't been devised yet. Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 SAN DIZGO, CAL. !' UNION J Approved For Release 2001/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R `1 1- 2 M - 139,739 S ? 246,007 AUG 1. 51972. Author Reveals Secret Papers' Open To Public By KIP COOPER ? Military Affairs Editor The San Diego Union Top secret government pa- pers are available to -anyene .who wants to read them in the libraries of major universities,. _a former .CIA.,.?employe said here yestenay in an inter- ?view.' ? R. Harris Stnitb, author of the newly published book "OSS The Secret History of Amer. First: Central intelligence Agency," said there are "hun- dreds of boxes of the stuff" at ,Stanford University where he did some of his research. He said he saw some docu- ments he considered so sensi- tive he suggested they be taken out of the public files and.prop- erly guarded. "An enormous amount of top secret and secret information has been deposited in univer- sity 'libraries by former em. ployes of the 'government," he said. :"You can walk in and read it, anybody can," he said. ? ? . RECENT REPORTS Smith said much of the mate- rial was ? taken, by 'people. after, World War II, but that some of it is less- than 20 years old and: "some of it is very recent.", Some Of it includes recent CIA reports on the Chiang-Kai-shek government, he said. . ? -; ? "They (government employ.] es) just stuffed .the material in: their cars and took it home with them," he said. "Later, they left it with their papers in. bequests. to . various univer-- Sities. There's a lot of it float-! lug around.. And it still has. top', .scret and secret stamps on: it." ? . Smith said he used classified papers from "five very large bor." from collections ofi pa e. s in the Stanford- Univeitsity library: ? Sonic of the collections Smith A inetiVeil ilib041kerea4c2 Information are .Charles Thayer, Preston Goodfcllow, Letand Rounds and ? Milton LEAVES CIA Now a 'lecturer in' political science at the - University of California, Smith resigned from the Central Intelligence Agency in May, 1968 after serving a year as an analyst. .116 said the freewheeling ac- tivities of the OSS, in which in- subordination was a way of life. undoubtedly contributed to French resistance to .the U.S. role in Vietnam today... "The OSS team in Hanoi in 1945 were anti-colonialists' who? felt that Ho Clii deserved U.S. support," he said. "Some of the French intelligence agents there who were snubbed by the OSS then became high officials in the De Gaulle goy- , ernment .?and they have never forgotten the OSS. role there:" Smith said said there is a "very ; common belief" in Washington j that French intelligence agents 1"arc supporting the North Viet- namese" in the eUrretit con- flict. - 10400030001-7 STAT /01/1/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 VIAD11.1-k -1-11.E0b ? 1.5 August 1972. Approved For Release 2006/01103 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 Top secret papers found SAN, MEG 0, Calif. (AP) ? ? An "enormous amount" of top :secret and' sceret government papers is available to the ? general public in libraries of major universities, says an .? author and former employe ':of the Central Intelligence Agency. ? . R. Harris Smitl,?, author of ? the recently published "OSS: The Seeret ? History . . of America's First Central Intelligence Agency," said his research for the book included reading classified papers he found at Stanford University. There are 'hundreds of box- es of the stuff" at Stanford, including some documents so sensitive that Smith suggested to university officials they be removed from the public files and properly guarded, he said in an interview Monday. . STAT on public library shelves "An enormous amount of top secret and secret in- formation has been deposited in university libraries by former employes of the gov.ernment," said Smith,. a former analyst for the CIA. "You can walk in and read it?anybody can." Government employes "just stuffed the material in their cars and took it home with them,'! he ' said. "Later they left it with their papers in b e qu es t s to various universities. There's a lot of it floating around. And it still has top secret and secret stamps on it." Smith said much of the material he saw dealt with pre-World War II topics but that some of it was less than 20 years old and "some of it is very.reeent." 'Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001j7 Approved For Release 2006/01/03 CIA-RDP80-01601 SALEM, ORE. JOURNAL E 24,360 AUG 71972 000400030001-7 Gains in war on secrecy .:` The 25-year struggle to gain control of the secrecy machine finally is pay- ing off. The. White House has announced that the program to reduce the amount of classification of papers is on the move. Already the number of people empow- ered to stamp a document secret (or top secret _or confidential) has been more than cut in half. Theoretically, if you reduce the num- ber of people with such authorization you reduce the number of papers so stamped. .LAnd everybody agrees tat far too much of the millions of tons of paper turned out by federal agencies has been hidden ,from the public. ? Two months ago, according to White ,51-Louse figures, 43,586 people in the federal - government had classification powers. In ,Q0 days that number has been reduced to 46,238. And the beat goes on. Presumably when the program is done there will be .Zonly 10,000 or so. But the White House doesn't say ? whether these figures include military people in the field. We doubt it. And we Thren't too concerned, anyway. If there's 'Iany excuse for secrecy, that's where it ? is, and it would be a bit ridiculous to ? .reduce the numbers too greatly there. But the whole struggle to make public information public is likely to be a sham the end. For example, the above fig- ures definitely do not include thecgatial Intelligence Agency. The White House will ?ay....kinly that the number of CIA people allowed to stamp documents has been reduce.d by 84 per cent. The reason is that all personnel files in the CIA are stamped top secret. We can't find out if the committee which is overhauling the classification system has access to them even in statistical form. We applaud the effort, however. It can'tbut have helped. But we still are cynical. We recently tried to find out if some specific World War II documents had been declassified at least. We learned that .the index to these documents ? which would tell us which ones we could read ? was classi- fied. Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 STAT Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-0160 NEW YORK TIMES 5 AUG 1972 ? STAT Senator- Proposes ings that would adversely of feet an individual's reputation. Rill tO End' Secrecy "Sin I came to the United States Senate last year," he in the Government said, "I have become very dis- turbed by the great amount of public bUsiness I have -found By mAroomE Hunter being conducted behind closed? Speelal to The New York Timer doors and by the attitude of secrecy I'v.e seen in our Fed- WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 cral agencies." Senator Lawton Chiles,. criti- His stand against GVern- cizing Government decision- ment secrecy reflected the feel- made in secret, proposed today logs of a number of younger `"` "governm?,,,. members of the Senate and the what he called a licaisc, but the outlook for pas- in the sunshine" law. saga of his bill is believed to The Florida Democrat said be slim at this time. that his bill would virtually However, with a number of eliminate secret .ineotings in elderly members retiring from Congress and the Congress at the end of this executive' year, some reformers view the branch of Government. Chiles bill as the possible basis ? The bill would require open; for change in the years ahead. meetings if all Congressional! The bill was patterned along committees and Governmentithe lines of the "government agencies except in matters re-lin the sunshine" law passed in lating. to national security and Florida in' 1967 when Mr.Chiles defense, matters required by, was a member of the ? State other law to be kept- confiden- Senatc..' . tial, matters relating solely to an agency's internal manage- ment and disciplinary proceed- . Approved' For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 : 11/1 INK .T.IMES' Approved For Release zuu6/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R0004 4 AUG 1972 .9 Washington:. For the Record ? Aug. 3, 1972 ' THE PRESIDENT Intelligence. President Nix- on announced the appoint- ment of John B. Connally as a member of his Foreign In- telligence Advisory Board. ? Mr. Connally, former Secre- tary of the Treasury, previ- ously served on the board. U.N. The President an- 'llounced the appointment of Philip E. Hoffman of South .? Orange, N.J., to be the rep- " resentative of the United - States on the Human Rights Commission of the United ? Nations. Mr. Hoffman, 63 years old, succeeds Rita E. Hauser, who has resigned.. Activities. The President saw John S. D. Eisenhower, chairman of the Interagency Classification Review Com- mittee, and received a prog- ress report. He also met with the former professional football player 011ie Matson and his family. ? MAJOR POSITIONS Education. The President nominated Dr. Sidney P. Mar- land Jr. of New York to be Assistant Secretary for Edu- cation. Dr. Marland, 59 years old, has served as Commis- sioner of Education since De- cember, 1970. STAT Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 Approved For ReleasriellkiBiP643 r&-RDP.804 4 AUG 1S77 Rencri ir FlITI n nose 1601R000400030001-7 lows 3% Doerease .dlowec -to1' laSSlly ? By Elsie Carper ducal 53 per cent, from 2,275 process. of making classified ? Wfishinton Post Sift(' Writer to 1,076. The number allowed documents public. The corn. The number of federal em- to classify "secret" was cut 39 mittee was established to im-! ployes authorized to stamP per cent, from 14,316 to 8,671, plement the order. 'papers "top secret," ."secret" and the number that could For the first time, depart- or "confidential" has been cut classify "confidential" was re- ments were required to desig- :subgtantially, President Nixon dueed 76 per cent, from 26,995 nate in writing persons haviiii. was told yesterday. \ to 6,491, according 10 the re- authority to classify liocu. John Eisenhower, chairman port. ments. The White lloust. said of the interagency Classifica- The figures do not include that this, along with. the new 'lion Review Committee, deliv- the Central Intelligence requirement that the classifier , cred .A report to the President Agency which has made an be identified. on each duct!. ?showing that the number of overall reduction.. of 26, per ment, was expected to sub, 'persons authorized to classify cent and a reduction in. "101) stantially reduce the amount national security information has been reduced 63 per cent, secret" of 84 per cent, the of information classified. from 43,586 to 16,238 in the White House said. The White. House said that past 60 days. The biggest reduction was an effort, is now being made to Eisenhower; son of Dwight at the Pentagon, where 30,542 determine . how many papers D. Eisenhower and father of employees had been author- have been declassified under Mr., Nixon's son-in-law David ized to classify .papers. That the order. The job is sizable Eisenhower, was named chair- numberhas been refluced to since some 760 millions pages man of the committee last '8,809. of documents were classified May following his resignation President Signed a in the 20-year period from 1842 as ambassador to Belgium. directive last March designed to 1962. The President's order The number of employees to restrict the amount of mate- established timetables- of 6 to authorized to classify a deco- rial classified by the govern- , 10 years for automatic declas- iment "top secret" has been re-. ment and to speed up the sification of most documents? Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 STAT Approved For Release 2006/%1403+CFAWDP80-0160 \'?k\ 1 rt_._.--.--;;--, CM .,,?.., .."- .?..__-, ----7:...,,--- ..... , .' --vck, ( \ ; ? 0 . ? \ t.o. i i \I v \ 4 \,1 - ` ?L 1 r\?0?"\?\ \I '\..4 Cid ? . ?__.....----f;_;,,,,...---' _ __.,..r-,---------,---"-1-"--- ,----; ,,,--f?.--- .,;-- A ratepovt on Ccholars' Access to Oovernment Documents By CarorM. Barker and Matthew H. Fox ,,071 , ) 0 ???? ? ? ? ? ? ,? ?: Iv I ?;': . ? . The Twentieth Century Fund/New York/1972 , Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 `. A. Approved For ReleasgNOWASMXRDP80-01601 August 1 THE PAPERS & THE PAPERS : AN ACCOUNT 01, THE LEGAL AND POLITI- CAL BATTLE OVER THE PENTAGON PAPERS, by Sanford J. Ungar. E. P. Dutton. 319 pp. $7.95. 'reviewed by Arthur S. Miller If anyone still believes the Su- preme Court's decision in the Pentagon PaPcrs Case w-3`S a r?6?-`11(iing victory for the press, he had better think again. Even better, he should read Sanford Ungitr's The Papers & .The Papers. 'Ungar, a reporter for The Washington Post; has written the first complete ac- count of the struggle to p,ubiLli the -study, commissioned by Robert McNa- mara, of that dismal swamp of ill- conceived and misbegotten American policy, the Vietna.m "war." True., The New You; Times and The .Post did win?surely better than losing. But the victory came at the highest price yet paid in defense of the First Amendment. For the first time in American history, a prior restraint on publication was laid upon newspapers by court injunctions. That, as Ungar says, is a "rather .hollow victory," a judgment concurred in by a high Jus- tice Department official who is quoted as saying, "We proved one thing em- phatically, that there can be prior re- straint of publication while a case is being reviewed in the courts." So the hosannas should be muted, partictslarly with the addition of Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist to the Supreme Court. Were that all to the Case of. the Pentagon Papers, it would hardly de- 000400030001-7 a C c ncr LIAO; , !notes William Florens:.e, forme: Force security expert, as sayir.g ....- uore. than ninety-nine ann ent of documents elassif.en troani security reasons could he cis- closed without. being "prejudicial to t:;c defense interests of the nation." Surely it would be difficult to prove that pub- lication of the Papers has in fact harmed the nation. THE POSTURE OF THE 1.Awvillts. After the dust had settled from the case, both The Times and The Post fired their lawyers. And well they should have. Both firms seemed to act more /ike counsel for the Government than for the newspapers. At eleven Inc nrght before the first appearance in court, The Times' lawyers quit the case, necessitating frantic efforts .to recruit replacements (who had to appear in court with little preparation), That is odd legal behavior, to say the least. As for The Post, one Roger Clarl,z, a rnern ber of the firm formerly headed by Secretary . of State Rogers, seemed. to be more .interested in sup- pressing publication than in finding ways to justify it. Further, according to Ungar, The Times paid out $1.50,030 in legal fees?a sobering lesson in the cost of litigation. Defense of the First Amendment is -expensive. Trc StnEmE: Court-i'. Each of the jus- tices found it cicsirabk: to write an opinion. Some, particularly Chief Jus- tice Warren BUrL.-,,or and justice I-Tarry Blackmun, went out of their way to discuss matters not relevant to the de- cision. They, with Justice Byron White, all but invited the justice Department to file criminal charges, Burger (and others) were bitter about the haste. in Nvhich the decision was rendered (something that didn't trouble them at. other times?for example, the Am- chitka bomb-test case), But then, seri- ous students of the Court know that the justices view consistency as a con- venience rather than a necessity. THE RESPONSMI.LITY OF THE rat:ss. The analogue to selective enforcement of the law is selective printing of news matter. Ungar relates how The Post failed to publish clearly newsworthy material, once when Burger met two Post reporters at his home (at about serve book-length treatment. But this well written and es,ential/y fair- minded account of. the imbroglio points up other deeply important and, at times, disturbing -,-,*ters There is much fodder f oz? reflective thought here; to me, the real ?,alue of the book lies in what it su,ir-rests rather than in what it details. An illustrative listing will have to suffice: SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW. Was it merely fortuitous that the Gov- ernment sued only those four news- papers that had been critical of the Administration? That would strain credn;ity so the brealdng point... Other news)apers, inch:ding. The Los Angeles Times (essentially a pro-Nixon organ), printed the Pa.,)ers. Add the strict hands-off attitude toward Jack Ander- son's revelations and it is difficult not to conclude that the Justice Depart- ment used law for political ends. If that is at least partially accurate, as I th;',': it is, it presents a nasty picture of a "law-and-order" Administration. THE SECURITY P:-.1.-0.1TIA OF GOVERNMENT. Without doubt, much of the material in the Papers was absurdly over-classi- fied. Classification helm to insulate the bureaucracy from revealing mountains of data to which the people are clearly entitled. Without access to informa- tion, there can be little or no public accountability for decisions taken. .(For that matter, it is noteworthy that rath- er than being held strictly to account for errors of omission and commission, those Who immersed the United States. into Vietnam have ? usnally been re- warded by "the system" with lucrative or prestigious jobs out of government ?an interesting commentary on tile Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 THE NEW REPUBLIC Approved For Release 20;41 Qiiia:r97/42RDP80-01601R00 What You Don't Know. When the Pentagon Papers became an open book last,summer, followed by a flurry of inquiries about the stacks of still secret information, most everyone. who bothered his head about the security classifica- tion system agreed it overclassified and then too often failed to declassify, hiding too much from the public, press, Congress, historians. Its costs were estimated at . a minimum of $126 million a year; it was manipulated for political aggrandizement, making it too easy and tempting for those with access to publicize half-truths that made them look good, while burying the half- truths that didn't. ? Then last March President Nixon issued Executive Order 11652, speeding up declassification, cutting back the number of agencies and individuals with the authority to classify, and reducing the number of your- eyes-only documents. The order .also established an Interagency Classification Review Committee to ad- minister the order and threatened disciplinary action for "repeated abuse of the process through. excessive classification:" But Rep. William Moorhead (D, Pa.), chairman of the House Foreign Operations and Government Infor- mation Committee, and ,Senator Muskie,. chairman of the Senate Intergovernmental Relations Committee, were not satisfied. Moorhead said the order is "a doc- ument written by classifiers for classifiers." He has held 30 days of hearings on the subject and introduced his own bill to further accelerate declassification, limit the power to conceal, and establish an independent commission to administer the classification system. Muskie's Truth in Government Act is similar. The issue is this: who will have final authority over the classification system?those who have the infor- mation or an independent commission? Nixon's ad-' mini stra tive committee consists of members of agencies which stamp the documents: State, Defense, Justice, the CIA, the Atomic Energy Commission and the National Security Council. Moorhead wants a re- view commission of three members appointed by the speaker of the House, three by the president pro tem of the Senate, and three by the President. It would ? settle disputes between members of Congress, the public or the press and the executive branch over what's to be made public and what's not and would hear requests from classifying agencies that want to keep information classified longer than usual. Mus- kie's proposed board would include representatives from the White House, the Congress and the press, but would give the President ultimate power to re- View any board decision. The real difference provided by an independent board would be apparent when a. congressman or reporter asked that certain information be declassified: the decision would come not from the individual in the State or Defense bureaucracy Who has the inform AMMO &ft igg aptiO 400030001-7 es 'I' A -r mission conducting a hearing. Speed is also at issue. Nixon's order allows "top secret" material to be declassified after 10 years, "se- cret" after eight and "confidential" after six. Moor- head's scale runs three, two and one, and Muskie's starts at two years for the "least sensitive" information and ranges up to 12 for the "most sensitive." All in- clude a "savings clause." Under the Moorhead and Muskie proposals the executive branch, with: the ap- proval of the commission, could keep documents 'secret for longer periods of time. Under the Nixon order, agencies can hide documents longer than 10 years, but must review their decision if specific classi- fied information is requested from them. The cat- egories which can be kept secret forever include information "the continuing protection of Which is essential to the national seCurity." Moorhead has questioned the broad wording of this clause. In dispute also is whether, when and how an indi- vidual can challenge classification of a document. Under the Nixon order one must ask for a document (it must be over 10 years old) "with sufficient particu- larity to enable the department to identify it,." and then hope that "the record can be obtained with only a reasonable amount of effort." At that point one may or may not be allowed to see the document, depending on the department's interpretation of "national se- curity." Members of Congress have complained that it's hard to know enough about what is classified to identify exactly what one wants to see, let alone know that such a document exists. Under the Moorhead and- Muskie plans the independent commission could help individuals locate what they want and would ensure that a denial of access was justified. Anyone success- fully appealing declassification of an item could have his court costs and attorney's fees paid out of public funds. Declassification is not the final hurdle however. The. executive branch may (and does) still hold information from Congress and the public under the cover of executive privilege. The IVIuskie bill states that de- classified documents cannot be held under this privi- lege, and that even "top secret" documents could be . ordered sent to Congress by the courts, though only for closed meetings. This "protective order" -practice has been relatively common in Congress. . Senator Fulbright has a separate bill requiring any- one invoking executive privilege to bring a written letter from the 'President, thus making the President hirnself directly responsible for withholding informa- tion. No -presidential letter, no funds for the agency in question. ? None of these bills has yet been reported out of committee,.but if the Democrats choose to stand firm on their platform pledge to "make information public, except when real national defense interests arc in- cipt_patitth_otilm Robiy.40,6163,56tip_iwcir k for action next year. STAT 4 Approved For Release 2006/N/EI:Iiar;Cn1RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 27 JUN 1972 The Was iugton MerrynGc-Rovind T e Qovernnwnt ? By jack Anderson The custodians of govern- ment secrets are gnashing their teeth again over our ac- cess to the still-Secret portions of the Pentagon Papers, These show how Lyndon Johnson tried to bring pressure upon Hanoi to negotiate a Vietnam settlement by orchestrating the air raids -against the North. - ? ? . He would withhold the bombs for awhile, hoping this would encourage the North Vi- etnamese to negotiate. Then he would let the bombs fly again when he thought they needed Some prodding. Sometimes, he stepped up the bombing at crucial stages of the secret negotiations. Re- peatedly, Hanoi would halt the talks because of the military pressure. After his retirement,. Presi- dent Johnson published selec- tive excerpts from the secret papers to demonstrate how right and reasonable he had been.- He Omitted the por- tions that made him look Wrong and unreasonable. President Nixon also re- leased sensitive information, 'strictly for political reasons, about Henry Kissinger's se- cret Vietnam negotiations. The President used the infor- mation to reply to his critics. The power to classify infer- Mation must be recognized for -what it is. It is nothing less sse state secret of whatever it wishes. This divine right to classify documents has been abused to a degree, beyond tol- eration. Not only does. the govern- ment sweep its bungles and blunders, its errors and em- barrassments Under the se- crecy , labels. But- our entire foreign policy and defense posture remains secret except for what the federal establish- ment thinks is in its own inter- est to make public. The tragic, bitter lessons of Vietnam have shown the fate- ful consequences of allowing any president to exercise power in spendld isolation be- hind the double walls of exec- utive privilege and official se- crecy. We will continue, therefore, to publish 'information that the government seeks to hide from the public by classifying, SOsiet Role " The unpublished Pent agon Papers, for example, shed new light on the Soviet role in the Vietnam negotiations. The Kremlin, after showing no in- terest in settling the war, sud- denly adopted a different atti- tude in 1967. -Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin made the new attitude known during a Lon- don visit,. ? "The British were Tisk star- tled, then delighted to find Rosygin eager to play an ac- tive, role as intermediary be- than the absolute authority of tween the U.S. and Hanoi the government to make a . state the papers.. 'There ecrecy .1.? ? rtv-r-r, e " was definitely a sharp change from previous Soviet reluc- tance to ? play the .iniddle- man. . ? "What produced this change in Soviet attitudes? Were they acting on DRV (North Vi- etnamese) behest? Or were they now willing to put pres- sure on Hanoi in ?? pursuit of their own? "Only a little light Is shed on these questions by the ma- terials relating to Kosygin's stay in London. Ile was appar- ently wilLng to transmit pro- posals for DRV consideration more or less uncritically. While he argited the general merits of , the DRV's. side of the war, he did not try to bar- gain or alter specifics of .the proposals transmitted to him. . . . "What is more striking is that he did not react adversely to the.substance of the princi- pal de-escalatory proposal under discussion---the termi- nation of all DR); infiltration and supply into SVN in ex- change for a .U.S. hair m at, tacks' on the North and in troop level augmentation, Intercepted Call "Entirely apart from the se- quence in which these steps would be taken, their long- term result for the Commu- nists would be extremely ad- verse ?militarily. Yet on Feb. 13, he was overheard (by tele- phone intercept) to tell Brezh- nes, (the Communist Party chief) of 'a great possibility of achieving the aim, if the Viet- namese will understand the present situation-that we have passed to them; arid they will have to decide .. "In a retrospective discus- sion with Thompson (then (lie. U.S.- Ambassador) in Sao-scow, Kosygin expressed a jaun- diced view of the rule of me- diators, saying they either complicated the problem or. pretended they. .were doing something when in fact they were not. "He had stepped into this uncomfortable spot in London because "the Vietnamese had for the first time stated they were ready to negotiate if the bombings were stopped uncon- ? ditionally; ? this was the first time they had done so. ? ..' "How much the Russians had hoped in fact to accom- plish during Kosygin's Lon- don trip is impossible to know. They apparently har- bored few expectations after his return. Kosygin complain- ed to Thompson about the 'ultimatum' implied in the final proposal he transmitted to Hanoi from London, saying that he knew it was hopeless the minute he read it. . ." This incident illustrates how little influence the Kremlin had over the North Vietnam- ese. It was the beginning, how- ever, of an increased Soviet in- terest in ending the Vietnam War. ? 1972, United Feature Syndicate Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 71,1. ibb WEEFITI1C=T01; POST . Approved For Release 200g/41/4N dit42RDP80-01601R0 0400030001-7 - By Sanford J. Ungar Washington Post Staff Writer LOS ANGELES, June 23 US. District Court Judge W. Matt Byrne Jr. today rejected the Justice Department's ef- fort to ban discussion of free- dom of the press during the trial of .Daniel Ellsberg - and .Anthony Russo on charges 'growing out of disclosure of the top secret Pentagon pap- ers. During a long day of court- room debate over ground rules for the upcoming trial of Ellsberg and Russo on conspir- acy, theft and - espionage charges, Judge Byrne refused :the prosecution's request. that strict controls be put on de- fense counsel in the case. The prosecution had asked that all defense attorneys be forbidden from mentioning in front of jury such subjects as "any so-called public right- to-know," any views of "the morality or desirability" of Pit C)7r7 C- r--e? 6 fiLy 1,IIJ ? Nissen, when his position was ruled against, snapped back at the, judge and warned about the "detrimental" effect his rulings might have. Among Judge Byrne's other rulings in the case today: , 0 He rejected Russo's re- quest to be declared a "pau- per" so that the government would Pay the cost of bringing his witnesses to Los Angeles and of providing him with daily transcripts in the case. 0' He granted a defense re- quest that. the jury, once em- paneled, be permitted to take notes on the testimony of wit- to make an affirmative show- nesses and the legal argu- ing of why it needs a secret ments. . CIA document concerning al- At the same time, howcvv, ieged violations of the Espio., Judge Byrne turned down the defense suggestion that the ju- nage Act which were never ? rors also be permitted to pose prosecuted, before the prose- theircu own questions to wit- on will be ordered to pro- ? nesses. Attorney Leonard duce it in court.. Weinglas s, representing ? O Over Nissen's strenuous Russo, had argued that the objections, he required the Fors have a right to "partici- prosecution to give the de- pate" actively in the trial. fense all fingerprints found on U.S. involvement in Vietnam The judge.. also said he the copy of the Pentagon pap- 'or the leaking of government would personally conduct the? ers Photocopied by the defend- documents by others, preliminary questioning of ants, rather than only the ones Leonard B. Boudin, repre- prospective.jurors, rather than, the government, intends to use senting Ellsberg, complained permitting the lawyers to do in the trial. in court that the prosecution's it, as requested by the de- Byrne also rejected a do- "unusual proposal" amounted lease. tense effort to keep out of evi- Ito a l-equest for "prior re- dence a 600-page government He refused to split the log of public statements made straint" on the lawyers. case into two separate trials, by Ellsberg and Russo since The judge agreed, but left one on the conspiracy charge they were indicted. open the possibility that he and one of the charges of He said he did not agree might later restrict the topics theft of government property with Boudin's argument that it which defense lawyers' are and violations of the Esplo- is an "illegal" violation of the permitted to discuss in the nage Act, as sought by the de- First Amendment for. EDI or presence of the jury. Byrne and chief prosecutor fense? other governthent agents to at- David R. Nissen have clashed He rejected a defense tend public speeches with the "convertecr the history of American involvement in Southeast Asia. Thus far, the prosecution has said only that the "conver- sion" occurred in Los Angeles during an eight-month time period when Ellsherg and Russo photocopied the Papers. * He said the prosecution must produce, any existing in- side-government memoranda assessing the effect that dis- closure of the papers by news- papers last summer had on na- tional security. * He required the .defense previously on the question of claim that the government intent,sole of taking notes on whether freedom of the press had prejudiced the case by what alleged violators of the is an , issue in the Ellsberg- shifting back and forth be- law say. Russo trial. tween different theories of Although the prosecution in- whether it was "documents" sists that freedom of the press or "information" that Ellsberg and the war in Vietnam are ir- a:nd Russo allegedly stole from relevant to the caserit has de- the government. mantled the right to ask all po- The defense argues that in order to convict. the defend-, tential jurors what, newspa- pers they read and how they ants of theft, the prosecution feel about the war, should be. required to show During today's court session that the government suffered one of a series in which "substantial deprivation" of final pretrial issues are being the contents of the ,Pentagon thrashed out ? Byrne lost pa- ,paPers- tience on several occasions-. ? He ruled that the govern- with lawyers on both sides ment must specify more pre- and addressed them harshly. ?cisely what it means by charg- ing that Ellsberg illegally Approved For Release 2006101/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 NET jOB Approved For Releas82M/M/0-3 : CIA-RDP80-01601R0 00400030001-7 STAT .Ellsbeig Defense to Call 18 to Stand t6;015-lo-C76-Le.aki or-Secrets Are Common 4 7 ?By ROBERT A. WRIGHT plaint against the. 'Special to The New York Times affidavit asserts. ?LOS ANGELES, June 7?The The defense said a former. defense in the Pentagon Papers case said today that it would call 18 witnesses; including former special special assistants to 'Presidents, staff men from the /White House, Department of Defense and the Central Intelli- gence Agency as well as Wash- ington newspaper correspond- ents, to prove that the leaking of classified Government docu- ments was a common practice. ? The potential witnesses were - described but not named in an affidavit requested by Judge William Matt Byrne Jr. to sup- port a defense motion for a 'pretrial 'hearing. The defense seeks the hearing on its motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that it constitutes dis- criminatory -.prosecution. ? The indictment charges the defendants, Dr. Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony J. Russo Jr., both former employes of the Rand Corporation, which did research for the Department of Defense, with stealing and releasing classified Government docu- ments. The defense lawyers, Charles E. Goodell, the former Sena- tor from New York; and Charles ?Nesson, charged in the affidavit that "defendants" were singled out for prosecution according to ' a principle of selection which is invidiefus, discrimina- tory, and constitutionally im- permissible." : Assertion in Affidavit While the defendants are charged with having commit- ted the alleged crimes between .March, ,1969, and September, 1970, it was not until after ,the publication of the Penta- gon Papers by The New York Times on June 13, 1971, that the Government issued a corn- Government official.who is ex- pert in security matters would testify that the classified ma- terials involved in this case were less sensitive in terms of national_ defense relationship than the bulk of classified ma- terial regularly leaked. The so- called Pentagon Papers are a .record of intra-government de- bate on the United States's in- volvement in the Vietnam. war. The defense affidavit de- scribes five witnesses as jour- nalists, one as a former C.I.A. employe with high responsibul ity related to' the Far East andl .Vietnam, and one as a close.' confidante to a former Presi- ? dent. . . Other prospective witnesses' were described as follows: Oc- cupied a high, position in Wash- ington within the last 10 years, a former member of the White House staff, a former official of '.and a former legal adviser to the Department of. Defense, ..a former special as- sistant in the State Department and Far Eastern adviser to the, National Security Council, a diplomatic historian, a member 3f Congress "who is chairmanl if. an important committee that has dealt over the years with the classification system and had direct responsibility and jurisdiction over significant as- pects of our involvement in Vietnam," a former high Gov- ernment official and a retired archivist. In an attached affidavit, Wil- liam G. Florence, former Dep- uty Assistant for Security and Trade Affairs for the Air: Forcel and a formulator of security' regulations, indicates that he will testify to specific instances of leaks. STAT Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 (Th gr.W, IORK Approved For %Riser fin6/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 contended that'Es-- Special Assistant Attorney General, he was not authorized under law to do so. Mr. Uelman argued that Robert L. Meyer, former. United States Attorney in Los Angeles, had refused to sign His Lawyers Seek to Shov, the Federal indictment and that ? That Leaks Are Routine Mr.' Nissen had no authority to do so. Mr. Nissen replied that his By ROBERT A. WRIGHT appointment as a Special ? special to The New York Times - Assistant Attorney General . LOS ANGELES, June 5? authorized him to carry out all functions that are properly Lawyers for Dr. Daniel Ellsberg delegated by the Attorney Gen- and Anthony J. Russo, who are eral, including the signing of 'accused of stealing the Penta- an indictment. gon papers, argued in a Federal court today that the court Told to Work It Out should permit a pretrial hearing Judge Byrne asked that the of witnesses that would show prosecution and .defense work that leaks of classified Govern- out procedures under which an / ment documents were a routine affidavit from Mr. Meyer might practice of Washington of fi- be submitted to the court. cals. In arguments for the pretrial ? Charles Nesson, one of Dr. hearing, Mr. Nesson said the ? Ellsberg's five lawyers, argued defense would produce wit- that the evidence would show nesses who would showthatthe that the prosecution of De. Ells- use of classified Government berg and Mr. Russo was dis- documents for personal use and criminatory. the leaking of them 'to the Both Dr. ? Ellsberg and Mr. press was a common practice Russo had access to classified among Government officials. Government documents when Mr. Nesson said, "we will they were employes or the Rand present a picture of a system ?? Corporation, which did research which had extremely elaborate for the Department of Defense. technical specifications which, Dr. Ellsberg .has admitted giv- .if followed, would bring. our ? ing copies of the Pentagon pa- government to a halt." ? pers?a?recapitulation of inter- Judge Byrne said he was in- governmental debate on .the dined to agree with the defense United States involvement in brief,, but called on Mr. Nes- the Vietnam war?to the press. son to be more specific on the David R. Nissen, the Depart-. points of proof a hearing might ment of .Justice prosecutor, op- provide. posed the hearing on the Mr. Nesson said he was pre- ground that discriminatory pared to offer an affidavit prosecution' had never been from Max Frankel, Washington held a proper defense in Fed- Bureau chief of The New York eral courts. Times, that would document Federal District -Judge Wil- routine leaks of classified M- D= ham Matt Byrne Jr. took formation to the press. Mr. Nessen countered that . the arguments tinder submis- sion, calling for affidavits from there were no cases in preced- the defense attorneys by ent permitting discriminatory p Thursday that would specify prosecution as a defense in elements of proof that they Federal cases. 'A person guilty of a crime thought would be provided by a pretrial hearing.-cannot be excused simply be- cause others who are guilty ? ? May Take Several Days ' are ot prosecuted,' he said. The arguments came on the "The answer is not to let every- first day of oral arguments on body go, but to let the prosecu- ? pretrial motions before Federal: tor go." District Judge William Matthew Byrne Jr. The defense has en- tered seven motions for dis- missal. Although both sides have submitted voluminous briefs, the pretrial arguments are expected to take several days and Judge Byrne is not expected to rule until Wednes- ?day on whether a pretrial hear- ing is proper. 'In the first argument today, Gerald Uelman, a lawyer for Dr. Ellsberg, attempted to con- vince the court that the charges -should be dismissed because the indictment had not been 'properly. sinAillrflyssl 4NRelease 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 The indiEfffirrir by Mr. Nissen. and the defense HEARING IS ASKED IN ELLSBERG CASE STAT sat PROGRESSIVE Approved For Release Zeta(015rile: CIA-RDP80-01601R 10400030001-7 The Government's obsession with se- crecy is not confined to current or re- /cent military operations. A- former. / CIA official named Victor L. Mar- chetti, NV110 left the agency in 1969, is under court -order not to speak or write about, his past experiences. The search goes on for those who may have aided or abetted Daniel Ellsberg in disclosure of the Pentagon Papers. . The latest secrecy flap centers on the series of Vietnam status reports prepared for the Nixon Administra- ? tion early in 1969," known officially as. ? ;National Security Study Memoran- ? dum Number One, and unofficially as Ithe Kissinger Tapers. (The' where- !abouts at any given rmoment of the ?'-? widely traveled Henry M. Kissinger ? is now officially classified as a State Secret.) Even.the Senate of the United States, which ''presumably has a mod- icum of interest in the circumstances ',surrounding the war, cannot bring? it: -self to place the' Kissinger Papers on ? the public record, though their con.' tents have long' since been' printed in the press.. When Senator Mike Gravel, Dem- ocrat' of Alaska, proposed to put the Papers into the Congressiorkal Record, the Senate 1.vent into secret session to discuss the question of secrecy.. Gravel observed that when he was a twenty- three-year-old .first lieutenant in the U.S. Army, he had the power to- clas- sify documents "Top. Secret," . and therefore keep -their contents from the Senate and from the people of the United States. "In fact," he added, "We have over 200,000 people in this', country who classify and declassify in- formation which we in this body do not see. . . . How: can we fulfill our role as policymakers if we are not in- formed as well as the President?" In a. democracy, Gravel suggested, the risks of an informed legislature and an in- formed citizenry must be endured, "because we develop an autocracy from the very fact that some people can classify documents and some peo- ple can make determinations of what is right and wrong." But most of Gravel's colleagues dis- played no interest in debating such fine points of philosophy. Senator Barry M. Goldwater, Arizona Repub- lican, spoke for many of them when he declared: "Each one?of us has'an ob- ligation to respect classification. I do not know that there is a law that re- quires us to do it, but I know the FBI goes into us very carefully before we are given the right to receive or .be briefed on or read anything classified. I thought it was a disgrace this morn- ing ivhcn I read that Jack Anderson and The New York Times had re- ceived a Pulitzer Prize. If they can get away with that and if, with all due spect, the Senator from Alaska can get away with this, there is not going to be anything left in the U.S. Govern- ment. that is secret." horrors! As it turned out, the .Senate spent the. better part of five hOurs debating not the issue of publishing the Kissin- ger Papers, or the broader, problem of Government secrecy?both were left unresolved?bUt the urgent question of whether the transcript of ' its own secret session ought to be made pub- lic. It finally was, though Senator Charles Percy, Illinois Republican, warned: "If this whole record were published, I think we would have a hard time explaining how we spent four hours, with many, many prob- lems this nation faces. . . . I would be ashamed, having been a member of this body, for going through this pro- cedure." He had a point there. Since it is* obviously incapable of dealing with . such big issues as war and secrecy, perhaps the World's Greatest Deliberative Body ought to stick to the little things it does so well ?revising the national motto, for in- stance, so that it more accurately re- flects the spirit. of the Republic. "None of Your Damned Business" might be an appropriate slogan to inscribe on the coinage and currency of these United States. Or, simply, "Shhh!" Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 t cr r " 1- - Approved For Release 2006/01/tf:M-147/060-01601R00 Ian Would Declassify U.S. Papers Byllichard L. Lyons . Washington Post Staff Writer ? Rep. William Moorhead (D- Pa.) proposed legislation yes- terday creating new machin- ery to classify defense and diplomatic secrets and? make public most other government documents. The present classification program, which has placed se,-, cret,or _confidential stamps on millions of documents, oper- ates under executive orders is- sued by the President rather than by act of Congress. A new order which the adminis- tration said will mean fewer classified documents ? but which critics say will mean more ? takes effect June 1, Moorhead is chairman of the House Subcommittee on Government Information, which has been fighting offi- ial secrecy for 16 years. A key feature of his bill ivould be an independent Clas- sification Review Commission ? two-thirds appointed by Congress and one-third by the President ? which would have great power to decide what documents were entitled to be kept from public or con- ? gressional view. The commission, subject to review by the federal courts, would decide (1) whether Con- gress was entitled to see a ? classified document it re- quested, and (2) whether the President could invoke execu- tive privilege and refuse to furnish Congress with unclas- sified but confidential docu- ments. The bill provides for auto- matic declassification of docu- ments over a maximum period of three years unless the clas- sifying agency can persuade the review commission that ? they should continue to be se-, cret. Classified documents would be downgraded one level each year. It would take three years for a "top secret" document to move through "secret," and 'confidential" and then into the public domain. ? Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 400030001-7 Approved For Release 2006/011V:II8TIVIVE01601ROOOLnnnfinnni -7 ? 2S MAY ? - Court Bars' Writings by Ex-CIA Man By NED SCHARFF Star Staff Writer A federal judge in Alexan- dria has issued a permanent injunction forbidding former Central Intelligence Agency / member Victor L. Marchetti - to write or talk about his expe- riences with the CIA. U.S. District Judge Albert V. Bryan Jr. ruled that Marchet- ti's attempts to write analyti- cal articles about the agency were in violation of secrecy contracts he signed before going to work there in 1955 and before his resignation in 1969. The CIA asked the court to restrain Marchetti's publish- ing activities last month after It. confiscated an outline fbr a factual article, "Twilight of the Spooks," which Marchetti was writing for Esquire Maga- zine. ? . The restraining order will prevent Marchetti, 42., of Vien- ? na, Va., from writing anything ? about what he learned at the CIA while employed there. It ? also covers three television in- terviews. Marchetti already taped. . ' Attorneys for Marchetti's defense had argued that si- lencing him would be an abridgement of First Amend- ment rights. But Bryan ruled that the secrecy contract signed by Marchetti "consti- tutes a waiver of the defend- ant's right . . . and renders (the case) no more than a usual dispute between an em- ployer . . . and employe." During the month-long trial, most of which was closed to public and press because of the classified material being discussed, Marchetti's lawyers said, they argued that the / CIA's ? methods of classifying -material are arbitrary and ca- pricious. Bryan ruled those ar- gun-lents irrevelant. ? Is -not the role of the court to determine whether material should be classified . . . by contract the defendant has relegated that decision to the CIA," Bryan said. ? Marchetti said he resigned two years ago because of per- sonal feelings about his work STAT Approved For Release 6166k11/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 J XLEAIDR IA GAZETTE Approved For Releast22;pq#Ar/ign CIA-RDP80-01601R00 -"ew Bryan denied Wulf's argu- ment ud ge Puts ,ment stating that "it is. not the 1 role of the court to .atermine. ! whether material should be classified or whether, even if Stop Order classified, its revelation is ma- terial." On CIA Data"In the opinion of the court," , said Bryan, "the contract takes ? the case out of the scope of the ? By Douglas L. Pardtte , First Amendment and, to the Staff Writer . extent the First Amendment is Ruling - that the defendant !involved, the contract consti- ? signed away his constitutional tined a waiver of the defen- ? right to freedom of speech when dant's. rights thereunder." Con- he took employment with the sequently, noted Bryan, the case Central Intelligence Agency, is merely one of. a dispute be- U.S. District Court Judge Albert tween an employer and employe V. Bryan Jr., has ordered a and is not similar to the Pen- taig,ilanrcPhaFters case. permanent injunction on all whincoomreecefrivoesm the writings er agent who has authored ma- writings and lectures of a form- bulk of Marchetti, s 'writings, said this morning that terial critical of the security he will definitely appeal the de- agency. cision. Anticipating Bryan's ac- In his nine-page decision, Lion, Marchetti said, "My law- which was ? handed dowel late Y Friday, Judge Bryan noted that necessary arrangements." the defendant, Victor L. Mar- Marchetti said he plans to appeal on the grounds that his theta of Vienna, who quit the writings, although based on ex- CIA in 109 after 14 years as a periences, a r e fictional and CIA agent, signed two secrecy should not be subject to the agreements which contractually secrecy oath. The CIA counter- prohibit him from discussing ed that argument during the. anything, based on his experi- trial saying that Marchetti's .ences in the CIA. fictional writings approximate Marchetti's attorney, Melvin reality to such an extent that they jeopardize U.S. security. Wulf, an Atherican Civil Liber- ties lawyer, argued during the' ease, heard in closed court be- :ause of classified material dis- :ussed, that Marchetti's First Anfendrnent right to freedom of speech supersedes any con- tractual agreements. Conse- quently, he argued, Marchetti has the .right to write or give ? Lectures based on his experi- ences in the CIA. , Marchetti, who admitted his writings are based on his ex- periences in the CIA, said dur- ing the trial that he exercises ? restraint and has not revealed anything which in his opinion could harm H.S. security. He said his writings are intended to point out what he feels are transgressions by the CIA of its function. The case, said Wulf, is similar / to the Pentagon Papers case ,id that the CIA is trying to exer- cise prior restraint and because Marchetti is trying to expose actions ? by the spy agency, *which have nothing to do with U.S. security and which are po- tentially harmful to the rights of US. citizens. 400030001-7 Approved For Release 2006/01/03: CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 NEW YORK IUES 1 8. MAY. 1972 Approved For Release 21:106/01/03 : CIA-RDP8.0-0 Notes on People STAT 601R000400030001-7 .Sccrecy Watchdo,4_ To head a newly created Government watchdog com-;' mittee to prevent bureaucrats from overzealously using se- crecy stamps, President Nixon named John S. D. Eisenhower., Mr. Eisenhower, son of the - late Dwight D. Eisenhower and the father of Mr. Nixon's son-in-law, David Eisenhower, will be chairman of a corn-. ,rnittee that will include senior officials of the Justice, De- fense and State Departments, the Atomic Energy Commis- sion und the Central Intelli- gence Agency. The committee will hear. appeals- from the public for speedier declassifi- cation of specific documents, as well as implement an 'Executive Order of March 8 that Mr. Nixon said would make more Government docu- ments available to the public. -The Executive Order estab- lished an automatic declassi- fication schedule ' for docu-: ments stamped after July 1, calling ? for declassification within 6, 8 or 10 years for almost all documents. Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 cs1:- ,TpIT1,jjUj3H, PA. POST?GANTIi/ M ? 243,938 - , Fikeg Son in Charge . Seeuri,ty Change, For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 ffectiveJurie By. MILTON JAQUES ? Post-Gazette Wpshinoton Correspondent %. ? ? WASHINGTON ? President Nixon's executive order for a new security classification system will become effective June 1,' ? a White House spokesman said yesterday, as the Administra- ' tion brushed aside Rep. William S. Moorhead's request for_ a, ? elay--pending congreSsional st - Moorhead indicated he was' 'unhappy with the White r The President appointed. House's move ahead with 'the Jonh S. D. Eisenhower, for- . revamped system, espeCially mer ambassador to Belgium, on short notice. as chairman of an interagency .1 classification review commit- ? THE nuls ISSUED yes- . '! tee to oversee the new system. terday over the signature of ! rEisentower's sop David is Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, head .r ma rried to the President's of the National Security Coun- ? daughter Julie. cif, take effect on June 1. ; t' ...._ ?. OTHER MEMBERS of the committee will be ( i. ' named by the Departments of Defense, State and Justice, the Centritcili_ggnse.,..,Ageacy , i, and the(Erite hergy mission. . 1 : The President ordered sev- eral changes in the system. -Key provisions call for a ! computerized data index sys- ? ?tem for information classified. ? :A list of persons with authori- ty to classify documents will , be kept on file by the depart- . ments. i "This application of comput- er technology across the board should lead to a much more , manageable classification sys- tem and greatly enhance the flow of Information to the pub- ' lie," the President said in a ? statement issued by the White , I House. "Overseeing our new ap- proach to government docu- ments will not be ? an easy task, for a delicate balance must be struck between the ? .? public's right to know and the , government's obligation t protect the national security," "It's bad practice," Moor-. head, ?a member of the House i Government Operations Com- . mittee said. "I don't think they will be ready to operate under the new ?order by June. 1. They're. pushing it too fast." Moorhead's subcommittee on government information has already received testimo- ny that the government is too eager to put its secret stamp on documents. Some experts estimate that 95 per cent of, such documents could be. made public without damage ' to the national security. The President indicated he ' had no quarrel with some estimates of over-classifica- tion of documents. His 'March 8 statement which announced forthcoming changes in the system said the present- regu- lations had failed to meet the problem. ? Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 FASHEIGT011 POST ? Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : cliterP80-01601R 1.8 Mi 'Eisenhower ill Head . ,0. mereey Unit . . United Press I.nternetional ? President Nixon appointed JOhn Eisenhower yesterday to; head a newly created govern- I ment watchdog committee to . prevent overzealous use of se- crecy stamps, -Eisenhower, son of Dwight D. Eisenhower and father of Mr. Nixon's son-in-law David . Eisenhower, will head a com- mittee that will include senior officials of the Defense, State and Justice departments, the Central Intelligence Agency J .and the Atomic Energy Com- mission. -Mr. Nixon on March 8 ?is- sued an executive order that he said was intended to makq more government documents available to the public. At that time, he announced he would create the interagency com- mittee Eisenhower will head. ? In a related development, the National Security Council Issued 12 pages of regulations Intended to. spell out to gov- ernment ?bureaucrats what they must do to comply with Mr. Nixon's directive restrict- ing of docu- ments. The regulations require es: ,tablishment of a computerized Index .of classified material to fissure Periodic review of doe- vments to determine if the na- tional. security. continues to alemand their .Secrecy. Eisenhower is a graduate of ',West Point and served more than 20 years in the Army, reaching the rank of lieuten- ant colonel. Following his re- tirement, he served for two ;pars as Ambassador to Bel- . glum. The President's order in March established an auto- naatic declassification schedule for documents stamped after next July 1. The schedule calls for declassification within six, eight, or ten years except for matters considered especially sensitive, which could be sup- pressed for, as ,tnany ..,cts 30 , EisenhOwerV CominittWe hear appeals from the public. for speedier declassification of - specific documents as- well as overseeing the entire declassi- STAT Approved For Re leasekeetiekifins. CIALRDP80701601R000400030001 -7. LOS 41.7.:4-2,1?11:11., Approved For Release A1111)( git, itu3 :19 A-RDP80-01601R0004 a Thew hiie House ?. ? BY Till ? WASHINGTON?Secrecy Jowls to .self-deception. If you want proof of that _overlooked politicab,axiom,?look. at the WaY we have gotten involved with secret Mercenary army in Lao's. ? ? It:a.n Started. not 'So innocently decade ago when .the. Central Intel- ligence Agency recruited, directed and , supported .an army of . Meo tribesmen to'keep Laos from going Communist It was like having a 'Gurkha' army of 'oin? 'own; only no One knew we had?it...and thus nobody cared that we. were getting ever more involved in a \ va r in Laos, It STAT 00030001-7 Classifies and ConoTess Ossifies partment and CIA won't 'fess up to what they arc'doing with the Thai mercenaries. The reason is that Con-: gress last year passed a law prohib- iting?-the use, of defense funds to. help third-country forces fight in support of the Laotian or Cambodi- an governments. If all the facts were made- public, it would be evident that the executive,branch was vio- lating the law. ? ? . It's easy enough to blame the ex- ecutive branch for its secrecy: 'Ev??? erybody :knows including Pres- ident NiXon, who isSued a new exec- utive order on classification recently ?that the government busirress is weighted down w it h.. excessive Se- crecy.,, was all going splendidly .until the ? ? . - ? CIA sent Gen. :Vang. Pao and .his . For all its criticism of the execu- army on an ill-fated ?offensive, last spring. The Meo'irregulars" got thewed ktp.they had about 1.0r,;-- ca- sualties. That might not have been too. had except .there were no more tribesmen to recruit in Laos. So the CIA started recruiting mercenaries ? in Thailand, 'only it called them nvolynteers."- ow the Senate Poreign:Itelations ? Committee has discovered. that we have a? s100 miilion annual commit- ment. to finance an army of 10,000 Thai i'.Volunte.ers"-figbtibg in Laos. The-Thais like it because thev. are getting .good 'pay as well as extra military assfstance from the' United States; -Presumably the Laotians like it.beeause the 'Moo and Thai Can do the fighting. But what about Cod-; gress ?and the. poor ?American ? tax- payer who never knew they were running up a $100 million annual. bill in Laos? And . what about . the present moral character of a nation that .200 years ago won. its indepen- ?denee fighting. hessian mercena- ries'? - . House Armed Services ?Committee, Put aside all the moral, geopoliti- you would have thought ? Ms. Abzug cal and financial considerations. It's ? wanted to reveal the secrets of the also a disturbing case of the evils of A-bomb. But really his consterna- tion was over the, fact that she wa; challenging the power of the: Armed Services Committee, which wants to keep such information locked up in ? I- Oh sure, the CIA informed a few its own safes: ? 4 members of the Appropriations' Maybe Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alas- ? Committee. But then it intimidated k")? with his maverick ways, is fi- them by exphiining it was so hush- nally- forcing Congress to face up to hush they couldn't talk about it to the problem. Ile tried the other day the rest of Congress.. After thz-it the- to place in the Congressional Record privileged few didn't even bother to a copy of a still secret national se- raise questions?that was until Sen ('urity memorandum that .Henry Stuait Symington (1)-Mo.) and his Kissinger had prepared back in loGo foreign relations subcommittee on the Vietnam options open to the tive'branch, Congress really likes se- crecy. At least those in power do be- cause seerecy_means power. 'If you .only knew what- I krick),VD. makes a.. senator very important in ,his own eyes and in the eyes of his col- leagues. . If you want a bewildering exam- ple, take the, case of Symington. One day he is deploring the executiva branch's secrecy on the Thai merce- naries. The next day he is on the Senate floor qUestioning whether se-. crets should be given to members of Congress except those on the Armed Services, Foreign . Relations, , and Atomic. Energy committees: Sv- mington,, it should be. pointed out, is the only. member of all three coin- ;mitLees. ? Or take the case of Rep. Bella Ab- zug, who had the temerity to intro- duce a resolution demanding infor- mation on how many bombs we are? dropping.- in Indochina. -From the horrified look on the face of Rep. P. Edward Hebert, the chairman of the secrecy in our government and Con- gress. Secrecy proVides a way to subvert the . c.onStitutional cheeks and 'balances 'on the war powers. ing into two (lays of secret sessions. The basic objection was that Gravel would 'be violating the law by mak- ing public a documenS classified se= cret. Then to the amazement of the senators, it turned out that there was no law specifically authorizing the executive branch to classify in- formation. The whole secrecy sys- tem, it turns out, just rests on im- plied powers assumed by the execu- tive branch, . The whole security System ob- viously .is not. going to come tum- bling down. Nor should it. But once Congress starts questioning it, maybe it will kegin to realize that Gravel has a point when he argues that Congress also an determine what. information should be made public. Right now its reached the. Point Of absurdity: the Senate sends its debates in secret session down to the executive branch to. be declassi- fied. . ? Congress ought tounderStand that it need not be sucb a- Willing, -ac- quiescent partner in a- secrecy -sys- tem that leads not onlyto deception but to the impotence- of Congress.: STAT N ? - 01R0004000300014 war in 11.,axo)isd.1111(4:Nzelinit#1.4Red4, eFtat6eicire ki%Xl )11110 f-i'AP14?1-11kDa re1348spPiNtilelir- started ? ALEXANDRIA GALti2E 15 MAY 1972 ? Approved For Release 2.006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000 UA Agent's Trial Closed For Security A hearing on a federal injunc- tion placed on writings and lec- tures of a former CIA agent who has been critical of the security agency was ordered closed this morning in Alexandria by U.S. Court Judge Albert V. Bryan Jr. ? The hearing was ordered closed, said U.S. District Attor- ney Brian P. Gettings, because of "certain classified security material that they aro 'going Into." Gettings noted that he ex- pects the hearing will remain closed the rest of the day. The former agent, Victor L. Marchetti, who quit the CIA in 1969 after 15 years service, was charged in early April in a CIA affidavit with preparing a book and other writing's based on his? experiences in the CIA which might endanger U.S. security. In response to the affidavit, Judge Bryan?imposed a tempor- ary restraining order on Mar- chetti. That order prohibits Mar- chetti from distributing writ- ings or giVing lectures concern- ing the CIA pending the outcome of today's hearing. - The case- has been described by American Civil Liberties at- torney Melvin Wulf, ? who is di- recting Marchetti's case, as "strikingly similar to the Penta- gon Papers case." Wulf has argued that the restraining or- der violated Marchetti's First Amendment right by imposing prior re:straint. Justice Department attorney Irwin Goldbloom has countered Vulf's argument stating that any writings or lectures by Mar- chetti based on his experiences In the CIA violate a secrecy oath required of 611 CIA employ- es. ,/ ? 00030001-7 Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 faf Approved For Release LU00/U 1/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R The Federal Diary ' Federal minions authorized to. stamp "TOP SECRET" la- bels on documents use their powers more to bury bureau- cratic and political goofs than to protect national security. At least that is the assessment of Rep. William S. Moorhead (D-Pa.). Moorhead, who heads the aovernment Information Sub- committee, rays there is less straight government informa- tion these days because of White House news manage- ment and a nonpartisan afflic- tion similar to St. Vitus Dance that afflicts the hands of indi- viduals who hold secret stamps. ? ? ? The congressman told a Fed- eral Editors Association lunch- eon yesterday- that noninfor- mation policies will get worse unless government officials start paying attention to the freedom of information law, and until federal public rela- tions personnel are told what their agencies are really doing. Moorhead, whose group has been probing the federal dis- semination of data policy, says "we have found that?contrary to general opinion?much in- formation hidden from the public does not have anything to do with hydrogen bombs, weapons systems, state secrets or other sensitive classified in- formation that we all agree does require rafeguarding to protect our national defense and foreign policy." The chairman said Congress must replace the present secu- rity claasification system that operates under an executive order with a "workable, man- ageable" law that will limit Cassification to documents that really deserve it. Denying information to Con- gress, or the press, Moorhead says, makes it easier for crooks, political hacks or hon- est civil servants who make honest mistakes to hide them "under a secrecy stamp and lock them securely in 1,000- pound file cabinets." Guests at the luncheon swear Moorhead- looked in the direction of the Pentagon when he made the latter statement. Last month Robert 0. Beatty, HEW's assistant secre- tary for public affairs, made al pitch for An end to the 18131 0400030001-7 ? 1, law that prohibits funds to pay "publicity experts," . al- though the government has thousands of them anyhow.. . Beatty argued, and Moorhead agreed, that the law has done nothing but damage the career Image of the federal informa- tion man or woman "and has not prevented the abuses it was supposed to prevent." , Many government informa- tion specialists privately com- plain that they are mistrusted by the press and their own agencies. By the press, be- cause they are considered pri- marily engaged in covering up stories, and management be- cause they are considered "alien" to the spirit of team cooperation, and ..tainted by contacts'with media people. "We must give up this idi- otic notion that' we can com- pete in the secrecy game with those who invented it," he told the editors. "Secrecy subverts any representative system, Just as it is essential to main- tain a totalitarian dictator- ship." . Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 LOS EIGETZS ITZS Approved For Relen i00(?11f51732: CIA-RDP80-01601R PLUGGING LEAKS time the State Department had more to do with our foreign affairs. Now we ? r ? ? are down to 12 and you don't have too much to do. Is this good?" 80 or 90 Copies Macomber: "It is good, Mr. Chairman, to have a capability of limiting dis- tribution when you want to. It is not very reassur- ing if you are an ambassa- dor in the field and send back a message that you want to have very. limited distribution and finding 80 or 90 copies going auto- matically around the government." Rooney: "That is the way it was for years, wasn't it? That is, until we pooh - poohed the whole thing up here." Macomber: "I know It was that way for much too long, There is .a greater ability now to limit the distribution. This pr e- eludes the possibility of leaks contrary to certain p r.o m i n ent newspaper talk." With only 12 copies available, Rooney asked how many might be going to Henry A. Kissinger, President Nixon's aide for -national security affairs. "One copy goes to the White House. I am not sure who would get that, Mr. Chairman," Goodman replied. ouis iiore Secret Than 'Eyes Only?' . WASHINGTN 01?In the *diplomatic cr ecy world, ''Eyes Only" is out but "Nod is" is in. And "contrary to certain prom- inent newspapar talk," this shuts a lot of leak holes. ? So said Dept. Undersec- retary of State William B. Macomber Jr. In congres- sional testimony released recently. During hearings Feb. 24 on $15.4 . million in the State Department's com- munications oper ations budget proposal, Rep. John J. Rooney (D-.N.Y,), chairman of a House Ap- propriations Com mit tee subcommittee reviewing departmental spen cli n g plans, asked how. many copies of an "Eyes Only" communication are made for.Secretary of State Wil- liam P. Rogers. No 'Eyes -Only' The "Eyes Only" caption Is no longer in use, said STAT 000400030001-7 Dep. Asst. Secretary of State William H. Good- man. "We use 'Nodis,' no distribution outside the secretariat," and just 12 copies are inade. Rooney wondered whether this is the highest classification, . "Highest limitation, Mr. Chairman," Macomber said. "It is not a security clas- sification', it is a most lim- ited distribution because they all go to the secretary and there is no distribu- tion until he approves Of the distribution. Literally limited to one until he ap- proves further distribu- tion." Rooney: "I don't know what to make out of tis whole business. You used to make 80 copies of the ? 'Eyes oftpraviedtForaRelease 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R00 STAT 3400030001-7 May 8, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE tions without judge or defending ?counsel. Television would, of course, occupy half the hearing room; the press the other half. The employee's duties, relations with the Presi- dent, with other employees in the White ? House, the State Department, and represent- ? atives of foreign governments, his qualifies_ tions for his duties, past experience, social life, and friends would all receive attention. ? He would he asked about matters he had worked on, although not the substance of them, aside from the one on which he was summoned, and long arguments would be provoked about whether the PreSident's letter provided exemption from answering extra- neous questions irrelevant to its principal subject. As summons might follow summons as Last as committee clerks could get them out with the aid of the Congresional Directory and these witnesses followed one another ? with letters asserting privilege, what a pic- ture could be created of a President in the center of a web of secret machination. What a picture presented to the world of a govern- ment as bizarre, absurd, and divided by tragic vendettas as the King of Morocco's birthday party. In short, what a hell of a way to run a ? Mr. IIRUSKA-. Mr. President, I wish. to say at the conclusion of my remarks ? what I said at the outset. It would be my ? hope that Senate Resolution 299 would be .placed on the calendar, there to await an occasion when the Senate can properly address itself to this matter, at which ? time it would be my present intention to make a motion either to lay it on the table or to refer it to the Committee on the ? Judiciary where it properly belongs. At that time hopefully we would have the presence and the advice and counsel of others on the Committee on the Judi- ciary. They are not present now through no fault of their own, but are engaged in other activities of the Senate. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of ? a quorum. Mr. JAVTS. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold his request? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HARRY P. BYRD, JR,). Does the Senator withhold his request? Mr. HRUSKA. I withhold my request. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I wish to be recognized. The Senator really has only to 2 o'clock today to occupy the time of the Senate. I do not intend to let the matter go that long because people have other things to do and obviously any Member can carry us up to 2 o'clock with- ? out aquorum, and there is no need to put the Senate to that trouble. I would like to speak briefly in re- sponse so that the RECORD which Sena- tors read may be available on both sides of the issue, the Senator from Nebraska having spoken to the merits of adopting the resolution at length. But before I do that, I ask unanimous consent that a ? committee print be prepared of the reso- lution as I have modified it. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 1----objection, it is so ordered. Mr. JAvrrs. Mr. President, when I am ? through, unless other Senators wish rec- ? ognition, I shall ask unanimous consent that the resolution go to the calendar; ? but I wish to point out the following factors: One, I hope very much the - leadership will call this resolution up promptly, precisely because we are now almost compelled to act on this matter. It is interesting that the record of. the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. 11RusxA) of the committee action on bills which may have been introduced to deal with the Penal Code provisions for violations of the classification of documents goes back to the late 1950's-. We had two secret ses- sions last week and a tremendous flap over the fact that one Member of this body used his constitutional immunity to disclose the so-called Pentagon pa- pers, which interested the whole country enormously. Obviously, the subject is not going to wait for another period of years, whether the Senator from Nebraska wishes that or not. Second, aside from that, we will prob- ably be faced with an amendment by the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Cnuacn) ?he has already announced it?to the State Department authorization bill on the question of classified documents, and the Senate will again be in the position which it was in the other day, not really having the benefit of as much information and the pros and cons as it should. Finally, we are in a very critical period In our national life and the life of this country in terms of our foreign relations. We are in a very serious phase of Viet- nam?extremely serious. No one knows how that will go. The documents which may be available on that subject, which were the immediate, inciting cause of the secret sessions of last week, become of supreme importance; and I doubt very much that the questions are simply going to sit around and wait. They are going to demand an answer. We can only have the heat and exacerbation of tempers which result from issues of this kind, where a Member of this body may be wishing to seek his constitutional immunity end saying, "You give me no other course," or we can get the light of reason and au- thority of the leadership in terms of try- ing to deal in some way with these vex- ing problems on. the part of the Senate. Finally, there is no question that it is a deeply agitating question in the coun- try where the people are being denied in- formation,- either on classification or through the exercise of the doctrine of executive privilege. At a time of such crisis as this, when one of the great charges is that people are not being ade- quately informed, the matter could hardly remain in limbo very long. Finally, the Executive order itself which is referred to indicates the broad scope of the substantive part of this ques- tion, quite apart from what should be put in the Penal Code. Obviously, the Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over what goes in the Penal Code, but it hardly has jurisdiction?certainly not exclusive jurisdiction?over what the Senate does about a document which may be denied or which may be classified or of which one Member of this body may come into possession in such a way that It places an inhibition on him by reason of classification by the State Department. To argue that the Senate cannot strike those manacles from its wrists without the Penal Code is an inconceivable doc- trine that cannot and will not stand up. The matter we are dealing with is a wide-ranging one. Those with authority to impose a classification of "top se- cret" are not only the Office of the Presi- dent, but the Central Intelligence Agency, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of De- fense, the Department of the- Army, the Department of the Navy, tile Department of the Air Force, the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the Depart- ment of Justice, the National Aeronau- tics and Space Administration, and the Agency of International Development. So the Agency for International De- velopment, for example, has a surerior standing to the Senate of the United States, and that is what we are asked to perpetuate. When it comes to the classification of "secret," which stands in the same light, let us see who can stamp the classifica- tion of "Secret" on documents; The De- partment of Tiansportation, the Federal Communications Commission, the Ex- port-Import Bank of the United States, the Department of Commerce,. the U.S. Civil Service Commission, the U.S. Information Agency, a subordinate agency of the Department of State, the General Services Administration, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Fed- eral Power Commission, the National Sci- ence Foundation, and the Overseas Pri7 vate Investment Corporation. All of those agencies, if they classify a document, make a Senator use his con- stitutional immunity if he is going to use it, and it puts the whole Senate in a twi- light zone if it is going to do anything about it, with respect to its procedures. The situation is simply intolerable under present conditiens, and the Senate, in my judgment, cannot, and I hope will not, wait. But the Senator has exercised his Privilege very properly. The debate, if continued until 2 o'clock, would result in this matter going to the calendar any- way. So unless the Senator from Nd- braska (Mr. HausicA) wishes to speak again?obviously he does?I will, at the moment when the debate is finished, ask unanimous consent that the resolution go to the calendar. Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, just a observation or two so that they will be in context with the observations made by the Senator from New York. Among other things, it has been sug- gested that we are in a critical period. Certainly now, with these international conferences at the highest level in pros- pect, and some already having been had, the questions that arise should be an- swered. But, Mr. President, they have been an- swered again and again in similar critical periods of our history. There is not any- thing in the passage of Senate Resolution 299 that will assist in that regard what- soever. There is not any questien?I know of no authority that would say that there is any question?about the President's right to classify documents. That is so well grounded that it does not require the citation of authority beyond the Con- Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 S 00 THE NATIONAL OBSERVER Approved For Release 2006/01/636: eff-Rilfg0-01601R00 urns VVHriter But Hi's- Old Boss, the CIA, Goes to Court, Says His New Book Would Spill Some Secrets By Michael T. Malloy Ballplayers leave baseball and write "hooks about what's wrong with it. Soldiers leave the Army and write books about what's wrong with that. Victor Marchetti quit his job and sent an outline of a book about his old business to a New York pub- lisher. "Then last Tuesday the roof fell in," he said between court appearances last week. "Marshal Dillon and Chester came to the door and" presented me with some legal paper. Being just an ordinary guy with three kids living in suburbia, I didn't know where to go for advice. I called my agent. and hollered, 'Help!' " Marchetti's publishing problem is that he used to work for the Central Intelli- gence Agency (CIA). The legal papers constituted a court order requiring him to clear anything he writes about intelligence matters; even fiction, with his old em- ployer. If the order holds up in fliether court tests, it could give the Government a new way to plug "leaks" of classified in- formation. Looked at another way, how- ever, it could give the Government a pow- erful new tool for 'suppressing informed debate of its military and foreign policies. ACLU Answers Call / "Ws DO less important than the Penta- v .gon Papers' case," says Melvin Wulf, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which immediately re- sponded to Marchetti's call for legal help. "If they establish this precedent," Marchetti contends, "it means no Govern- ment employe who had access to classi- fied information will be able to criticize the actions of the Government." The Government's action grows out of a manuscript that Marchetti submitted to Esquire Magazine and a book outline he sent to Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., a publishing house. A CIA agent obtained copies of both, and the agency went to court con- tending the works contained classified in- formation whose publication would do "ir- reparable damage" to national security. To knowingly transmit such informa- tion to 'anyone else, including a publisher, would seem to leave Marchetti open to prosecution under laws that prescribe a 30-year prison sentence for violators. But the 'Government made a different case. It oted that Marchetti had signed a secrecy agreement while with the CIA, promising to not reveal any classified information without written permission from the agency. STAT From CIA: No Comment The Government said this amounted to a legal contract. It contended that Mar- chetti violated the contract by sending his 'writings to a publisher. On this ground it obtained an injunction requiring him to clear his writings with the CIA 30 days be- fore showing them to anyone else. If Mar- chetti violates the injunction, he can go to jail for contempt of court. The Government's use of this circuitous route to head off a possible breach of secu- rity is unprecedented, lawyers say, with the possible exception of an obscure case during World War I. But it offers the Gov- ernment a method to silence Marchetti without a difficult and time-consuming ef- fort to prove that the information in his ar- ticles was damaging to 'national security. ' If the CIA's case holds up, it needs to prove only that he violated an agreement that he readily admits signing. " The CIA has a policy of taking its lumps in silence, so no Spokesman was available to defend its position. But others familiar with the security laws said the laws paradoxically could require ' the agenty to bring its secrets into open court in order to protect them, and that a prose- cution could leave Marchetti free to write and speak for months on end as courts and juries made up their minds. 400030001-7 posite position, they'd go to jail." Marchetti didn't start out to be a cru- sader, and he still doesn't want-to go to 'jail for the sake of civil liberties. He left the CIA after 14 years in 1069, at least partly because of the here-I-am-going-on- 40-and-what-have-I-accomplished blues. He did believe the intelligence apparatus had become too big, too expensive, and too frozen in Cold War attitudes, but mostly, he says, he wanted to be a novelist. Security vs. Image He has.since published one spy neve], The Rope Dancer, which he first showed( to the CIA. ("Pretty trashy," says Admiral Taylor.) And he wrote one highly critical magazine article, which he didn't clear with the agency. "In my opinion, this and other things Victor Marchetti says are damaging to the. image of constituted authority, and it does no good to do things of this sort," Admiral Taylor says of the article. "But I person- ally perceived no outright security breach." Marchetti suspects that the intelligence agency is more concerned about its image than any security breach in his new manu- scripts, which Admiral Taylor hasn't seen. "The CIA have been the golden boys of the Federal Government, the 'American James Bonds," Marchetti says. "Very few people have ever spoken out against them. This is a new experience for them and I A Matter of Security guess they didn't like it. "Ex post facto action against unautho- "Look, I'm very reluctant to use the rized? disclosure is always difficult," says Anitials of the agency where I used to retired Adm. Rufus L. Taylor, for whomelwork," Marchetti frets, as he tri eS to de- Marchetti was executive ' assistant when scribe his criticisms of the CIA without Taylor was deputy director of the CIA. violating the court order. "You've always got to prove damage to the national security and sometimes even intent to damage national security." To Marchetti and his? ACLU lawyers, that is just the point. They say the breach-of-contract argument makes it pos- sible for the Government to silence its critics without proving that they had en- dangered national security. They say the information in Marchetti's manuscripts did not present such a danger, and that the secrecy "contract" is legally unen- forceable because it compels an employe to sign away his freedom of speech. ? "A Government agency can still use classified information to support its poli- cies and build its image," Marchetti argues. "When the military budget comes up, all this stuff about Russian missile capabilities comes out to support its posi Whipping the KGB But in abstract terms, and trying to avoid any concrete examples that could put him in jail, he argues that the agency has succumbed to the mental inertia that afflicts any bureaucracy when it faces no outside pressure to change. "It's very hard for a bureaucracy to reform itself," he says. Marchetti would like to see an intelli- gence system that was smaller, Cheaper, more subject to congressional control, and less influenced by the military. He be- lieves the CIA should stick to intelligence gathering and abandon political missions like those that helped overthrow govern- ments in Iran and Guatemala, and in- volved the United States in a secret war in Laos. "The CIA can take pride that they' tion. It's leaked and nothing ever happens. whipped the (Soviet] KGB's tail in many ma_ places" with cloak-and-dagger operations But if somebody took the ame infor ii . .. ...- Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-R P80-01601R000400030001-7 rearectireeee. Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601ROOQ May 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE the distinguished majority whip has 400030001-7 completed his most eloquent and force- ful statement, which he is of course en- titled to make, I will observe that when the roll is called on the Tunney amend- ment, I think the number of Senators on this side of the aisle will look pretty good in comparison with the absentees on the other side of the aisle. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, that may be true. However, no absent Senator on this side of the aisle has lodged a request for an objection to be made to a unanimous-consent request to set aside an amendment and to take up some noncontroversial amendment which may be offered. The objection is coming from the other side of the aisle. I say most respectfully that I honor the assist- ant minority leader for doing his job. But I have a job to do also. Mr. GEJE.FIN. Mr. President, I respect and honor the able majority whip for doing his job. He does it very well and very effectively. ? Perhaps a mistake was made in agree- ing that any other amendment could be taken up to displace the Stennis amendment. Of course, the pending busi- ness before the Senate is the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Mis- sissippi. And We have been ready and willing to vote on the Stennis amend- ment for these past several days. We are ready and willing to vote today. The delay has not come from this side of the aisle; or at least, it has not come from this side of the issue. I say it that way because I realize that the issue in- volved is not a partisan matter. Obvi- ously there are Senators on both sides of the political aisle with differences about the merits of the Stennis amend- ment. . ? I am inclined to say that perhaps we should keep the Stennis amendment as the pending business and agree to no unanimous-consent requests at all. Per- haps that is the way we should have dealt with the issue. 'We were merely trying to provide some accommodation. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern- pore. Without objection, the unanimous- consent request of the Senator from West Virginia is agreed to. \----- SENATE RESOLUTION 299?SUBMIS- SION OF A RESOLUTION ESTAB- LISHING -A SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY QUESTIONS RELATING TO SECRET AND CONFIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk and ask unanimous consent for its immediate considera- tion. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern- pore.. The clerk will state the resolution. The second assistant legislative clerk read as follows: Resolved, that there is hereby established a special, ad hoc Select Committee of the Senate to be composed of ten members, Eve from the majority and five from the minori- ty. The Majority Leader shall be the Chair- man and the Minority Leader the Co-Chair- man. Of the remaining eight members, four will be appointed by the Majority Leader and four by the Minority Leader. Any member appointed under the provisions of this res- olution shall be exempt from the provisions. of the Reorganization Act relating to limita- tions on Committee service. The Committee shall conduct a: study and report its findings and recommendations to the Senate, within sixty days of its establish- ment, on all questions relating to the se- crecy, confidentiality and classification of government documents committed to the Senate, or any member thereof, and propose guidelines with respect thereof; and, the laws and rules. relating to clatsification, de- classification or reclassification of govern- ment documents, and the authority there- for. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern- pore. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from New York? Mr. GRIFFIN, Mr. President, reserv- ing the right to object, it is mi under- standing, if I may make an inquiry of the disinguished Senator from New York, the sponsor of this resolution, as to the pariamentary situation which he is pur- suing, the way for him to get this on the calendar is to ask for unanimous con- sent that it be considered immediately. I do not think he really expected that it would be considered immediately today, and it is within the framework of his plans that it be put on the calendar and held over until next week. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, may I say to the Senator that I would -have been disappointed if this had not happened. It would not be my plan that we consider it today. I intend to make no comment of any kind on the resolution today ex- cept to ask that the clerk read the names ? of the cosponsors. I expect that it will be held on the calendar until Monday. We will then have both leaders here, and, at their disposition, it can either be dis- cussed and considered if they wish then, or it can go on the calendar and be dis- cussed and considered at an appropriate time. Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I have not had any opportunity to consider the merits of the resolution. From listening to the wording of it for the first time, I think that the idea of the Senator to do something in the area of providing a more orderly procedure for declassifying or considering the subject of classifica- tion of documents is needed. However, in order to accommodate the situation, and because someone has to make an objection and I happen to be the leader on the floor, I object. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, if I may be recognized, I appreciate that very much. That is exactly what I wanted to see occur. I run grateful to the Senator for his accommodating us in this way. I wish to make it clear myself that I in no way consider this an indication of the Senator's opinion as to what ought to be done on this or any other similar legisla- tion.' 1'. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the clerk read the names of the cosponsors on the resolution. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- pore. Without objection, it Ls so ordered. The clerk will state the names of the co- sponsors. The second assistant legislative clerk read as follows: . The Senator from New York (Mr. JAvrrs) submits a resolution for himself, the Senator ? from Massachusetts (Mr. BROOKE), the Zen- ? STAT 7317 ator from West Virginia (Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD), the Senator from Florida (Mr. CRILEs), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. CHUBCH), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER), the Senator from California (Mr. GRAN-swig), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. FULBRIGHT) , the Senator from Oregon (Mr. HATFIELD), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. troorms) , the Senator from Maryland (Mr. MATHIAS) , the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. STEVENSON). Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an analysis of the law relating to the confidentiality of documents prepared under the auspices of the Foreign Relations Committee may be made part of my remarks together with a compilation of basic documents on security classification of information from the Library of Congress. There being no objection, the analysis and compilation were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AS A PROBLEM IN THE CONGRESSIONAL ROLE IN FOREIGN POLICY PREFACE The controversy generated by the Penta- gon Papers is the most recent manifesta- tion of the subterfuge which has under- mined popular confidence in our leaders and in our institutions. The U-2 incident of 1060, the Bay of Pigs affair, the Dominican Intervention, and the Executive branch's misrepresentations concerning the war in Southeast Asia have all contributed to the skepticism of the general public towards the actions and, policies of our Government. Ex- ecs:Ave secrecy tends to perpetuate mistaken policies, and undermines the democratic principles upon which this country was founded. For this reason, I requested a study by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress of the security classification procedure and the problem it presents to Congress ?in the performance of its Constitutional role. I believe that this memorandum will be of interest to both my colleagues and to the general public. The memorandum was prepared by the Foreign Affairs Division of the Congressional Research Service, to which I express my appreciation. 3. W. FULBRIGHT, I. INTRODUCTION Security classification in this paper means the formal process in the Executive Branch of limiting access to or restricting distribution of information on the grounds of national security. The purpose of this paper is to survey the security classification process to determine how it affects the work of Con- gress on foreign policy and to explore pro- posals for changing the process. It does not deal with the related problems of loyalty or censorship, and it attempts to differentiate She problem of security classification from the problem of executive privilege, that is She withholding of either classified or un- classified information from Congress by the Executice Branch on the grounds that it is She right of the President to do so? First, as background for considering pro- posed changes, the study outlines the origin of the system, the legislation and regulations on which the Executive Branch bases its process of classification, and present practice. Eecond, it discusses the access of Congress So classified information and the relation- ship of classified information to the role of Congress in making foreign policy. Finally, St explores proposals for changing the pres- ent classification system. Secrecy has been a factor in making foreign policy since the first days of the nation's Footnotes at end of article. Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R00 4000300017 ? ENID, OKLA. NEWS MAY 5227 18,254 24,891 . . . A Binding Contract ? Stealing and-or publishing government secrets for fun and profit has become something of a fad in recent times. But . a federal judge in Virginia ariparently be- lieves there ought to be some limitations on the practice. U.S. Dist. Judge Albert V. Bryan Jr. ruled tentatively last week that..Victor L. Marchetti, former .agent for the Cen- tral Intelligence Agency, signed away his constitutional right to write and talk . about cl.k. activities and policies. In his tentative ruling the judge held that Mar- chetti's dispute with the government agency is a question of an agreement ? between employer and employe and raised no questions under the First Amendment's free speech guarantee. mother words, Marchetti would have presumably been perfectly free to talk STAT and write about the CIA until he accepted a job under the agreement that he would keep the agency's private matters pri- vate. That's fair enough, we believe. There , should be some protection of important government secrets, the revelation of , which would threaten security.' It should be added that one reason the "Top Secret" classification is taken so lightly and violated so frequently with impunity is that it is so often used on frivolous and: unimportant matters that have nothing, to do with military security-, In . Marchetti's case, if he is in,deed privy to important security information about CIA, there should be some lawful way to hold him to his agreement to ? keep silent.?Tulsa World ' Approved For Release 2006/01103: CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 LMay 1, 197pproved For 300Q1 300Q1 7 passed the Congress on January 25, 19'72 and which was signed by the President on February 7. Now, less-than 3 months after the signing of this bill, we find our- selves faced with the same problem which the Committee and the Congress had labored long and hard to correct. In view of the executive's challenge to these efforts, the issue before us?posed by the McGee amendment?is whether -we are up to the challenge, whether we meant what we wrote into the law just -a few short months ago. Will the Senate assert its right to in- formation so that it can properly clis- -charge its responsibilities or will it bow to the will of the executive? Will the.Senate demand a voice in the policymaleing, decisionmaking processes ? of our Government or will it permit but one voice, the voice of the executive to speak for the Government and the peo- ' ple? - The issues raised by the McGee amend- ment are just this fundamental. ? Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, will the Senator'yield at that point? Mr. PUL13RIGHT. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. CHURCH. I wonder if the Senator would yield for an observation concern- ? ing the need to utilize the power of the -purse. There is an excellent example, the Mansfield amendment, -and the way it ,was subsequently disregarded by the Ilesident. I think the ekample illus- trates in a classic way the need for Con- - gress to enforce the policy. positions it takes by utilizing the power ,of the purse. If the Senator will yield for that purpose, I would appreciate it. Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield to the Sena- ' tor. How much time does he wish? Mr. CHURCH. I think it will take 5 minutes. Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield the Senator from Idaho 5 minutes. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, three times last year the Senate of the United States passed the Mansfield amendment, and it was enacted .into law. The first time the Senate approved the Mansfield amendment was June. 22, 1971, by a vote ? of 57 to 42. It was then attached to 5.9718. On September 30, 1971, the Senate again approved the Mansfield amend- ment by a vote of 57 td 38. This time it was attached to H.R. 15382, the military procurement authorization bill. Finally, on November 11, 1971, without a record vote, the Senate approved the ?? Mansfield amendment for a third time. As I say, Mr. President, it became the law of the land, and as such it clearly enunciated a congressional policy for bringing an orderly termination to our participation in the war in Vietnam: Listen to the words of the Mansfield amendment as it was enacted into law. It speaks for itself: It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to terminate at the earliest practicable data all military operations of the United States in Indochina, and to pro- vide for the prompt and orderly withdrawal Of all United States military forces at a date certain, subject to the release of all Ameri- can prisoners of war held by the Government of North Vietnam and forces allied with such Government and an accounting for all Amer- icans missing in action who have been held by or known to such :Government or such forces. The Congress hereby urges and re- quests the President to implement the above- - expressed policy by initiating immediately the following actions: (1) Establishing a final date for the with- drawal from Indochina of all military forces of the United States contingent upon the release of all American prisoners of war held by the Government of North Vietnam and forces allied with such Government and an account for all Americans missing in action who have been held by or known to such Government or such forces. (2) Negotiate With the Government of North Vietnam for an immediate cease-fire by all parties to the hostilities in Indochina. (3) Negotiate with the. Government of North Vietnam for an agreement which would provide for a series of phased and rapid withdrawals of United States military forces from Indochina in exchange for a cor- responding series of phased releases of Amer- ican prisoners of war, and for the release of any remaining American prisoners of war concurrently with the withdrawal of all re- maining military forces of the United States by not later than the date established by the President pursuant to paragraph (1) hereof or by such earlier date as may be agreed upon by the negotiating parties. Without any ? question, Congress laid down an orderly policy for terminating our participation in the war. How did the President treat the policy of. Con- gress? One can hardly imagine a more cavalier treatment than the President gave to it. When he signed the law con- taining the Mansfield amendment, this is what the President said: ? To avoid any possible misconceptions, I wish to emphasize that Section 601 -of this Act?the so-called Mansfield amendMent? does not represent the policies of this Ad- ministration. Section 601 urges that the STAT Mr. anissuwmURCH. So, Mr. President, it is clear that if Congress is going to give force and effect to the policy provisions it' enacts, it must use the power of the purse. It is all we have left. Of course, we, may continue to lay down and permit Congress to be walked over in this way, but history will not deal generously with us for our weakness. For this reason, the Foreign Relations Committee adopted an amendment to the pending bill, offered by the distinguished Senator from New Jersey (Mr. CASE) and myself, to give teeth to the Mansfield amendment by backing it up-with the power of the purse; and the real test of how we stand in this body, will come when the Senate votes, perhaps within the coming week, on whether it is willing to stand behind its own declared policy or whether it prefers to acquiesce in the disavowal of that policy that the Presi- dent has expressed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to have the text of the Case-Church- amendment printed at this point in the RECORD. There being no objection, the amend- ment was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: TITLE VH?TERMINATION OF HOSTILI- TIES IN INDOCHINA ' SEC. 701. Notwithstanding any other provi- sion of law, none of the funds authorized or appropriated in this or any other Act may be expended or obligated afte)' December 31, 1972. for the purpose of engaging United States forces, land, sea, or aid, in hostilities in Indochina, subject to an agreement for the release of all prisoners of war held by the Government of North Vietnam and forces allied with such Government and an ac- counting for all Americans missing in action who have been held by or known to such Government or such forces. President establish a "final date" for the ''"Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield myself 5 withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Indochina, ! minutes. subject only to the release of U.S. prisoners Mr. President, I am reminded by the of war and an accounting for the missing in Senator's reference to the President of action. Section 601 expresses a judgment about the manner in which the American another aspect of this matter. Involvement in the war should be ended. The President made a statement on However, it is without binding force or March 8, 1972, a very short time ago. ffect and it does not reflect my judgment He signed a new executive order on clas- about the way in which the war should be sification procedures which he described brought to a conclusion. My signing of the as "establishing a new, more progressive bill that contains this section, therefore, will system of classification and declassifica- not change the policies I have pursued and tion of government documents relating to that -I shall continue to pursue toward this national security." end. I ask unanimous consent that the ex- The President simply said, "I choose ecutive order and accompanying state- to disregard the policy of Congress. It inent be printed in the RECORD. has no binding effect. I disagree with it, THE WHITE HOUSE?STATEMENT BY THE and I will continue to follow my own PRESIDENT policy." I have today signed an Executive order es- It is inconceivable that an American tablishing a new, more progressive system of chief executive would have disregarded classification and declassification of Govern- congressional policy in such a peremp- mentTdhoctrineifenrts relattiig from o national thatse seen- tory manner a century ago; it reflects I h tiated o almost r itYli is mst springs 14 s l ago review o and repre- upon the lowered stature of Congress sents the first -major overhaul of our ciassi- that the President deals with- us in this fication procedures since 1953, high-handed and cavalier way, dismiss- ? By a separate action, I have also directed ing a statutory provision because it does the Secretary of State to accelerate publica- not accord with his view of how Amen- tion of the official documentary series, "For- can involvement in the war in Vietnam alga Relations of the United States," so that should be concluded. historians and others will have more rapid The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time access-to papers created after World War IL of the Senator has expired. Both of these actions are designed to lift the veil of secrecy which now enshrouds al- Mr. CHURCH. I ask for 1. additional together too many papers written by employ - minute. - ees of the Federal establishment?and to do Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield 1 additional so without jeopardizing any of our legitimate minute to the Senator. defense or foreign policy interests. ? Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 Approved For Release Anderson urges press to resist gov't pressures By Luther Huston ? ? The First Amendment to the Constitu- tion gives newsmen "the right and the duty" to pry into government secrets and Inform the people what bureaucrats are doing and how they do it, Jack Anderson, the columnist, tpld the 1972 convention of the American Society of ?Newspaper edi- tors this week in Washington. The editors of the country have demon- strated their patriotism and responsibili- ty, Anderson said, and should not be in- timidated by threats of censorship or threats of prosecution. Anderson has disturbed the Administra- tion and some editors by publishing secret statements of Henry Kissinger, presiden- .tial national security advisor, on policy? relating to the Pakistan-India war and, mdre recently, memos allegedly written by Mrs. Dita Beard, lobbyist for the Interna- tional Telephone" and Telegraph Company, linking an ITT contribution to the Repub- lican National Convention in San Diego to settlement of an antitrust case. ? Although he did not mention these in- stances or any others, Anderson obviously defended his use of secret documents to disclose alleged blunders and machina- tions of government officials in their efforts to control the flow of information to the public. ? In adVising editors not to be intimidated by 'government pressures or threats, And- erson apparently was responding to an 'implied threat in an address by Kevin T. Maroney, Deputy Assistant Attorney Gen- eral, Internal Security Division, Depart- ment of Justice, who told the editors that: "If you, come into possession of informa- tion which has been and remains clas- sified, and you publish it, you run the risk of violating a criminal statute." Roger Fisher, Harvard Professor of Law, gave a similar warning when he told the editors that "freedom of the press doesn't mean you can, steal papers" and that newsmen should not be exempt from criminal prose- cution. ? Anderson began his remarks by saying that it was "nice to speak in front of microphones you can'. see." He asserted that governments in Power will do many things in their efforts to retain power, and that whenever the government tries to control information for political advan- tage it was up to the news media to ex- pose their actions and their motives. News- men must be the watchdogs. hit3 400030001-7 STAT STAT -t , Government officials wont to control what the public should know ? ?4-44, AN3, There is fLagrant overc/assificafion in the name ? of national security. Bureaucrats themselves often pull out data from sensitive documents. national security and asserted the right of the press in the exercise of its responsi- bilities to the people to override the judg- ment of the officials and declassify documents which might have been stamped secret only to cover up blunders of bu- reaucrats. In response to a question from I. William Hill of the Washington Star, An- derson said he had often checked with officials?the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Central Intelligence Agency, or others? before making his own decision to- publish or not to publish classified material that came into his possession. Government officials want to control Bureaucrats themselves, Anderson de- what part of their aetivities the public dared, often pull out certain data from should know, Anderson said, "Kissinger sensitive documents and leak the informa- decides what to tell you." tion th the press for self'-serving reasons, tORtrleas61120 bifiSn'!b6fAs-ilbkiVioiC61#0004000t0,001_?Fonsummation not to ? be de- while not denying the right to classify in newsmen would be criticized for publish- somp rirollmcfn none A nrinverm olinro'Pri ine? if they uncovered it by competent in- should "return to First Amendment prin- When the press criticizes government they turn Spiro the Terrible /oose on us. When the press criticizes. the govern- ment for its efforts to keep secret informa- tion the public should have, Anderson said, "they turn to Spiro the Terrible loose on us." Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee which has held hearings on constitutional protec- tions to press 'freedom, spoke on the same par.el with Anderson. He said that the attempt of the Administration to prevent publication of the Pentagon papers. and the investigation of Daniel Schorr, CBS newsman on the pretext that he was being considered for a government job, raised questions as to the "administration's devo- tion to freedom of the press." First amendment freedoms were often abused, Senator Ervin said, but the only The device by wAiplortived0F way to prevent abuse would be to abolish t`e practices censorship is classification, arid, not ot erwise availab e w tic sired. Government officials and newsmen STAT Approvod For Release 2096/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 CHICAGO, ILL. SUN?TIMES ? ? 536,108 S ? 709,123 APR 2 2 1972 - ? Another try at censorship Not quite a year after it took a shel- lacking on the Pentagon papers, the Nixon administration is again trying - in the courts to prevent publication of 'a book ? this one about the Central Intelligence Agency. The government .has already been successful in sup- ,pressing publication or a magazine ar- /tide by the book's author, Victor L. Marchetti, a former CIA employe. The thrust of the government's case Is. that Marchetti signed pledges that he would not publish anything during or after his term of employment about ? the CIA and that there may be secrets in Prel.Zok. This doctrine of "publish and perish" is a matter for a civil suit ? between Marchetti and the Justice De- partment for breach of contract; it has nothing to do with the actions of the publisher, Alfred A. Knopf Inc., which says it will resist the government's .action. The .CIA says it wants the right to ? censor the book before publiCation, and . Marchetti has agreed ? without making any promises ? to listen to what "The Firm" has to say. He adds that he has no classified documents ? and has no intention of telling any se- crets. The question before the house is the same one raised by the government's . attempts to suppress the Pentagon pa- pers: who shall decide what is a se- cret? We maintain, as we did during last .year's caper, that the burden of proof is on the government to show . that national security is in d: The government is perfectly free to ? argue that publication will harm the nation for this or that reason, but the ultimate decision belongs in other hands ? editors, publishers, the courts. : The government can seek judicial re- lief after publication, but, as the Sup- ; reme Court decision said last year, '1 the government has no automatic right ! to impose prior restraint. Those who have read Marchetti's manuscript say that it does in spots make the CIA look silly, but that no national security is involved. It will be recalled, however, that at the height of the Pentagon papers dispute last spring, Herbert Klein, President Nix-. on's communications czar, sad that the President's main concern in en- joining the New York Times and the Washington Post was not because of secrets, but-to serve as a warning to employes of this administration that they could not leak secrets with im- punity. This seems to be putting the cp.rt. before the horse. If government po- licies are well debated and well dis- cussed, few will feel they have to take their case to the public. That is the way things? should happen in a free society ? not by intimidation and half- baked, unconstitutional attempts at:, censorship; . - _ Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 WASHINGTON 11/4.161 2 APR 197 Approved For Release 21306/01/03 : A-RDP80-01601R00 ':Gewrnme.ill Se-00th 01.0 Ali By William L. Claiborne , A high-level Justice De- partmnnt official warned the nation's newspaper edi- tors yesterday that if they publish classified govern- Vent documents or files sto- . 'len from government agen- cies they run the rick of criminal prosecution. A high-level syndicated newspaper columnist warned the same editors that if they don't publish such documents, they run the risk of assuring the political security of "governmental blunderers." If the admonitions left the editors confused, they could always fall back on the ad- vice of a Harvard University law professor, who advised them to publish secret doc- uments only after long and serious deliberations, and After they were certain that ihe national interest would not be comproniised. The Justice Department `official was Kevin T. Maro- ney, deputy assistant attor- ney general for the Internal ? Security Division, who was one of four panelists who `addressed the convention of the American Society of Newspaper Editors at the 'Shoreham. Maroney said that "inter- minable mischief" would re- sult if the editors were to have substantial access to classified material and were "entirely free to determine for themselves what was proper to publish." He urged the editors to exercise "the greatest cau- tion" in publishing informa- tion which they have deter- mined, without consultation with government officials, :to be necessary to the public? Interest. In case anyone missed the point, he alluded to the Es- pionage Act and specifically cited state and federal laws relating to the receipt of sto- len property. The syndicated newspaper .columnist was Jack Ander- ? son, who followed Maroney at the podium and declared, ? "I hope no one will be in- timidated- by the thr eats , . 400030001-7 made here today, that you may be put in jail, that you may be prosecuted." "That is the kind of au- - thority that is exercised in the Kremlin," Anderson said. Saying that "selected" classification of routine doc- uments is "flagrant" in the Nixon administration, An- derson said, "This isn't na.7 tional security, this is politi- cal security." In case anybody missed his point, Anderson intoned "They use secret documents 'if these facts make them look good . . . do your duty to the American people ... the press is to represent the governed, not the gover- nors." The Harvard professor was Roger Fisher, a former consultant to the Defense Department, who said that if he were an editor, he would have ublished the. Pentagon Papers but would not have claimed afterward that "ewsmen would be ex4 empt fr no*.the ' criminal law." "What is beSt for newspa- pers is not necessarily best for the country,' said Fisher. "We all want some secrets kept. Don't ever for- get it ... Don't say, 'The more disclosure the better',". advised Fisher. Warning that a "cat and mouse" tradition between the news media and the goy-7 ernment could evolve into the "law of the jungle,', Fisheib declared "the free press might serve us bettd if it devoted a little less ef, fort to publishing purloined letters." ? Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 11.1 NC; T ON STAR Approved For Release22806PO4/67?CIA-RDP80-0' STAT 601R000400030001-7 Ignore Secy Labels, Anderson Tells Editors Syndicated columnist Jack Anderson told U.S. newspap- , per editors yesterday that gov- ertunent secrecy labels are nothing more than attempts at press censorship and should be ignored, even at the risk of legal prosecution. Speaking at the annual , meeting of the American So- ciety of Newspaper Editors, And on said, "The 1st I Amendment gives us of the wrtT; press not only the right but the duty to dig into government's secrets and inform the peo- ple." Anderson followed Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen. Kevin T. Ma- roney as speaker in a four- man panel on press rights and press responsibilities. The oth- er panelists were Sen. Sam J. Ervin Jr., D-N.C., and Far- yard University professor Roger Fisher. Anderson attacked Maro- ney's call for a "presumption of good faith" by newsmen in cases where the government has classified information. The columnist called classi- fication . of. government infor- mation "not national security ? this is political security. He said 95 percent of classi- fed information is not con- nected with national security. "After the course is charted and the decisions made, they look over the material and they say, 'All right, what will we tell 'em?' "Anderson add- ed. But Prof. Fisher, who was a Pentagon consultant whose name is mentioned in the Pen- tagon Pappers, accused the press of speaking out of both sides of its mouth in what he called a "cat and mouse" ap- proach to classified informa- tion: seeking full disclosure from the government on one "hand and protection of report- ers' sources on the other. '"Jargony phrases will not solve the problem of resolving conflicting interests," Fisher said. "We all want some se- cretes kept." Sen. Erwin said he sees no need for new legislation to pro- tect the press in its mission, - but warned: "The 1st Amendment be- stows freedom on all people within our land, whether they are wise or foolish." He recommended that 1st Amendment rights now taken for granted by newspapers should also apply to broadcast- ing. , A straw vote of delegates to the ASNE showed four out of five. editors approving the pub- Approved For Release 200 s. Wo?lf. a 01R000400030001-7 showed half of them against publication. WilliGT011 2.081 Approved For Release 2014f014145 197LA-RDP80-01601R000400 ore Secrecy Under New ules? By Walter Pincus A LITTLE NOTICED broadening of the .definition of "Top Secret" in the President's Executive Order on secrecy last month may well lead to more rather than less classifica- tion of information in the very areas of pub- lic interest that were illuminated by release of The Pentagon Papers. For while the White House ? and the news media fo- cussed their attention on such secrecy frills as reducing the number of "Top Secret" classifiers and agencies and departments with authority to classify along with "speed- ier" declassification, the most important change for the long term received almost no public attention. ' Prior to the March 8 Executive Order, the official definition for "Top Secret" related to "that information or material which the defense aspect of which is paramount, and the unauthorized disclosure of which could ? result in exceptionally grave damage to the nation such as leading to a definite break in diplomatic relations affecting the defense of the United States, an armed attack against the United States or its allies, a war, or the compromise of military or defense plans, or Intelligence operations, or scientific or tech- nological developments vital to the national defense." ? The emphasis clearly was on 'military ,se- crets though there was recognition that the C\ highest classification should go to foreign ?I policy information if its public release would lead not just to a break in diplomatic re/ations but a diplomatic break "affecting the defense of the United States." . Under that definition, foreign policy mate- rial in the Pentagon Papers which was clas- sified ',Top Secret"? and in some cases still is?would appear to have been overclassi- lied. 'Although there clearly was some un- ease in Canada, 'Aus- tralia, Thailand, Laos, 'South Vietnam and elsewhere when the documents were pub- lished, there has been nothing close to a break in , relations since the disclosures nor for 'that matter any. aparent harm to the defense of the United States. . This, of course, is not to argue that all foreign policy infor- mation not rated "Top Secret" should be entirely unclassified. What the pre-March 3 ? Executive Order recognized was that "Top Secret" was a special, .limited category. The definition for the next lower grade, "Secret," contained an arbitrary,. catch-"all phrase to take in material that regularly flows in dipl- matic traffic. Its disclosure, the ? old order ? said, "could re5ult ApPr-tr6rdi R01.ttfeln'ORN/613P:-CIALRDP80-01601R000400030001-7 1 aefidtion_fit. I don't want to was raised on an admittedly sensitive b Nation. such as by eVar in/11111'ff tn e 30001-7 tional relations of the Unite d States . .." Un- say that the practice outweighed what v der that definition almost ahy bureaucrat or wanted to do, but it was far more realistic high official could rationalize a "Secret" recognize that foreign relations was part 1 stamp for foreign policy information coming the material to be classified. You can't lim to the State Department from posts abroad. In the new revision, however, the "Secret" stamp apparently was not considered ade- quate. So new definitions were devised: first of all, defense information and that involving foreign relations were joined together in a new category called "national security"; then the "Top Secret" definition was expanded to state that its "unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exception- ally grave damage to the national security. Examples of 'exceptionally grave damage' include armed hostilities against the United States or its allies; disruption of foreign re- lations vitally affecting the national security . ." THUS THE threshold lest for classifying . ? .- c4..a foreign policy."Top Secret" information has been substantially lowered, from that which would lead to a break ? in relations with a partments to classify specific country to that which.would disrupt less." "foreign relations"?a phrase so general that So the White House it could mean something as vague as embar- concedes the area for"Top Secret" informa- rassment of a foreign leader over a policy tion has been made statement such as the Nixon Doctrine. Going' broader?and hopes .back to our example of the Pentagon Pa- pers, it would be rather simple to qualify the departments will some of the released information as "Top classify less rather than more. The questioi Secret" under this new definition since the is raised, therefore, why were the definition unease felt and complaints voiced over its enlarged? I suggest one answer can b disclosure by the Thais and Vietnamese found in the recent public and private fight could be considered "disruptive" particu- in the secrecy area waged not so much bi tween the media and the administration a larly by our ambassadors in those countries between Congress and the administration. who strive ? daily to keep relations on a ? is far easier to keep from the Congress steady, calm plane. ? document classified "Top Secret" than it To see how low the threshold of "Top Se- cret" has fallen in the foreign policy area ing a paper to The Hill, administration off one has just to note that the definition for cials have never had qualms about raising "Secret" now includes information unau- thorized disclosure of which would cause classification to fit their needs. Now the "disruptin of foreign relations significantly have Executive that.Order authority to do ju affecting the national security. Thus the dif- ference between "Top Secret" and "Secret" In 1969, when the Senate Foreign Rel has been narrowed to the difference in mean- tions Committee's Symington subcommittE on ing between the two adverbs "vitally" and security agreements and commitmen "significantly." Webster's Collegiate Diction- abroad (where I served as chief eonsultan ry defines "vital" as "of the utmost impor- first sought information on nuclear" wean()) 'a tance: essential"; "significant" it says is "im- stored in a European country, the facts wei portant, weighty, .. essential to the determi- promptly supplied classified "Secret." year later, when the same type of inform nation of some larger element ... tion was sought, the administration refuse 6-#.9 on the ground it was "Top Secret" and ti ADMINISTRATION officials who super- sensitive to be held in the committee's sal vised the revision of the secrecy order were The difference, however, was not in the cla well aware of what they were doing. At the sification of the information but rather White House briefing for newsmen the day the foreign policy context that had emergi It was released, David Young of the National from the subcommittee's inquiry. The high Security Council staff who headed up the in- classification was ,used ? to delay and event teragency declassification Committee, con- ally prevent a serious review of political a ceded that the new definitions were broader. rangements that surround placement But he then went on to obfuscate by saying: American nuclear weapons abroad. "The reason for this is that we had to some- the State Department to classifying on such things as relate to the national d fense." What this ignores is that the State Dew' ment was fully coy- , ered up to "Secret"? that the limit to na- tional defense applied solely to "Top Secret." Young went on to say: "In that sense it is broader, but I think by cutting down ?the number of people who can exerfipt it, and re- ducing the number of departments, and also, I think, just by the sheer weight of the whole undertaking, that we are going to be able to get the de- The ease with which that classificatii continued USTI '''i' 4.4 tt1M 1972 Approved For Release 2b0o/01J03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R STAT ? The Federal Diary 000400030001-7 Upgrading of P blicigy Aides Aske By Mike Causey ' Government information of- fices could do more than crank out 'homogenized press releases if federal officials *would sometimes tell them what is going on, and if the Republican and Democratic national committees would stop treating the offices like retirement havens for over- the-hill ward-heelers. . - The above statement (jazzed 'up a bit so you would read this far) comes not from a wild- eyed radical, but from Robert 0. Beatty, an assistant sccre- - tory at Health, Education and Welfare. . Beatty's' comment on the sad state of federal information- dispensing rocked a .lot of bu- reaucratic boats, especially since he ;triode it at a hearing of the House Government In- formation Subcommittee. _HEW is one of only three agencies ? Defense and State are the others ? that give sta- tus to public affairs activites by putting them under an as- sistant secretary. Beatty told the subcommittee, headed by Rep. William Moorhead (D Pa.) that each Cabinet depart- ment should upgrade its infor- mation activities, and give the top person a say in policy deci- sions the information office usually has to explain or de- fend later. Beatty blamed the low es- teem of the public affairs pro- fession on a 1913 law that says the government can't spend money to pay "publicity ex- perts," which it does, by the millions, of dollars, in other ways. - "That well-intentioned con- straint on flackery," Beatty said, "has done inestimable psychological harm to profes- sionalism in public affairs in, government, and has not pre- vented the abuses it was sup- posed to prevent." In fact, he says, it has driven many activities under- ground, . caused agencies to fake budgets or - scrounge money to pay the staffers and driven away competent profes- sionals who correctly believe "the public affairs function is nothing more than an unin- spired press release mill." catty believes that public I' formation costs should be node identifiable line items in agency budgets. (Most are now hidden.) The Moorhead subcommittee has promised to give Beatty's proposals much thought. Beatty, who describes himself as a "naive country boy from Idaho", may have crunched too many colleagues' toes in his crawl out on the limb. But if he does get carried out across his IBM executive model typewriter he will have earned the thanks of many old-line professionals for 'giv- ing it a try. ? Top Secret: The 'top secret' stamp gap in government is widening, with Central Intelli- gence Agency revealed as hav- ing the most so-authorized stompers. Honorable mentions go to the Pentagon and State Department. Rep. Moorhead believes the White House blew the CIA stamp cover, when it an-:. flounced Mr. Nixon's plan to: reduce the number of people. who can classify so-called na- tional security information.-.At the White House press brief-, jag, an official said that 5,100. people now have the stamp pads and authority to use. them in State, Defense and. CIA. He said ? ?the number: would be reduced to 1,369 soon. CIA has never told any4. body what its share of the pio is. But Moorhead says it is matter of a simple arithmetic since State and Defense can lier Said they had only 1,171: people authorized to stamp: 'top secret'. Moorhead figures that when.? you take away State-Penta- gon's 1,717 stompers from the, 5,100 listed by the White. House, that leaves CIA with 3,400 authorized to use the: s amp. To ruin a good story, however, it must be pointed. out that Moorhead doesn't think any of the figures are- correct, so we may never know just how many 'top se-- def.' stompers ?work for the CIA. Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 Appriv_ed For Release 2p_06/01/03,: CIA-RDP80-01601R000 BRIDGEPORT, CONN. TELEGRAM M - 12,425 MAR 2 3 1972,_. /7 Congressman Rebukes Aide for CIA 'Leak' 1 William S. Moorhead said ' Wednesday a White House aide / may have leaked a Central in- telligence Agency secret while briefing newsmen about new document - classifying proce- dures. ? Reporters fell for a "White House sales pitch which was ei- ther an outright lie, an exercise pure stupidity or a dan- ?gerous breach of security," the _Pennsylvania Democrat said. t. Moorhead, chairman of the ,House government information ? subcommittee, made his re- marks to a professional group ? -of public information officers - for the federal government. White House aide David ?Young told reporters at a March 8 briefing that the Presi- ? dent's executive order on clas- sifying documents would reduce The number of persons who can :classify national security infor- mation. ??'He said that 5,100 persons .:`:now.- can classify information :?'top secret' in the State Depart- - merit, the Defense Department :';and the Central Intelligence 'Agency, and he said that num- :her would be reduced to 1,860 under the new order," Moor- ' head said. ? "Either Mr. Young is in er- ror?intentionally or unintentio- nally?or he had disclosed a fact that the rest of the govern- ment security apparatus takes -,great pains to protect," Moorhead said. In reply to subcommittee questions, Moorhead said, State and Defense Department? of fi- 400030001-7 cials have said publicly that 1,- 717 of their people can use the top-secret stamp. The CIA, re- quired by law to keep the ex- tent of its operations secret, would not tell the subcommittee publicly "how many of their op- eratives have 'top secret' ? au- thority," he added.' "Has David Young leaked this important government se- cret? By subtraating 1,717 State and Defense Department offi- cials with 'top secret' authority from the 5,100 listed by Mr. Young, a clever foreign agent can deduce that there are near- ly 3,400 top-level operatives at the CIA, he said. There was no immediate comment from the White House. Moorhead said "I'm sure that Mr. Young has not breached se- curity. ? He is a very security- -minded person. I think he is engaging in the White House public relations program to sell its new classification system. I . do know that it is a PR pro- gram, pure and simple, and not an exercise in government in- formation," Moorhead said. "This is a clear fact because no public information officers of the federal government were asked to comment on the draft of the new classification order. It was, in fact, written by clas- sifiers, for classifiers, and will only perpetuate the security- classification management bu- reaucracy without dealing with the real problems of the system- as a whole,", Moorhead said. Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 zeiriv YO LIMES_ Approved For ReleasT2pC),41/404 .; uIA-RDP80-01601R00 %L. STAT 0400030001-7 oorhead Finds 'Errors' in Nixon's Secrecy Order By RICHARO HALLORAN Special to The New York Vales WASHINGTON, March 21 ? The chairman of the House subcommittee on Government Information asserted today that President Nixon's new execu- tive order on secrecy in regard to national security documents had "major policy deficiencies" and "obvious technical errors." 'P? Representative William S. Moorhead, Democrat of Penn- sylvania, was more specific than in criticism he made ear- Per and said the order would 0.ndoubtedly require amend- rne,nt before it went into effect on June 1. The President's order, issued March 8, was intended to re- 'duce the secrecy surrounding tiational security documents by limiting the use of "top secret,' "secret," and "confidential" ? !classifications and by speeding up the process of making such 'documents available to the pub- Mr. Moorhead, while lauding the intent of the executive order, charged that it was a "shoddy technical effort." He based his statement to the House on what he said was a section-by-section staff analy- sis. The order "increases the limi- tation on the number of persons who can wield classification stamps and restricts public ac- cess to lists of persons having such authority," Mr. Moorhead said. A member of his staff said that the 1,860 persons author- ized to classify documents "top secret" could designate an un- limited number of subordinates to use the "secret" classifica- tion. They, in turn, may author- ize their subordinates to use "confidential." Thus, he said, a pyramid of "thousands and thousands" of persons will be able to classify documents. That would limit public access to the documents be6ause the level of classifies- tion did not make any differ- ence?any classified document would not be made available. Mr. Moorhead said that the order "contains no requirement to depart from the general de- classification rules even when classified information no longer requires protection." Under the order, "the top se- cret" papers are to be made pub lie in 10 years, "secret" in 8, and "confidential" in 6, unless they are exempted. Mr. Moor- head, the staff member said, believes that a paper should be immediately declassified when the reasons for classifying it no longer obtains, rather than wait for the specified time. Mr. Moorhead also asserted in his criticism that the order "broadens authority for the use Of special categories of classi- fication." These include labels such as "for official use only," under which material can be. kept from the public even though it is not eligible for classification. Approved ? For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 E2774 b IA I I APproNtedgenaeAsteM4V6100:IngkINPROMF9PSILPPs3???111Lrch 21, 1972 SECTION-BY-SECTION COMPARI- SON AND ANALYSIS OF EXECU- TIVE ORDERS 10501 AND 11652, "CLASSIFICATION AND DECLASS- IFICATION OF NATIONAL SECU- RITY INFORMATION AND MATE- RIAL" HON. WILLIAM S. MOORHEAD OP PENNSYLVANIA , IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 21, 1972 ? Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, on. March 8, 1972, President Nixon issued Executive Order 11652, "Classification and Declassification of National Security Information and Material." It Was ac- ? conipanied by a Presidential statement containing more than the usual amount - of flowery rhetoric, glib phraseology, and ?optimistic overkill. The administration's cleverly orchestrad news management of the announcement assured an initial series of press stories lauding the virtues of the new Nixon order. Seldom has any ?Presidential Executive order received such a hoopla build-up from the White House public relations team. regret to report, Mr. Speaker, that the results of a careful analysis of the new. Executive Order. 11652, prepared by . the staff of the Foreign Operations and : Government Information Subcommittee, do not bear out the grandiose claims /ionic ?for it by the White House "flacks." As I told the House on March 1 of this year, our subbormnittee'has for many , years concentrated considerable atten- tion on the Nation's security classification system?REcoaD, page H1637. We held hearings last summer on the operation of the classification system, since the type of Executive order information affecting national defense or foreign policy falls ? within the language of the Freedom of Information Act-5 U.S.C. 552?on ' which the subcordinittee has legislative as well as oversight jurisdiction. ' . A week before the President issued the new Executive order, I informed the House that such action was forthcom- ing and was obviously designed to head off the additional hearings planned by our subcommittee this spring and the hearings by the Special Subcommittee on Intelligence of the House Armed Services Committee headed by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. NEDzi), on legisla- tion related to the subject of the Exec- utive order. I warned that Congress should have the opportunity to consider legislative alternatives to govern our se- curity classification system and that our subcommittee would explore such legis- lation at our spring hearings. I also pointed out that a formal request to the White House for the opportunity to re- view the draft of the proposed new or- der had been refused and that any action by the President to deal prematurely with this complex problem to circumvent congressional prerogatives- would only result in additional chaos. ' In remarks to the House on March 8? RECORD, page H1892?I reported that the President chose. not to heed my ad-. vice of a week earlier and had, in fact, gone ahead that morning with the mas- sive public relations treatment to accom- pany the issuance of Executive Order 11652. I also reiterated our subcommit- tee's plans to continue public hearings on security, classification matters prior to the effective date of the new order in search of a viable legislative approach to deal effectively with the abuses of the -Present system. ? Mr. Speaker, the new Executive order unfortunately does not, in my judgment, remedy the defects set forth in the Pres- ident's statement eloquently describing the massive dimensions of the security classification crisis which prompted our subcommittee's current investigation. He said: . Unfortunately, the system of classification which has evolved in the United States has failed to Meet the standards of an open and democratic sociaty, allowing too many pa- pers to be classified for too long a time. The controls which have been imposed on classi- fication authority have proved unworkable, and classification has frequently served to conceal bureaucratic mistakes pr to prevent embarrassment to officials and administra- tions. Once locked away in Government files, ,these papers have accumulated in enormous quantities and have become hiddeni. from public exposure for years, for decades?even for generations, It is estimated that the National Archives now has 160 million pages of classified docunienta from World War II and oveK 300 million pages' of classified docu- ments for the years 1946 through 1954. The many abuses of the security system can no longer be tolerated. Fundamental to our way of life is the belief that when in- formation which properly belongs to the public is systematically withheld by those In power, the people soon become ignorant of their own affairs, distrustful of those who manage them, and?eventually?incapable of determining their own destinies. Yet since the early days of the Republic. Americans have also recognized that the Federal Government is obliged to protect certain information which might otherwise Jeopardize the security of the country. That need has become particularly acute in recent. years as the United States has assumed a powerful position in world affairs, and as world peace has come to depend in large part on how that position is safeguarded. We are also moving into an era of delicate negotiations in which It will be especially important that governments be able to communicate in confidence. Clearly, the two principles of an informed public and of confidentiality within the Gov- ernment are irreconcilable in their .purest forms, and a balance must be struck between theth. Mr. Speaker, I heartily concur with this clear and succinct statement of the broad problem of security classification procedures wider our democratic sys- tem. It is regrettable that the eloquence of this description does not carry over to the new Executive order in proposing basic reforms to correct these problems. The section-by-section analysis that follows details major defects in the new Executive order that is scheduled to take effect on June 1, 1972. It clearly shows why I had urged the White House to make available the draft of the pro- posed new order so that our subcommit- tee could informally suggest improve- ments, based on our many years of over- sight experience in this area, to really deal with root causes of the security classification problem. Major policy de- ficiencies, as well as obvious technical errors in the new Executive Order 11652, as described in our analysis can only in- tensify the security classification ?prob- lem and will undoubtedly require amend- ments to the order even before it becomes operative. Summarizing just a few of the major defects, Executive Order 11652: First. Totally misconstrues the basic meaning of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) ; Second. Confuses the sanctions of the Crimial Code that apply to the wrongful disclosure of ?classified information; Third. Confuses the legal meaning of the term's "national defense" and "na- tional security" and the terms "foreign policy and foreign relations" while fail- ing to provide an adequate definition for any of the terms; ? Fourth. Increases (not reduces) the limitation on the number of persons who can wield classification -stamps and re- stricts public access to lists of persons having such authority; Fifth. Provides no specific penalties for overclassification or misclassification of Information or material; Sixth. Permits executive departments to hide the identity of classifiers of spe- cific documents; . Seventh. Contains no requirement to depart from the general declassification rules, even when classified information no longer requires protection; Eighth. Permits full details of major defense or foreign policy errors of an administration to be cloaked for a mini- mum of three 4-year Presidential terms but loopholes could extend this secrecy for 30 years or longer; Ninth. Provides no public account- ability to Congress for the actions of the newly created Interagency Classification Review -Coinmittee: Tenth. Legitimizes and broadens au- thority for the use of special categorieS of "clp.ssification" governing access and distribution of classified information and material beyond the three specified categories?top secret, secret, and con- fidential; and Eleventh. Creates a "special privilege" for former Presidential appointees for access to certain papers that could serve. as the basis for their private profit through the sale of articles, books, mem- oirs to publishing houses. These are by no means all of the criti- cisms of the new Executive order, Mr. Speaker, and are only illustrative of the type of shoddy technical effort that is represented in the order. The adminis- tration has labored for 14 months on the new Executive order and has brought forth a mouse. It is a very restrictive document that does not correct the ma- jor security classification problems about which we are all gravely concerned. In- deed, it is a document written by classi- .fiers, for classifiers. The section by section comparison of 'Executive Order 10501?as amended, and Executive Order 11652?effective June 1, 1972, and the analysis of Executive Order 11652 follows: Approved 'For Release 200?/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 WASIIIPTU DAILY E1Z:.; Approved For Release 200V11/MARCIMRDP80-01601R0004000 :-Anderson tells of plan to promote revolt in Chile 111 , Close ties between top officials of Interna- tional Telephone and Telegraph and the Cen- tral Intelligence Agency were revealed today by columnist Jack Anderson, who charged that the vast conglomerate plotted to prevent the 1970 election in Chile of leftist President Salva- dor Allende. ? The tolumnist, whose revelations about ITT's contribution to bring the Republican,Na- tional Convention to San Diego set off the Sen- ate hearings on the nomination of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General, said he had copies of "secret documents" that showed that ITT "dealt regularly" with the CIA and "con- sidered. triggering a military coup to head off Allende's election." ? ? Mr. Anderson said his documents "portray ITT as a virtual corporate nation in itself with vest international holdings, access to Washing- ton's highest officials, its own intelligence ap- parattis and even its own classification system. . "They show that ITT officials were in close Much with, William V. Broe, who was then director of the Latin American division of the CIA's Clandestine Services. They were plotting together to create economic chaos in Chile, hoping this would cause the Chilean army to pull a coup that would block Allende from coming to power." The column.said ITT President Harold Ge- neen received a confidential wire from a vice president, E. J. Gerrity, that itemized the methods to provoke an uPrising in Chile: "1. Banks should not renew credit or should delay in doing so. "2. Companies should drag their feet in , C STAT .30001-7 sending Money, making deliveries, in shipping spare parts, etc. . Savings and loan companies there are in trouble. If pressure were applied, they would have to shut their doors, thereby creating pressure. "4. We should withdraw all technical help and should not promise any technical assist- ance in the future. Companies in a position to , do so should close their doors. "5. A list of companies was provided, and it was suggested that we approach them as indi- cated. I was told that of all the companies involved, ours alone had been responsive and understood the problem. The visitor (evidently the CIA's William Broe) added that Money was not a problem. He indicated that certain steps were being taken but that he was looking for additional help aimed at inducing economic collapse." Mr. Anderson wrote that former CIA boss John McCone, now a director of ITT, received a report on Oct. 9, 1970, from William Mer- riam, head of ITT's Washington office. The column quoted the memo in part: "Today r had lunCh with our contact at the McLean agency (CIA), and I summarize for you the results of our conversation. "He, is still very, very pessimistic about defeating Allende when the congressional vote takes place on Oct. 24. ? "Approaches continue to be made to select members of the Armed Forces in an attempt to have them lead some sort of uprising ? no success to date ... "Practically no progress has been made in trying to get American business to cooperate in some way so as to bring On economic chaos. GM and Ford, for example, say that they have too Much inventory on hand in Chile to take any. chances and that they keep hoping that everything will work out all right. "Also, the Bank of America had agreed to close its doors in Santiago but each day keeps postponing the inevitable. According to my source, we must continue to keep the pressure on business." STAXioto ITT lobbyist Dita Beard Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : 61A-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 WAglIMTO:i STAR.. Approved For Release 2006tomFAMIDP80-01601R0004000300 'WASHINGTON CLOSE-UP Grip on Secrecy Stamp Still Fir The administration is now In the midst of a thorough overhaul of its security and and secrecy classification -system?and about time, too. But anyone who thinks this overhaul will result in any significant loosening up of in- formation about day-to-d a y operations of the government In a form that will useful to the press or the public will sadly disappointed. Recent congressional testi- mony explaining and support- ing the President's new ex- ecutive order on safeguarding of official information clear- ly shows that the government, as an institution, rather than -either the press or the public, will be the principal benefici- ary of the changes being made. * ? If the changes are carried out and the new rules laid clown by the President are rigorously applied, there will be two results. One will be a , freer flow of information within the government and within those parts of industry that serve the government, particularly in the production bf military hardware. The other will be a reduction in the cost of keeping secrets. The amount of confidential, secret or top secret material the government and govern- ment contractors have in storage is almost unbelieva- ble. It amounts to thousands, perhaps millions, of tons of paper?stored away in elabo.- rate file cabinets and safes that cost an average of $460 ? apiece. It is hard to know even where to begin to deal with such a mountain of ma- terial. David Packard, the former deputy defense secretary, took one practical approach In May of last year when he ordered the military services and defense agencies to start ? . By ORR KELLY cutting down on the amount of material they keep classi- fied. He put teeth in his order by telling them they could not buy any more of those expen- sive security containers for a year and a half. By the end of last year, two of the smaller defense agencies, the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Defense Intelligence Agency, had managed to empty 158 of their containers, according to Joseph J. Liebling, deputy assistant defense secretary for security policy. One defense contractor, Lie- bling said, got rid of 90 tons of classified material last year and another one destroy- ed 53 tons of the stuff in a 90- day period, The Defense Department also has been trying to cut down the cost of keeping things secret by reducing the number of people who have access to highly classified doc- uments. It costs $5.44 for the average investigation requir- ed before a person receives clearance to handle confiden- tial material. But it costs an average of $263.28 for the full field investigation required for a top secret clearance. It is now estimated that 3.6 million persons have security clearances. Of these, 464,550 are top secret clearances. But, according to J. Fred Buzhardt, the Defense De- partment's general counsel, that number has been cut by 31.2 percent?from a high of 697,000?since mid-1971. The President's new rules, which go into effect June 1, will restrict the number of people able to classify materi- al, expand the number able to remove classification and speed up the automatic de- classification process. If, as intended, these chang- es promote greater govern- 1-7 mental efficiency at lower cost, the public generally will benefit. But these changes, and any conceivable changes that might be legislated by Con- gress, do not begin to touch the kind of problems raised by the Pentagon papers and the more recent White House minutes published by Jack Anderson. The fact is that, under .the ? I old rules, the new rules or any other rules you might care to imagine, the execu- tive branch of the govern- ment will retain the power to control the flow of infor- mation to the public about its internal decision-making proc- ess?at least until it is of in- terest primarily to historians. If the President and his close advisers deliberately set out to mislead the public?and this reporter is not impressed by the evidence contained in the Pentagon and Anderson papers that they did make such attempts ? no law on earth is going to stop them. Attempts to write such laws may, in fact, be dangerous. It is ironic and a little fright- ening, for example, to find Buzhardt, the Pentagon's top lawyer, arguing that the "clearest congressional ac- knowledgement of the Presi- dent's authority to restrict dissemination of information" is found in the Freedom of In- formation Act. Despite the administration's efforts to ease security re- strictions, it probably would be well for us all to keep in mind these words attributed to Lord Tyrell of the British Foreign Office: "You think we lie to you. But we don't lie, really we don't However, when you dis- cover that, you make an even greater error. You think we tell you the truth." Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 ItIME Approved For Release 2006/0i/63%1A143P80-01601R00 400030001-7 - AMERICAN NOTES Thinning the Veil ? Since World War II, Government secrecy has developed into a pervasive bureaucratic habit, an ominous devel- opment for a system of, by and for the people. It reached the point where Defense Department subalterns were classifying newspaper clippings, admin- istrators used their SECRET stamps to conceal waste and stupidity, and the vaults of Washington were choked with millions of pages of momentous or banal information that the public was paying millions of dollars a year for the privilege of never seeing. , Last week, after more than a year's review of Government secrecy, the White House overhauled the classi- fication procedures for the first time since 1953. Not that the Government is exactly throwing ope.n its filing cases. The President reduced the number of officials authorized to classify from 5,100 to 1,860. At the other end of the process, the minimum time for au- tomatic declassification of low-sensi- tivity papers was cut from eight years to six, and most papers will be au- tomatically declassified in ten years. Nixon said that he wants an "open" Administration. "Fundamental to our way of life," he declared, "is the be- lief that when information which prop- erly belongs to the public is system- atically withheld by those in power, the people soon become ignorant of their own affairs, distrustful of those who manage them." But with a six- year limit on classification, the Ad- ministration he was declaring open was Lyndon Johnson's. The new executive order raised an intriguing question: Would the clas- sification of the Pentagon papers have been "legal" under the new rules? Per- haps. Some of the six-year-old ma- terial in the papers could have been acquired by the public without break- ing the law, but even that is in doubt, since the study, which dealt with na- tional security, would have required special clearance in any case. Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 STAT Approved For ReleasXMAtifiiiii :Pa%1RDP80-01601R 2 0 MAR 197a ..'State-Keep'Viet Stu By Murrey Marder ? , Washington Post Staff Writer ? First Broached by U.S. . The Senate Foreign Rela- ..This staff study emphasizes tions Committee has met a that "It was United States offi- cials who first broached the flat refusal from the Nixon ad- subject of a bilateral treaty ministration for security clear- (with South Vietnam) and ance of an analysis of Vietnam 1United States officials who negotiations between 1964 and pressed for a direct military t' involvement in Vietnam. .1968. ?? In a letter to the committee, I "Although news of the ad the State Department claimed. ministration's consideration of that the committee's intended combat troops did reach the ? public ?'?means of leaks to staff reports, based on four never-published volumes of 1 the press, neither Congress the 47-volume Pentagon Pa I not the public was made pers, "could harm" present I aware of the intergovern- diplomatic efforts in the lndo 'mental discussions regarding a phina.conflict. The title of the suppressed bilateral treaty." report clearly suggests its con- The report also focuses at- tents: "Negotiations, 1964-1968: tention on a 1961 recomrrienda- The Half-Hearted Search for tion by Gen. Maxwell D. Tay- Peace in Vietnam." ? lor, then President Kennedy's Committee staff members military adviser, to send a are continuing negotiations 6,000 to 8,000-man U.S. ?mili- with the ,State Department to tary task force into South seek partial clearance of the Vietnam "under the guise of report. One argument they are performing flood relief work." using against the blanket re- That was first disclosed in fusel of clearance is that Pres- press accounts last summer. ident Nixon on Jan. 25 unilat- erally declassified information on a dozen secret meetings be- The treaty .never material- tween adviser Henry A. Kis-1 ized, nor did the Kennedy ad- singer and ?North Vietnamesei i ministration send combat negotiators' in Paris. - The committee, headed by Sen. J. William Fulbright (D. Ark.), is releasing today the first of a .series of its staff analyses of the Pentagon Pa- pers. This non-sensitive report, ? entitled "Vietnam Commit- : ments, 1961," by staff researeh- Johnson administration, U.S. er Ann L. Rollick, consists of troops reached over a half-mil- 12 pages plus 26 pages of docu. lion men. merits previously available Refusal to declassify the publicly. Even so, there are Fulbright committee staff's several security deletions be- more sensitive report on riego- catise the text used was the tiations was expressed in a let- version published by the Gov- ter dated March 9 by David M. ernment Printing Office, al- Abshire, Assistant Secretary though the deleted material, of State for congressional rela- on intelligence operations, tons, to Fulbright.'. was printed in newspapers last Abshire noted that the in- summer. tended staff report on "Nego- Sen. Fulbright said the pub- tiations, 1964-1968: The Half- lished report on 1961 commit- Hearted Search for Peace in merits underscores the Vietnam," did contain, as he "unprecedented . . . extent to said Fulbright stated in a Feb. which the Executive Branch 17 letter, "partial information misled both Congress and the relating to some of these se- public" in "policies and deci- sions of the first ,i/ear - of the Kennedy administration, I which signifieantly deepened the U.S. military inPP ATAMP In the Vietnam war." 000400030001-7 y., secret volumes should remain classi- fied." State's letter continued: "To disclose these secret channels and official commu- nications relating .to them? would constitute a unilateral violation of confidentiality in diplomatic intercourse without which the diplomatic process cannot function effectively. Potentially IIarmful "Moreover, such disclosure could harm and possibly pre- clude future . use of these and other channels in our continu- ing efforts to deal with the is- sues of the Indochina conflict . including that of our prisoners 'Iof war." Abshire, in a posicript, ex- pressed regret "that we cannot concur with your request" re- alizing. "the diligent and ex- tremely capable efforts of the professional staff" in. prepar- ing the report. The reference in the sup- pressed report to "half- hearted search for peace" is understood to refer to efforts .on both sides of the bargain- ing, American and-5wth Viet- namese on .one side, arid North.. Vietnamese and Vietcong on troops, which Taylor recom- mf Ithe other. Published portions ended. "Had one or both o of the Pentagon Papers have. these measures been carried shown that the allied side out at that time," the report often was reluctant to have its notes in retrospect," a greatly search for negotiations sue- increased national commit- ceed when the allied military 1 ment to Vietnam would have position was weak. The Un- resulted" much earlier. In the cleared report presumably also deals with Communist re- luctance to negotiate. ? cret (negotiating) channels" that "appeared in public media..." But, said, Abshire, diFdit SkeleitS6120eeiMin : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 that the substance of these ? Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-0160 NASHVILLE, TENN. BANNER MAR 1 41912 E 97 87 9 Restrictions Cut ? On Right To Know PRESIDENT NIXON HAS ORDERED sweeping changes in the government's classification pro- cedures in an effort to drastically cut down bureau- cratic abuse of the nation's security system. When signing the executive order last w6ek, the President said he believes the new restrictions will "lift-the veil of secrecy" enshrouding warehouses of ducurnents written by government employes: "The many abuses of the security system can no longer be tolerated," President Nixon said. "Fun- damental to our way of life is the belief that when information which properly belongs to the public is systeMatically withheld by those in power, the peo- ple soon. become ignorant of their own affairs, dis- truStful of those who manage them, and--eventunRy ?incapable of determining their own destinies." This demonstrates the President's fine sensitivity to ?the people's right to an above-the-board govern- ment, to government documents and information that insure public' scrutiny of bureaucratic actions. * * * THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTIVE, which takes effect 'June 1, represents the first major overhaul of classification precedures since the administration of President Eisenhower in 1953. The government security system never was in- tended as a hedge against administrative blunders and embarassments. As President Nixon no1ea, clas- sification procedures over the years have evolved into sure-fire cover-up techniques. Part of the problem has been the number of people authorized to wield the stamps of "top sec- ret, "secret" and "confidential," approximately ' 5,100 government employes in the State and Defensp Departments and the Central intelligence Agency. The new directive will cut that liliffrtierttrr,764) and viill also, trim from 24 to 12 the number of depart- ments and agencies with classification power. Declassification after 10 years will become the rule rather than the exception tinder the new order. The President's intention is to release "top secret" information after 10 years, "secret" papers after eight years and "confidential" documents after six years. ? The volume of classified go^ vernment documents is staggering. Since the beginning of World War II, classified documents totaling 460 million pages have piled up in government warehouses. The President's directive should go a' long way toward removing the excesses. Sensibly, the President has displayed proper con- cern for those documents vital to U.S. security. The President emphasized that information potentially hazardous to national security would continue to be withheld for as long as necessary. 1R00040003000r1=7? *? NIXON ESTABLISHED four tests for determining a document's continuing senstitity. Unless a docu- ment meets one of the four tests, it would be declassi- fied in accordance with the President's directive. The tests are: ? It was furnished in confidence by a foreign government or international organization. ? It pertains to codes or discloses intelligence sources or methods. o It discloses specific foreign relations matters "the continued protection of which is essential to the national security." ? It could place a person in danger of physical harin. Long term government classification for other reasons amounts to no more than bureaucratic and political conveniences, the doorway to an invisible government, a concept repugnant to a democratic society like ours. President Nixon has acted forthrightly and re- sponsibly in devising and implementing a plan that will diminish security system abuses and make all government officials more responsive to the public. J Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 STAT ULU YORK TIMES i 4 MAR 1972 Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000 liENALTIES CITED IN SECRECY ORDER But House Panel Calls Some Provisions Unenforceable ; By RICHARD HALLORAN Special to The New Yolk Times ' WASHINGTON, March 13 ? Assistant Attorney General Ralph E. Erickson told a House Armed Services subcommittee today that "administrative and criminal sanctions may attach to the unauthorized release" of secret a Lionel security docit- ments under a new Presidth,p.. tial order. But, in response to questions, Mr. Erickson was unable t..) specify those sanctions and said that the Government was seek- ing ways to strengthen action against officials who made such disclosures and against persons who received secret informa- tion without authorization. Mr.. Erickson, who is the Justice Department's legal coun se, also disclosed that the new Executive order provides for only minimal sanctions against officials who stamp "top sec- ret," "secret" and "confidential" classifications on papers that do not require them. . President Nixon's executive order, issued last week, is in- tended to limit the amount of national security information that is .classified and to speed up the process by which such information is eventually made available to the public. It goes Into effect*June I. . Rehnquist's Successor Mr. Erickson succeeded Wil- Ham H. Rehnquist after Mr. Rehnquist was named to the Supreme Court, Sand was a member of the President's com- mittee that undertook the 14- month study on classification. He testified today before the Special Subcommittee on In- telligence, which is headed by Representative Lucien H. Nedzi, Democrat of Michigan. Mr. Erickson is scheduled to represent the Justice Depart- ment on an interagency review committee that will be estab- lished under the new Executive order to supervise Its execution. Mr. Erickson was unable to -explain to the subcommittee how the. interagency review committee, which will be re- sponsible to the National "e.- ' curity. Council, is expected to operate. He said that would be set forth in specific guidelines later. He added that the committee would be a full-time, regularly functioning panel, with its staff drawn from the departments represented on it. Besides the Justice Department, they will come from the State and De- fense Departments, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Atomic Energy Commission and the staff of the National Security Council. The Executive order says that "repeated abuse of the classi- fication process shall be , grounds for an administrative reprimand." Asked to define "repeated abuse," Mr. Erickson said that was yet to be decided but would be in forthcoming regulations. The new order also says that, __"to the extent practicable," por- tions of a paper containing classified information should be marked to distinguish it from those portions containing un- classified information that can be made public. John R. Blandford, chief counsel of the Armed Services Committee, asserted that such wording meant that the provi- sion was unenforceable and was a loophole in the order. Mr. Erickson said that the Ad- ministration would have to re- ly on the attitude of Federal employes not to abuse that pro- vision. Asked how persons with authority to. classify papers would be identified, Mr. Erick- son said that the regulations governing that had yet to be developed. He ?added that it would require the name, title and position of the classifier or "some other procedure" where- by the classifier could readily be identified. Sanctions Not Included . On the question of sanctions, Mr. Erickson conceded that they were not included in the Execu- tive order. He said that the department was looking at the crirhinal codes as they refer to the handling of classified ma- terial as an adjunct to the Ex- ecutive order. Although the case of the: Pentagon papers was not spe.! cifically cited, it appeared that the publication of those secret documents last summer was be- hind the issue of sanctions. Asked about the unauthorized release of classified informa-, tion, Mr. Erickson noted that I one title of the criminal code' prohibits turning over such in-I formation to a foreign agent. 00030001-7 . William H. Hogan r., e subcommittee counsel, asked whether the law, which says' that the disclosure must have the intent of doing harm to national interests, provided ad- equate sanctions for prosecut- / ing persons who received clas- sified information to which they were not entitled. Mr. Erickson said that there were serious restraints on how far the Government could go without raising a constitutional problem under the First Amend- ment, which provides for free- dom of speech and.the press. He also conceded that the executive branch had been un- able to sols%e the problem that arises in such prosecutions, be- cause a court action would re- quire the Government to con- firm the accuracy of the infor- mation that had been released and perhaps to provide more to persuade a jury that the na- tional interests had been harmed. 4 Approved For Release 200.6/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001.-7 tY YORK MES Approved For Releasr gown: CIA-RDP80-01601R0 Classification: The Wor Now Is: 'Easier on That Stamp , ? - WASHINGTON?The bureaucrat, an. experienced and dedicated civil serv- ant with a "top secret" clearance, took a sip of his martini and said: "Every guy who writes a document can stamp ,his. own classification on it, at least up to the level of 'Secret.' He just goes on an ego trip. It's a status symbol to see who can have the most classi- fied documents in his file drawers. Some offices, like the Joint Chiefs of ? Staff, never deal in anything less than -top secret?even if it's a clipping from The New York Times. A lot of people play gaines with classification to get attention. They know their paper won't get read unless it has at least a 'secret' stamp on it." In an effort to cut into the inflation of secrecy surrounding national securi- ty information, President Nixon issued an Execu,tive Order last week that is intended to slow down the use of "top secret," "secret" and 'confi- dential" classifications on the one hand ? and to speed up the process of de- classifying and making public that 'in- formation on the other. The .President said that the "many abuses of the security system can no longer be tolerated." He added that "when information which properly be- longs to the public is systematically withheld by those in power, the peo- ple soon become ignorant of their own affairs, distrustful of those who man- age them, and ? eventually ? incapa- ble of determining their own destin- pies." ' The new order was the consequence of a study begun 14 months ago and spurred by the outcry following publi- cation- of the Pentagon Papers last swrimer. Many of those documents would have already been declassified had the new order been in effect. ? The President tightened the rules for classifying documents, instructed officials to use "top secret" with "ut- post. restraint" and "secret", only CONFIDENT4 .. for six years. SECRU ... for eight years. TOP SECRET ... for ten years. "sparingly," limited the number and authority of officials to classify papers, decreed that each official be held personally responsible for not overclassifying documents and or- dered that secret information be sep- arated from unclassified material wherever possible. At the other end of the process, the Executive Order, which goes into ef- fect on June 1, provided that "top secret" papers be opened to the public after 10 years, "secret" after eight and "confidential" after six. ? But the President allowed some ex- emptions ? information obtained in confidence from another government, intelligence and, code documents, and material that would place a person in jeopardy of physical harm. He also ex- empted Information "the continued protection of which is essential to the national security," a waiver that ap- peared to leave wide opportunity for advocates of secrecy. Those exemptions, however, can be challenged. Anyone may ask the de- partment originating a document for it after it is 10 years old. The burden of proof for continuing the secrecy will be on the. Government, reversing a ? 400030001-7 .pOlky..under which the applicant trust show why it should be Made public. Will the new order work? Adminis- tration spokesmen admitted that rnuchi depended on the attitude and discretion of bureaucrats in applying the news'. rules, The President himself said that "we cannot be assured of complete success." But, the President added, "the full force of my office has been commit- ted to this endeavor." He made the National Security Council responsible for the program and established an interagency classification review committee to monitor it and to act as a court of appeal in arguments over whether a document should be made public. ? ? On Capitol Hill, some Congressmen were critical. Representative William S. Moorhead, chairman of a House Subcommittee on Government Informa- tion, said that "the Executive Order It- self does not, live up to the laudable goals of the President's statement". "It appears to be an order written by classifiers for classifiers," the Penn- sylvania Democrat said. Because "top secret" documents will be classified. for 10 years, Mr. Moorhead said, "a President could safely stay in office for his full two constitutional terms, totalling eight years, and at the same time make it possible for his Vice President or another of his supporters to succeed him without the publio knowing the full details of major de- fens6 or foreign policy errors his Ad- ministration .has committed." .Others were angered by being left out of the effort to curb secrecy. A House Armed Services subcommittee began hearings on a bill that would establish a joint Executive-Congres- sional-Judicial commission to review continuously the secrecy surrounding secret papers. The Administration, however, opposed the bill, arguing that the Executive branch alone was better equipped to do the job. A sampling of officials showed. at least some initial approval of the President's order. A diplomat pointed to the new test for stamping .a paper "top secret" ? if disclosed, such a document under the President's new order, "could reasonably be expected to cause" armed hostilities against the ?United States, disruption of vital for- eign relations, compromise of key defense plans or exposure of sensi- ? tive Intelligence operations. The diplomat snorted quietly: "that 'top secret' stamp is used much too often now. Look, how many papers are going to start a war if they get out?" ?RICHARD HALLORAN Approved For Release 2006/01/03: CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 NNW 'MK TIMES *WWI& Approved For Release 2006,u1 A - DP80-01601R000400030001-7 Crack in the Secrecy Wall The new rules laid down by President Nixon for guarding against overuse of secrecy stamps on Govern- ment documents are clothed in all the right rhetoric. What remains to be demonstrated, however, is whether the changes can overcome the Inherent tend- ency of all bureaucrats?and particularly those in mili- tary or diplomatic assignments?to err on the side of overclassification and to find perpetual excuses for keep- ing things secret long after the most shadowy justifica- tion has vanished. The Administration says it wants to "lift the veil of secrecy which now enshrouds altogether too many papers written by employes of the Federal establishment." But the caveat the President attaches to his own admonition ?"to do so without jeopardizing any of our legitimate defense or foreign policy interests"?provides all the mummy wrapping any self-protective suppressionist needs to lack up information foreVer. If there is to he genuine headway toward openness In Government information policy, the first step will -have to be convincing evidence that the White House itself has abandoned the hostile, even punitive, attitude toward disclosure it exhibited?and still exhibits?in connection with publication of the Pentagon and Ander- son papers. Unquestionably, the new Nixon order enunciates some salutary principles, chief among them its ban on classi- fication of documents to cover up inefficiency or admin- istrative bungling or to shield an official or agency from embarrassment. Also on the plus side is Presidential acceptance of the need for shifting the burden .of proof in disputes over whether documents should remain classi- fied. Now Mr. Nixon puts it up to Government officials to show why secrecy is necessary, not up to the chal- lenger to show why the information should be made public. Scholars may get access to historical archives a few years sooner than they have up to now. But the vigilance and enterprise of an independent press and ? an alert citizenry will still be needed to dig out on a day-to-day basis the facts crucial to public understanding and intelligent decision-making. , STAT Approved For Release 2006/01/03: CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 ZDIT.OR & PUBLISH 11 MAR 1372 STAT Approved For Relestoe-24306414.3-!-Cifor-Ft43P80-44.644ROWW90449Pyl -a? respond to a request to make records available within 10 days af- ter 'receipt of the request. He said this would speed up the flow of information to the public. Kissinger identified as source In another aspect of government secre- cy, the Boston Globe and the Miami Her- ald identified Dr. Henry A. Kissinger as the "Administration spokesman" who had discussed President Nixon's recent talks with China leaders at a "background" tmriep.eting of newsmen who had been on the John S. Knight, editorial chairman of Knight Newspapers, reported that the White House had asked why the Miami Herald's reporter did not abide "by the rules." "Well, what rules? Whose rules?" Knight wrote in his Editor's Notebook. "Unfortunately, many Washington cor- respondents who regard themselves as 'statesmen' let themselves be used and fall for the 'background' con game while forgetting they are supposed to be report- ers. "It's a shoddy practice which more of- 'ten than not actually embarazses the very officials attempting to serve their own ends. "And that is what I told the Biscayne White House." The Boston Globe said its reporter had not been invited to the Kissinger session 'and "therefore is free to identify the - source of the material." The edited transcript of Kissinger's briefing contained sections marked "off the recosd" and "on the record," and this led to some confusion among the reporters. STAT our , LOflgreSS Nixon order limits c assay effect of Information Act 'Top Secret' label ? President Nixon has issued an Execu- tive Order, effective June 1, which sub- .stantially restricts authority to classify papers "Top Secret." The Supreme Court and a Congression- Materials may be classified "Top Se- al committee have embarked on separate cret" only if their unauthorized disclosure inquiries into the way the Freedom of "could reasonably be expected to cause Information Act, passed five years ago to exceptionally grave damage to the nation's curb excessive government secrecy and security." enhance the free flow of information to The burden of proof is placed upon the Public, is working. those who want to preserve secrecy rather The high court agreed for the first time than on those who want to declassify the to hear a case involving the Act, brought documents. This is the first time such a by 33 Congressmen, to force the White requirement has been imposed. House to disclose reports and letters The order limits authority to use the prepared for President Nixon relating to "Top Secret" label to 12 departments and the underground nuclear explosion at agencies. Under current rules 24 agencies Amchitka Island, Afaska. have broad classification authority. ' A.Federal District judge ruled that In the State, Defense ?and the Central documents were exempt from the dis- Intelligence Agency, the number of of- closure provisions of the Fol. The U.S. ficials authorized to classify material "Top Court .of Appeals for the District of Secret" is reduced by the new Nixon order Columbia, however, ordered the District from 5,100 to 1,860. Judge to inspect the documents and decide The new system provides that "Top whether some of them could be made pub- Secret" information is to be downgraded ,lie without endangering natibnal security. to "Secret" after two years and to "Con- In its appeal to the Supreme Court the . fidential" after two more years and de- Government contended that inspection by classified after 10 years. judges would invite judicial tampering with -national security and go beyond the intention of Congress to encourage free ,exchange of ideas within and between government bureaus. The court's action coincided with hear- ings by a House Government Information Subcommittee into how the Fol act is working and whether the Executive , Branch is following the letter and the spirit of the law. Representative William S. Moorhead of Pennsylvania, chairman, said the ? committee planned to "suggest legislative solutions to any shortcomings we uncover." James C. Hagerty, press secretary to President Eisenhower, testified that a sys- tem of classification of documents is es- sential to the operation of any govern- ment but that government procedures should be reviewed periodidally to bring them into line with changing times and conditions. ? George Reedy, press secretary to Pres- ident Johnson, said Congress should look into the proliferation of executive privi- lege operations in the White House, which he said made it "literally impossible to get at the facts." Morehead said he deplored the fact that Herbert G. Klein, the Nixon Administra- tion's director of communications, had de- , dined to testify on the ground that the President's immediate staff do not appear before Congressional committees. r ' . Hagerty called 'the existing classifica- C tion system an ? antiquated one, dating from World War I, and often subjected to abuse. He made the following recommen- dations concerning changes: Changes suggested should be classified. Such an organization should be staffed by high-level government personnel. (2) The Freedom of Information Act might be amended to provide for a re- quired periodic review of all classified ma- terial, either by an independent quasi- judicial board, or commission, or by a spe- cial staff of the National Security Coun- cil or by a similar board or staff within each department and agency reporting di- rectly to the Cabinet' officer or Agency head. "Such a board or staff would be author- ized to determine periodically, whether existing documents, or portions of them that do not endanger national security, should be removed from classified list- ings," Hagerty said. "It would be a gi- gantic?and awesome?job at first, and it would take a long time to go through the present classified_ documents, but if it could be started it would have the result of eliminating some of the problems relat- ing to government information." Hagerty, who is a vicepresident of American Broadcasting Co., remarked about the frustrations of trying to -release over-classified information when he was in the White House. Sometimes, he said, documents for release at a news confer- ence would arrive "literally covered with classified stamps, including the highest secrecy ratings." "I would actually have to take these papers to .the President and have him declassify them on-the spot. And the only thing that was top secret about that was what he would say when he had-to go through such nonsense." (1) Each agency AppteavtdvEarnRaleaseR240810414:14 pCIAMIDP/36401601R000400030001 -7 ' should have a classification clearing house University's Law Center's Institute for which would have sole authority to deter- Public Interest Representation; suggested TIlinp-whpfhpr sniv if it. minors or actions that the Act should be amended to require frEW ,r0.?4 ITT Approved For Release 2046/81VO: L9R-RDP80-01601R00 By FRANK JACKMAN Washington, March 10?The White House, according to the National Geodetic Survey, has subsided only four- hundredths of an inch?actually, just a silly millimeter? since its reconstruction back in 1952. But when they an- nounced the big order allegedly loosening up on all that secret stuff the other day, the executive mansion must have sunk at least another foot. ".First of all," said David Young, a special assistant to the National Security g...!ouncil, "I think this is evidence of, and in keep- ing with, the President's pledge to have `an open administration.' This is something that is specific. This is something that you can analyze. We have tried to be as concrete and forth- coming as we can." Well, maybe - you have, Dave. And then again maybe not. Take, for ex- ample, who in the executive office is entitled to classify documents and information "top secret"?No. 1 among all the various spooky categories the ? government uses to keep things to itself. . Besides the White House office, the National Security Council, the Office of Emergency Preparedness, and the President's Foreign Intelligence AdyNory Board (our beloved governor, the Hon. Nelson A. Rockefeller, serves on that one, friends; aren't you proud?), the Office -of Telecommunications Policy and the President's Coun- cil of Economic Advisers also can stamp things "eyes only" or -some of those other nifty hush- hush terms. It's plain to see why the Coun- cil of Economic Advisers needs ? the authority to classify things top secret. There' are a lot of things they are keeping under their hats over -there. Why, if the Democrats ever found out when the rate of unemployment was going down, or when wage and price controls were being lifted, they'd claim all the credit for these nice things for them- selves. You can't be too careful in politics. But giving the top secret stamp to the Office of Telecom- munications Policy is a mystery, ? too. So far?and this might very ? well be garbled in translation ? the only conspicuous public ac- -tion the Office of Telecommuni- cations Policy has taken is to warn Congress that public tele- vision is kind of leaning in one ideological direction.. And, pri- vately, to complain about the $80,000 salary Sander Vanocur is getting to work for public TV. Of course, William F. Buckley Jr. is getting quite a lot, too, for his Firing Line show, but that's .different. Maybe what the Office of Tele-communications Policy is stamp- ing top secret is how you go about getting those $80,000 jobs. Sure, that's it. And when they're through, all the biggics on TV will be ? on piecework. Walter and Howard and Harry and John and David and Sandy will be brown-bagging it to the old shop every day; On the bus. Join the club, guys. A Top Secret Over What's .Top Secret. John D. Ehrlichman "1 don't know?go ask" 0400030001-7 ". But periniPs the best eicplanation of how the new system actual y works- came in this bit of persiflage between John D. Ehrlichman,- President Nixon's top domestic affairs adviser, and some nosey newsies at Wednesday's White House briefing. Ehrlichman said that the overhaul of the whole classification system had been ordered in January 1971 when the National Security Council issued a "study memorandum" on the subject. "That was not: particularly noticed at the time," he said, "but six or seven' months later it became a matter of some notoriety in connection with the controversy concerning classification of the Pentagon papers." "John," pipes up a reporter, "can I ask one question about that? Where you mention that the original NSC memo didn't receive very much attention, was it publicly announced, or was it classified?" Ehrlichman: "It was not classified." Q. "Was it announced by the White House?" A. "Nobody and came out seized you by the lapels, but those kinds of things are available," Q. "Is there something available now in the NSC emeos that we ought to be digging up?" A. "I don't know. Go ask." . (At this point, David Young began his explanation of the new system, mercifully cutting off the hollow laughter at Ehrlichman's blithe "go ask" the NSC. At the NSC, they regard it as treasonable to give out the day of the week.) Subsequently, however, it became clear that Ehrlichman wasn't kidding when he said nobody was going to come out and "seize you - by the lapels" in connection with the immense mass of classified documents.- 'The Reasonableness Test' Said Young: ."If the individual, after 10 years, wants to get a (tap .secret) document which has been exempt, he is given . . . a mandatory right of review if he can identify the document and we can produce it with a reasonable amount of effort. These are the two criteria which are used under the Freedom of Information Act: par- ticularity and the reasonableness test." But who ultimately judges what is "particular" and "reason- able"? The new Inter-Agency Classification Review .Committee acts as a sort of appeals board. And who's on the Inter-Agency, etc.? The State Department, the Defense Department, the CIA, the Justice Department, the Atomic Energy Commission and the National Secu- rity Council. And who classifies the most stuff in the first place? . The State Department, the Defense Department, the CIA, the Justice '1?you get the idea. In this ballpark the pitcher is also the umpire. ? Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 ? 1.74W YORK TIMES Approved For Release 2C134/OM TgN-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 IVI,c46 *s' O'rder Held 'Restrictive' By House Information Specialist But Moorhead, Subcommittee Head, Praises President's Statement on Secrecy By RICHARD HALLORAN Spectal to The New York Times WASHINGTON, March 10? Representative William S. Moorhead, chairman of a House subcommittee on Gov- ernment information, criticized today President Nixon's new Executive order on secrecy in national security papers calling it "a very restrictive docu- ment." But the Pennsylvania Demo- crat praised the President's statement accompanying the Executive order for, as he puts it, "emPhasizing past abuses of the classification system," un- der which documents are stamped "top secret," "secret" or "confidential." The order, is- sued Wednesday, goes into ef- fect June 1. Mr. Moorhead, at the open- ing of a hearing by his sub- committee this morning, assert- ed that a preliminary study of, the order itself indicated that it "does not live up to the laudable goals of the Presi- dent's statement." ?"It appears to be an order written by classifiers for clas- sifiers," Mr. Moorhead said. Sees Way to Cover Errors Thp Executive order? is de- signed to reduce the secrecy surrounding national security material by limiting the use of secrecy classifications when the papers are written and by. speeding up the process by which they are later made public. Among its provisions is one ordering that "top secret" documents be automatically de- classified and made available to the public after 10 years, "secret" papers after eight years and "confidential" ones after six, with certain excep- tions that Nixon said would be narrowly applied. But Mr. Moorhead argued that, under this arrangement, a "President could safely stay in office for his full two constitu- tional terms, totaling eight years, and at the same time make it possible for his Vice President or another of his sup- porters to succeed him without the public knowing the full' de- tails of major defense or foreign policy errors Ilis ad- ministration had Committil)pro Liieont,61x United Press International William S. Moorhead A Distinction Is Made . "In other words," Mr. Moor- head said, "the same political party could control the Presi- dency for 12 years when, per- haps, the public would throw it out of office if only the facts were known." In his remarks, Mr. Moor- head drew the distinction be- tween information covered by the Freedom of Information Act and that covered by the Executive order. The law con- cerns the disclosure of infor- . mttion on the Government's day-to-day activities, while the White House order covers in- formation on national defense and foreign policy or, as the President put it, national se- curity. ? In the subcommittee hearing Assistant Attorney Genera Ralph E. Erickson testified that from July 1967, to July, 1971 the Justice Department received about 535 requests for access to its records under the Free- dom of Information Act. Mr. Erickson said that access had been, granted in 224 cases and denied in 311. The majority lof the denials, he said, involved investigative files or cases where the privacy of an indi-. ?vidual would have been vio- lated. Order Is Defended iierk Emsdite I easii4 lHouse Armed Services subcom- STAT mittee on intelligence, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State William D. Blair Jr. continued the Administration's effort to explain the Executive order and head off legislation that would establish a joint executive-Con- gressional-judicial commission to review secrecy in the Gov- ernment. Mr. Blair conceded that "too much material ? probably far too much?was being classified in the first place, and too much of that was being over classi- fied. He said that, in the central foreign policy files since .1950 alone, there were more than eight milion documents,. at'least half of them classified. To de- classify them, he said, would take 10 years, while more pa- pers piled up. Mr. Blair noted that the new order severely limited the au- thority of officials to classify material. He said that about 800 officers of the department may now stamp papers "top secret," that number will be cut to about 300 when the new order becomes effective. 1,860 May Use Stamp Linder the Executive order, about 1,860 persons designated by the President or the 1,Vhite House staff, as well as the heads of 12 agencies or those designated by them, may use the "top secret" stamp. They are the heads of the State Defense, Treasury and Justice Departments; the De- partments of the Army, ' the Navy and the Air Force; ? the Central Intellirence Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Agency for Internatoinal Development. The heads of 13 more agen- cies and their principal sub- ordinates may use the 'secret" classification. They are the De- partment of Transportation, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Health. Edu- !cation and Welfare; the Federal 'Communications Commission, the Export-Import Bank, the !Civil Service ?Commission, the United States Information Agency, the General Services Administration, the Civil Aero- nautics Board, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Fed- eral Power Commission, the National Science Foundation and the Overseas Private In- vestment Corporation. Regulations to Be Issued ' Each agency; before june -1, will designate those officials who will have the authority to use each stamp; The agencies will also issue regulations and guidelines within the frame- work of the Executive order. For classified documents al- da0t WOCgigiligg to them by specifying which ones he wants to see. Thei agency that originated the documents will then' review them to make sure national . security will not be compro- mised by releasing them. If the applicant is dissatis? fied, he may then appeal to the National Security Council's In- teragency Classification Re- view Committee, established by the new order. If that com- mittee still refuses to release the document, the applicant. may go to Federal court. STAT 400030001:7 . ?. Approved For Release 20ilealX3IXIThaRtggiciiM1R00 ? 9 MARCH 1972 PENKOVSKY SECRETS ' DEMAND By RICHARD BEESTON in Washington A REPUBLICAN ? presi- dential candidate filed a suit against. the ;Penta- gon yesterday to force pub- lication of the Penkovsky " special collection " Papers which he claimed related to . current Russian plans in case of nuclear war against ? America. The move coincided with an announcement by President Nixon yesterday ordering the de- classification of large quantities of secret documents, but not specifically referring to the Penkovsky Papers. Mr John Ashbrook, an Ohio member of the House of Repre- sentatives, said the papers con- tained Soviet top-secret doc- trine for nuclear war, and long- range strategic plans which the American people had a right to know about. The papers Were provided to British intelligence ? which passed them on to Washington ?by a Russian intelligence officer, Col Oleg Penkoysky, who was reported to have been exe- cuted by the Russians in 1963. Mr Aslibrook, a conservative, said that those papers which accurately predicted the Soviet nuclear build-up had been pub- lished, but not the "spN,a1 collection " dealing with specific Soviet strategic intentions against America. Highest classification He released a copy of a letter from Mr Lawrence Eagleburger, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence, acknowledging that the "special collection" contained material of the "?highest classi- fication, extremely relevant to current Soviet strategic doctrine and war plans." Mr Eagleburger said that in all likehtmod Russia ',NW still ?trying to determine which of 'their secrets Penkovsky had given. away. It would not be in America's interest to assist them. But Mr. Ashbrook contended that the only purpose served by continued secrecy "is to keep the American people from know- ing what the men in the Kremlin have known for all ?these 10 years. It is the right of .the American people to know, and to know just how the Nixon Administration plans to protect them." " Many abuses In his statement from the White House yesterday Mr Nixon promised to "lift the veil of secrecy which now enshrouds altogether too many papers." The secret classification of docu- ments did " not meet the stand- ard of an open and democratic society." The "many abuses'? of the security system would no longer be tolerated. Classification fre- quently served to conceal bureaucratic mistakes. 400030001-7 Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 .tiFNT 1,n5: Approvcd For Rolcalse 2006/01/0k. ifliCRIgg30-01601R000400030001-7 PRESIDENT ORDERS LIMIT ON LABELING OF DATA AS SECRET Calls for Faster Release of klaterial Not Injurious to the Nation's Security ? . . By RICHARD HALLORAN. .speete to The New Yes: Times WASHINGTON, March 8? President Nixon signed today an Executive order to limit the secrecy surrounding Federal documents, a major source of information about the Govern- ment The President said in a state- ment that his action was "de- signed o lift the veil of secre- cy which how enshrouds alto-, gether too many paper S writ- ten by employes of the Federal establishment?and to do so without jeopardizing any of our legitimate defense or foreign policy interests." The Executive .order, which will become effective June 1, calls for reducing the number of. documents classified "top secret," "secret" or "confiden- tial" when they are written and for limiting the authority of officials to stamp such classifi- cations on those papers. Rely on Discretion At the other end of the proc- ess, the order calls for speed- ing up the process of declassi- fying these documents, making them availatle to the public, with certain exceptions that the Administration pledged would be narrowly applied. The President and Adminis- tration spokesmen who ex- plained the new order readily conceded, however, that the success of the program would depend largely on the discre- tion of officials. Mr, . Nixon said, "Rules can never be air- tight and we must rely upon the good judgment of inefiv4- nals throughout the Govern- ment." The action is a result -of a 14-month study ordered by the President and spurrka by th_e, publication last, suirMMKPYR0 secret Pentagon study of the Vietnam war. Had the new or- der been in effect, then, large portions of the documents in the Pentagon papers would al- ready have been declassified. 10-Year Limit Set Under the new order, "top' secret" papers can become pub-I lie after 10 years. Thus, docu- ments in the Pentagon papers' that were written before 1961; would have been automaticallyi declassified or would have been' subject to a challenge in which' th Government would have had' to Itirove - that injury to the! national security would Shave( resulted from their Publication. Similarly, many "secret" pa- pers dated before 1963 andI "confidential" documents datedi earlier than 1965 would have; been available. The Pentagond papers included documentsI from 1945 to 1968. The new order means ? that large numbers of papers from the Truman and Eisenhower Administrations should become available, plus those of. the early Kennedy years. Docu- P in merits concerning the Bay oigs operation in 1961, for stance, will be eligible for pub- lic inspection unless the Gov- ernment can prove that such disclosure will harm the na- tional interest. Later this year, under the or- der, documents pertaining to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 will become eligible for inspec- tion unless the Government can prove that the national interest will be harmed. The order drew some imme- diate fire on Capitol Hill. Rep- resentative William S. Moor- head, Democrat of Pennsylvania, who is chairman of a House subcommittee on Gov- errirrient information, said, "Congress may want to write its own statutory law on this important and sensitive' mat- ter." I Along the 'same line, a House Armed Services subcom- mittee began hearings this- morning on a bill proposed by Representatives F. Edward Hebert, Democrat of Louisiana, and Leslie C. Arends, Republi- can of Illinois, the committee chairman and senior minority member respectively. While the Nixon Administra- tion plans to keep control of the classification of documents in the hands of the Executive branch, the Hebert-Arends bill r411341.#441sAlP-efigiu;; commission to undertake 'drilling reviews of secrecy in ? !ma tlrevprnement ? The general couns Department of Defen5 Buzhardt, testified thi before the House Armed Ser'-I vices subcommittee, which isi headed by Representative Lu- cien N. Nedzi, Democrat of'Mich, igen, in opposition to the Hebert-Arencls billi Mr. Buzhardt. said that, in an effort to stop unauthorized dis- closures of secret information, Pentagon researchers had begu looking for a type of paper thatl could not be Xeroxed or other wise duplicated. The Pentagon vapers given to The New York Times and other newspapers were reportedly Xeroxed copies of the original clocuMents ? in some cases, Xeroxes of Xeroxes In issuing his order today, Mr. Nixon said, "We have re- versed the burden of proof: For the iirst time, we are niacin burden ? and even the threat or administrative sanc- tion ? upon those who wish to preserve the secrecy of docu- ments rather than upon those who wish to declassify them after a reasonable time." Under the new order, papersi can be classified only if theft] disclosure 'could reasonably be .expected" to cause damage -to the national interest. Previously a paper could be stamed ''se cret" even if the threat of dam- age to the national security was remote. The new order further re- duces the number of Federal agencies, outside the White House, that can classify docu- ments. At present, 38 agencies can classify papers "top secret'' or place them under the lesser classifications. Must Identify Officials After June 1, however, only 12 agencies, such as the State Department, the Defense De- partment and the Central In- telligence Agency, can use the "top secret" stamp and 13 more will be able to use the "secret" stamp. In the agencies that will be able to use the "top secret" label, only 1,860 officials will be authorized -to assign such a classification, against 5,100 at present. Moreover, the President said, each agency will be required to identify those officials doing th classifying. "Each official is to be held personally responsible for the propriety of the classifi- cation attributed to- him," the President said. "Repeated abuse of the process through excessive classifica- tion," the President continued, 1"shall be grounds for admin- istrative action." That would be an administrative reprimand, sk_uwadufg,50048 The President also ordered that, wherever possible, classi- lied information be separated STAT mation be classified in order to conceal inefficiency or adminis- trative error', to prevent 'embar- rassment to a person or a department, to restrain compe- tition or independent initiative, or to prevent for any other reason the release of informa- tion which does not require protection in the interest of national security. The President ordered that the "top secret" label be used "with utmost restraint" and that the "secret" label be em- ployed "sparingly." As to declassification, the President ordered that "top secret" documents be made available after 10 years. 1"secret" papers after eight 'years and "confidential" items after six years. But there will be exceptions, including the. following: Iginforma:tion furnished in confidence by a foreign gov- ernment or international organ- ization op, the understanding that it be kept in confidence. cfnformation covered by law, such as atomic energy infor- mation, or documents pertain- ing to codes and intelligence operations. CInformation on a matter "the continuing protection of which is essential to the na- tional security." That broad statement would appear to give advocates of secrecy, consider- . able leeway.. 'cinformation that, if dis- closed, "would place a person in immediate jeopardy." That Pertains to intelligence agents. May Ask for Document ? But anyone may, after a doe- ment is 10 years old, ask for a review of the reasons why it is still kept secret. He must specify the document he wishes to see, which means that he must know that it 'exists. More- over, the agency holding the paper must be able to find it "with a reasonable 'amount of effort." That part of the order also applies to documents written before the order becomes effec- tive. The President said that the National Archives had "160 million pages of classified doc- uments from World War II and over 300 million pages of classi- fied documents for the years 1946 through 1954." Only a small number of those postwar documents have been made available. The vast ma- jority are not now subject to any sort of automatic declassi- ? a provided under the . The rest are subject to declassification only after 12 years, as opposed to the top limit of 10 years under,the new WISTIE1iGT.C.11POS Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : C -RDP80-01 .9 MAR 1s 'U.S.' Is Sued By Ashbrook On Secrets United Press International Rep. John Ashbrook (It- Ohio), announced yesterday a suit to force the Defense De- partment to make public se- cret documents on Soviet mili- tary strength obtained from a I Red army official. The suit, he told a news con- ference, would allow access to the so-called Penkovsky Pap-_ ers?a compilation of statistics on Soviet nuclear weaponry by Col. Oleg Penkovsky, a sen- ior intelligence officer with the Russian army general staff, whO was executed for es- pionage 10 years ago. Ashbrook, conservative chal- lenger to President Nixon in Republican presidential prima- ries, said declassification of the documents was essential to any debate on a SALT agreement which may be forthcoming between the United States and Russia. He said his efforts to per- suade the Pentagon to volun- tarily declassify the papers were unsuccessful. A suit under the Freedom of Infor- mation Act was filed in fed- eral district court for southern Illlinois yesterday, he said. "It is the right of the Ameri- can people to know how the Soviet Union plans to destroy them; and it is their right to know just how the Nixon ad- ministration plans to protect them," Ashbrook commented. Material from Penkovsky's reports was rewritten and pub- lished in the United States in 1966. as "the Penkovsky Pap- ers." But the raw material on .which the book was based has r never been released. STAT 01R000400030001-7 Approved For For Release 2006/91/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R0004000300017 Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP8. -01601R000400030001-7 ? WASHINGTON STAR 8 MAR 1972 Nixon Acts to Lift 'veil of Secrecy' By GARNETT D. HORNER complex cryptologic and corn- . .* star Staff Writer munications intelligence sys- President Nixon today or- terns. dered a major overhaul of the The "secret" classification system for classifying govern- was limited to materials for meat papers. He said his ac- which unauthorized disclosure tion was aimed at making meld "reasonably be expected more information available to to cause serious damage to the the publie. national security." The "confi- In an executive order, effec, dential" clasSifichtion can be tive June 1, he substantially used on materials for which restricted authority to classify disclosuy4.--might cause plain papers "top secret" and speci- "damage" to the national se- tied that this authority must curity. be used with "utmost re- straint." Authority Limited Those given authority to use Under current rules, Nixon the "s ecr e t" classification noted, 24 federal departments were directed to use it "spar- and agencies, plus his execu- ingly." tive office, have broad classif The President's order also cation authority, while others set up a new systeraspeeding have more restricted powers. declassification of documents. The new system limits the Nixoh said his aim is to "lift authority to classify informa- the veil of secrecy which now than "top secret" to 12 depart- .enshrouds too many papers ments and agencies and such written by employes of the White House offices as the federal establishment?and to President may designate. do so without jeopardizing any Those plus 13 others will have of our legitimate defense or authority to stamp papers "se- foreign policy interests." cret" and "confidential." In the past, he said, "classi- In the principal departments . fication has frequently served concerned with national seen- to conceal bureaucratic mis- rity ? state, defense and the Central Intelligence Agency ? takes or to'prevent embarrass- the number of individuals whc ment to officials and adminis- trations." Such misuse of the may be authorized to classify "secret" stamp is specifically material?p e is banned by the executive order. duced from 5,100 to approxi- Inmately 1,860. what he described as a This authority may be exer- "critically important shift," cised only ,`Iy the heads of thp Nixon said his order places agencies and certain high offi- the burden of proof for the first time on those who want cials whom the heads must to preserve ?the secrecy of designate in writing. documents rather than on . those who wish to declassify ' Anticipates Drop them. ? Nixon said he anticipates Under Nixon's order, mater- that these reductions will ials can be classified"top mean a sharp cut in the quan- secret" only if their unauthor- tity of classified material. ized disclosure "could reason- The new system for declassi- ably be expected to cause lying papers provides that exceptionally grave damage to . "top secret? information is to be downgraded to "secret" the national security."' As examples of such darn- after two years, to "connf idea- age, it listed armed hostilities tial" after two more years, and declassified after a total against the U.S. or its allies, of 10 years?with certain ex- disruption of foreign relations vitally affecting the national emptions. security, and compromise qf "Secret" information is to vital national defense'plans or be downgraded to. "confiden- ? ? tial" after two years, and de- classified after eight years. "Confidential" papers are to be declassified after six years. The order specified that pa- pers may be exempted from this automatic process only by an official with "(op secret" classification authority who must specify in writing the specific reason for the exemp- tion. Exempt Categories The order lists four catego- ries of information that may be exempted from the auto- matic declassifying system. They are classified informa- tion: Furnished in con!' ience by a foreign government or interna- tional organization. Covered by statute or per- taining to cryptography, or disclosing intelligence sources or methods. Disclosing a "system, plan, installation, project or specific foreign relations matter the continued protection of which is essential to the national se- curity." Which would "place a per- son in immediate jeopardy" (defined as physical harm, not personal embarrassment of discomfiture) if disclosed. The order specifies that there must be a "mandatory review" of the classification of any exempted material if a document is requested by any- one, including "a member of the general public," so long as the request describes the rec- ord sb that it may be identified and it can be obtained with a "reasonable amount of . ef- fort." If any material is still classi- fied 30 years after its original classification, the executive order provides, it shall be au- tomatically declassified unless the head of the partment personally deter- mines in writing that its pro- tection is essential to national security or that its disclosure would place a person in imme- diate jeopardy. ? Approved For Release 2006/01/03: CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 ttg ANCELES- IlUES ? Approved For Release 2006/71VAR ORRDP80-01601R0 0400030001-7 High Court to Rule on Disclosing Nonsensitive Parts of Secret Papers ?-BY LINDA MATHEWS Times Staff Writer WASHINGMC't ? The Supreme Court a gr eed Monday to rule on the government's much-debat- ed policy of classifying an entire document ."secret" or stop secret" even if tions contain nonsensite: Information. The issue came to the court in a suit brought by Rep. patsy T. Mink (D-Ha- waii) and 32 other mem- bers of Congress. They had sought public access to nine reports pre- pared. for President Nixon on last fall's atomic test at Amchitka Island, Alaska. The reports allegedly con- tained information about the dangers of under- ground nuclear testing. ? Order to Judge ? The Justice Department had asked the Supreme Court to reverse an order ? by the U.S. Court of Ap- ? peals here that would al- low release of sections of the documents. The ap- peal' will be heard next term. In a decision favorable to the congressmen, the Ap- peals Court 'ordered Fed- eral_ Dist. Judge George Hart Jr. to examine the se- cret documents and decide which sections were so. nonsensitive that they could be disclosed._ The Appeals Court rul- ing also voided the con- troversial 1033 presiden- tial order requiring that a document carry a classifi- cation "at least as high as that of its highest classi- fied component." The Justice Department, in appealing this order, said it was "highly unreal- istic" to think that a court could distinguish secret information from non-se- cret. The government also objected that "judicial in- quiry into matters which are peculiarly within the province of the executive" is inconsistent with the 1970 Freedom of Informa- tion Act. The, high court also cleared the way . Monday for a ruling later this term on an attempt by Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) to stop a federal grand jury in Boston from investigat- ing arrangements he made for publication of the se- cret Pentagon Papers. Only two weeks ago, the court agreed to hear the case. At that time, it was expected that arguments could not be heard this court term without ex- tending the session past its customary June recess date. The Justice Depart- ment, however, sought and w o j permission for a speeded-up ruling later this term. Retroactivity Issue The department insisted that without an immediate decision the grand jury in- vestigation would be para- lyzed and the government would be. deprived of in- formation it needs for suc- cessful prosecution of Da- nie Ellsberg and Anthony J. Russo. They will go on trial May 9 in Los Angeles on charges.of violating the Espionage Act by giving secret documents to unau- thorized persons. In other actions Monday, the court: ?Let stand, with a dis- sent from Justice William 0. Douglas, the contempt citation of UC Berkeley demonstrator who violat- ed a pretrial court f or bi d ding defendants from discussing their cases with the press. Stev- en Hamilton. one of 10 persons arrested during a November, 1966, protest against military recruiting on the Berkeley campus, claimed the gag order was so broad that it violated. his freedom of speech. .1 ?Affirmed a lower court's denial of a hearing to an ? Alabama woman challenging a state law re- quiring that driver's licenses be issued to mar. ried women in their mare. :tied names, even if they use their maiden names for all other purposes. .Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 X0,13K. Approved For Release 2006/07/4ARC1VEDP80-01601R00040003 JUSTICES TO WEIGH U.& SECRECY ROLE Will Hear Plea on Extent of Government Authority to Bar Reports From Public The Associated Prete WASHINGTON, March 6 ? The Supreme Court agreed to- day to rule on the scopc of the Government's authority to clas- sify documents as secret and keep them from Congress and the public. The case concerns nine re- ports and letters prepared for President Nixon in advance of an underground nuclear test that was held last year in Alaska. The Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled that an entire file cgnnot be classified and kept secret simply because seine of the material in it is sensitive. A Federal judge was direc- ted to separate one kind of document fro the other. Suit by Congressmen . The Justice Department ob- jected, saying that this kind of judgment belonged exclusive- ly to the executive branch of government. The dispute will be argued next winter and a decision reached by June, 1973. The nuclear test file was as- sembled for President Nixon by a committee headed by Under- Secretary of State John N. Irwin It contained reports on potential consequences to the environ- ment, national defense and for- eign relations of the test, known as Cannikin and conducted last November on Amchitka Island. - When word leaked out that some Government officials dis- approved of the test, 33 mem- bers of . Congress headed by Representative Patsy T. Mink, Democrat of Hawaii, sued for r lease of portions of the file. The Supreme Court also acted ?today to speed up consideration Alaska, about publication of of attempts by a grand jury to question assistants of Sen- ator Mike Gravel, Democrat of the Pentagon Papers. This case also would have been heard next term, but Solicitor General Erwin N. Griswold sought and WO n promise of a ruling .before the end of June Mr. Griswold told the court] that not only was the grand I jury inBoston slowed down but also tht the Government might be deprived of important evidence needed for the prose- cution of Daniel ?Ellsberg and Anthony J. Russo. They go on . trial in Los Angeles on May 9 charged with theft of the once-secret study of the Vietnam war. In a 5-to-2 decision, the high court prevented thousands of prisoners across the country from reopening their cases on the ground that a lawyer was not present at their preliminary hearings. On June 22, 1970, the Court held that criminal suspects have a constitutional right to a, law- yer at these hearings. This is when a judge decides whether to hold the suspect for a grand jury, whether to permit his release on bail and when the prosecution broadly outlines its case. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. said in today's opinion that the ruling may be invoked to challenge convictions only if the preliminary hearing was held after the date of the Court's ruling. Retroactive ap- plication, he said, would cause widespread disruption of court calendars while judges consider pleas for a new trial. Justices William 0.. Douglas and Thurgood Marshall com- plained in dissent that the rul- ing was not in accord with "even-handed justice." Appeal on Prisons Blocked WASHINGTON, March 6 (UPI) ? Without comment, the Supreme Court let stand today a lower court ruling that state prison officials may be sued by inmates for mistreatment or arbitrary punishment in the absence of a fair hearing. The Court's action was not in the form of an opinion. It mere- ly rejected an appeal by New York authorities from a deci- sion by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Cir- cuit in favor of a prisoner, Martin Sostre, who was sen- tenced to solitary confinement fter a dispute with prison of- ficials. At this point, the ruling of the appeals court applies only in New York, Connecticut and Vermont, but it could be ex- tended to other jurisdictions in subsequent cases. Sostre, a black sentenced as a second felony offender, filed a $2.5-million damage suit against three state prison of- ficials after he was plced in solitary confinement at the Green Haven Correctional Fa- cility in Stormville. The sen- tence was imposed by the war- den following an altercation over SoStre's legal activities on 0001-7 behalf of a former co-deferi? and statements contained in his and statements contained in his outgoing mail. United States District Judge Constance Baker Motley ruled that he had been im- properly punished for express- ing his political opinions, awarded him $13,000 in dam- ages and limited his time in solitary to 15 days. Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 MIAMI HERALD Approved For Releas$2fififfa1/1971A-RDP80-01601R00 shingion Secrec r und Iraws By WILLIAM VANCE Herald Washington Bureau WASHINGTON ? A diet- conscious visitor to Washing- ton, concerned and curious ? about how much fat he was getting with his hot dogs back in Muncie, Ind., took some time from his touring to ask the government. ? The government, in this ?case the Department of Agri- culture, didn't answer. That sort of information, he was told, isn't available to the public.. Although the episode ? as ,a?elated by Ralph Nader's Center for the Study of Re- sponaige law ? occurred several months ago, the in- formation on hot dog fat was ,Indeed available. . Months earlier the Agricul- ture Department had estab- lished the maximum fat limit at 30 per cent. What's more, It had published the informa- tion In the Federal Register the public's official guide to' agency rules and regula- tions. ? THE MAN from Muncie was simply getting a taste of "government secrecy, acciden- tal or intentional, which ranges from trivial to bizarre In the day-to-day operation' of the gigantic federal bu- reaucracy. ? Today, a casual caller can ? learn all about hot dogs from the Agriculture Department. But there are plenty of other things he can't find out there, and elsewhere, in Washington. Things that come under the heading of pubt lc nf orf?ami oft Despite the enactment nearly five years ago of the Freedom of Information Act, federal agencies continue to evade, and at times defy, the public's right to know. Because of recurring criti- cism of the act's shortcorn- Ingo, the House subcommit- Rep. Moorhead ? . . . another look tee, which fashioned it, has decided to take another long look at the government's se- crecy system, BEGINNING Monday, the so-called freedom'of informa- tion subcommittee, headed by Rep. William Moorhead (D., Pa.), will begin a series of 29 public hearings de- signed to measure the gap between the people's right to know and the government's reluctance to tell. ? Congressional Interest in the secrecy system has been heightened in recent months by publication of the Penta- gon papers on the Vietnam war and the Anderson papers on the. Indo-Pakistan war. Moorhead's subcommittee likely will touch on military security classification and the executive branch's with- holding of information from Congress. 'But the main focus will be on the less dramatic and more frequent clashes be- tween the bureaucracy and the citizenry 'over informa- tion about such things as pesticides, product safety and government subsidies. 'The subcommittee' ? will have plenty of examples to work with. use Probe Harriion Welford, environ- mental associate at ?the Nader Center and a pros- pective witness at the hear- ings, charges that public offi- cials use loopholes in the law to delay and deny the release of information ? or to price the information out of sight. THE INFORMATION Act provides; for example, that agencies may charge "a rea- sonable fee" for collecting and Copying requested infor- Mation. "W'haes 'reasonable; and what's exorbitant?" Welford asked. ? . . .. ? "We've petitioned the sec- retary' of agriculture to re- strict the use of sodium ni- trate in meat products," he said. "We've asked for data on how much, is being used and what sort of testing is being done. ? ? . "Now we have a letter.say- ing they will give us the int? formation, but because it's scattered throughout ?the agency we'll have to put up a $100 deposit and pay $25 an hour for the search and 25 cents a page for copies of whatever they find." That, said Welford, simply had the effect of denying the request. "HOW ARE we to know that this information isn't all in one place? How can we put up that kind of money on the chance the information will be of some value?". Higher fees have been asked. Larry Sherman, a lawyer who represents migrant workers, asked the Agricul- ture Department for a list of its subsidy payments to sugar beet growers. The department controls migrant's wages, as Well as subsidies, and Sherman though, the comparisons He was told there was no such subsidy list ? although the department publishes farm subsidy payments annu- ally ? but that one could be developed for $2,000. ? WHAT IS public informa- tion in one agency may be lockid up as confidential in another. James Michael, a former lawyer with the Product' Safety ? Commission, spent months compiling 'a public file on unsafe toys before the ? commission was absorbed by the FDA about a year ago. Michael, who subsequently decided to write a book about toy safety, visited the FDA to do some research from his old files, only to be told the information no long- n? is available to the public. The Freedom of Informa- tion Act says that all govern- ment papers, policy state- ments, opinions, records and staff manuals are to be made. available upon request ? with certain exemptions for national security, personnel practices, trade secrets and investigatory documents. IF INFORMATION is re- fused, the act provides that the requestor can take the agency to court, with the government bearing the bur- len of proof. But it also gives an agency or department 60 days to re- spond to appeals under ad-? ministrative procedure?before court action can start, and lawsuits can take months or ? years -- a long time to wait for informaton. Welford and other critics say the delay is frequently used as "a stultifying tactic" to thwart the intent of the 'act. In some cases, according to subcommittee staffers, agencies will respond with "partial information" on the ' would be valuable.. 60th day. When the reque- Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R 000400030001-7 ? THE LONDON NEW SCIENTIST Approved For Release 2086MV6 :16a2RDP80-01601R00 No break in the code war STAT 1400030001-7 STA The business of intercepting and interpreting the radio transmissions of potential enemies grows steadily .more sophisticated, more expensive John Marriott Is the pen name of a retired RN officer who writes on defence matters for British, European and US periodicals Last week, senior officers of all NATO nations ? met for a three day conference at the SHAPE headquarters near Brussels to discuss a subject which is commanding increasing attention?electronic warfare. In the words of General Sir Walter Walker, who has just relinquished the command of NATO's Northern Area,. "In a limited aggression situation, the skilled use of electronic war- fare by Soviet forces could be an overwhelm- ing factor in deciding the outcome of the battle." Interception of enemy transmissions is one of.tl_T key elements in electronic war- fare. When the Second World War began, Britain's own intercept organisation, which had done excellent work during the First World War, had dwindled to practically nothing. However, the principles were well known and it was not long before Britain had established listening posts all over the world. Perhaps because the techniques had not been kept alive, Britain's cyphers were singularly Insecure and German intelligence was able to break them with little difficulty. At the same time, British cryptographers were able to read many of the German secret messages ?so honours were about even. By 1943, Britain had. built up an efficient intercept organisation, known as the 'Y' service. It consisted of a large number of intercept stations, a direction finding net (directed primarily against the U boats) and a headquarters situated in a stately home at Bletchley Park, Buckinghamshire. The 'Y' service grew apace, and by the end of the war no less than 25 000 persons were employed on this work. The generic term for the business today is Signal Intelligence (Sigint). This is divided Into two halves?Communication Intelligence (Comint) and Electronic Intelligence (Elint). The basis of successful cryptanalysis is to have the maximum possible amount of traffic to work on. Comint organisations, therefore, endeavour to intercept as much enemy signal traffic as possible. This may mean establishing listening stations close to an enemy border (or in the air) to intercept frequencies which travel over line of sight paths such as VHF, UHF and microwaye, or in good receiving sites at strategic points around the world to intercept high frequency communications. The listening stations themselves can vary between huge receiving complexes, with perhaps 1'00 or more receivers together with their associated forest of aerials; a. UHF receiver in a jeep or on top of a haystack, ?and receivers in aircraft or satellites. The intercepted traffic must, of course, be got back quickly to a central headquarters for .Approv e imanalersitanetzemnit =visa- igkiottiVditqc916011W914001120114147 a teletype transmitter as equipped with their own cyphers. The raw it is produced. Intercepted traffic which has been cyphered- - What is the situation today? Nobody out- up before transmission is decyphered at the. headquarters. Using modern on-line cypher machines, this work is nowhere near as laborious as it sounds. The traffic arriving at the headquarters is subjected to two processes: traffic analysis and cryptanalysis. The former is a method of gleaning intelligence from the scrutiny of traffic passed, without necessarily knowing its contents, and the latter is actual cypher breaking. The very volume of traffic alone may indicate that something is happening, or about to happen; but apart from this, move- ments of units can often be deduced simpl7 by the manner in which a signal is routed. Suppose that a warship, whose call sign is ABC, is heard regularly working a Black Sea shore station. Suddenly she is not heard for two weeks; then she is once again picked up, by another listening post, calling a Vladivos- tok shore station and thereafter she is heard' working this station regularly. Obviously she has moved from the Mediterranean area to eastern Russia. The ship could of course change her call sign, but even then it is sometimes possible to recognise a ship's actual transmitter. Transmitters, like type- writers, often have small characteristics un- noticeable to the human senses but instantly detectable by electronic analysis. Another useful method of recognising a 'particular unit, so long as the morsc code is still with us, is by "fingerprinting" its opera- . tors?niost ef whom have certain peculiari- ties, one perhaps making his dashes slightly too short, another hurrying over certain letters and so on. By recording messages and analysing them by means of an oscilloscope it is possible to note these idiosyncracies. This useful give-away is, however, gradually being lost as morse code is replaced by teletype and data transmissions generally. ? The unbreakable codes A modern cypher, working on the one time principle, is virtually unbreakable. The simplest form of "one timing" is to code-up the message from a code book into num- bered groups. These groups are then sub- tracted from (or added to) a recyphering table of similar groups, but the groups so used are never used more than once. This system has now been replaced by machines which do the entire process automatically. In .fact, it is possible to type out the message en .ciair and the machine will produce the encyphered version as fast as one can type, the one time recyphering tables being fed into the machine on tape, which is then des- troyed to ensure that it is never used again. A refinement is to put the process on-line, with the encyphered version produced on luZi YORK TIIIES Approved For Release 296/MAT319721A-RDP80-016 , Hearings Indicate Ellsberg Trial Will Raise the Issue of Secrecy By STEVEN V. ROBERTS I Ruling Buoys Defense Special to The New York Times 1. Defense attorneys were de- LOS ANGELES, March 1 ? lighted with his ruling. "This Pretrial hearings indicate that means we will be able to get the trial of Dr. Daniel Ellsberg; into the documents thorough- and Anthony J. Russo Jr. wi1l11 one said. 1 The Government had tried to result in a detailed debate by limit the case to a discussion expert witnesses on some of of where and how Dr. Ellsberg the critical sections of the Pen- and Mr. Russo took the papers tagon papers, the Defense De. from the Rand Corporation and partm copied them on a Xerox ma- ent stydy of American .'n- chine. volvement in Vietnam. In a brief answering, one mo- Two days of hearings also in- tion. -, .:',. Government lawyers dicate that at the trial, schedu assert, ? "Like most defendants to begin May 9, the defendants who consider themselves heroes will make a full-scale attack their basic aim is to thwart on the system of Government secrecy and classification of documents. . The hearings were suspended today after Judge William Mat- ;thew Byrne Jr., suffered severe jabdominal pains. 'Dr. Ellsberg, who has admit- ted giving the documents to the !news media, and Mr. Russo, ihis former colleague at the Rand ICorporation, were indicted last December on 15 counts involv- ing Federal laws Oovering con- spiracy, theft of Government property and espionage. Debate on Defense Move The ligelihood of a substan- tive discussion of the Pentagon papers were raised in debate on the defendants' motion for a bill of particulars. Prof., Charles Nesson of the Harvard Law School, a defense attorney, noted that, to violate the espionage laws, a defendant had to act in such a way as to injure the "national defense." ' Therefore, Professor Nesson argued, the defense must know 1R000400030001-7 the fact that Chief Justice Warren E. Burger had asked the clerk's office to see if the parties to the appeals would agree to speed up matters. The two cases that the Gov- ernment wants to expedite in- volve a review of the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Boston, concerning?immuni- ty from grand jury investiga- tion for aides and other third persons who have dealings with a Senator. When the Government was attempting to block publication any effort to try the issues . of the Pentagon papers last raised by their indictment and year, Senator Gravel held a instead to transform the trial midnight subcommittee hear- into a form of 'theater' in which the defendants create new issues and new defend- ants to be tried in their'place." lag at which he read long pas- sages from the secret history of the Vietnam war. But the defendants contend Mr. Gravel has sought to !block brand jury testimony by that such "new issues" are cen- 'his aides and other parties tral to their case. For instance, connected with his effort to they note that the theft counts rely heavily on the allegation publish the papers "on the that they had "unauthorized ground that such testimony would violate his constitutional possession" of the Pentagon privilege not to be questioned study, which they say raises about his actions as a member the question of who laas "au- of Congress. thority" to handle such ma-, The Court of Appeals decisio terial. displeased both Mr. Gravel and the Justice Department and both have appealed to the Supreme Court. An aide to Senator Gravel said tonight that the Govern- ment, in its new motion was apparently contradicting what it said in arguments before the Federal District Court and Speedier Hearings Asked Special to The New York Timex WASHINGTON, March 1? The Government asked the Supreme Court today to ex- pedite hearings on Senator Mike Gravel's legal effort to stop a Federal grand jury in Boston from investigating ef. appeals court when it con- forts he made to publish the tended that information from Pentagon papers last year. the Boston proceedings was not ry for the trial of Mr. necessary Erwin N. Griswold, the So- licitor General, said that court Russo and Dr. Ellsberg in stats had effectively halted California. T the grand jury's investigation he aide said that Mr. Gravel's which sections of the 38-vol- of possible violations of the attorney intended to file a ume study the ? Government, Espionage Act in connection countermdtion to the Govern- feels do, in fact, threaten na- with the Pentagon papers. He meat's motion. tional security by their disclo-said that the Government The Government asked that sure. It would be impossible to arguments be heard the week prepare also be deprived of im- of April 17, the last scheduled prepare arguments on all 38 portant evidence needed for week of argument for this term volumes, he said. .the prosecution of Dr. Daniel of the Supreme Court. Government lawyers vigor-;Ellsberg and Anthony J. Russo ously opposed the motion, but 'Jr. in California. Judge Byrne cut off their argu- Last week a spokesman for meat, saying, "There is no the Supreme Court, Banning question but one of the key E, Whittington, announced that issues of this case is whether:the appeals involving Senator the documents relate to the na- Gravel and the Government tional defense." would be heard on an expedit- He then directed both sides ed basis. to draft a proposed order indi- However, the deputy clerk 'eating how the Government at the Court, Michael Rodak, would identify those parts of said today that that statement the study that bear on defense was an error growing out of -RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 Issues. Approved For Release 2006/01/03: CIA 111638 Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R0004 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE requirements of all formal and informal pro- cedures available; "(C) rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and contents of all papers, reports, or examinations; "(D) substantive rules of general applica- bility adopted as authorized by law, and statements of general policy or interpreta- tions of general applicability formulated and adopted by the agency; and "(E) each amendment, revision, .or repeal of the foregoing. Except to the extent that a person has actual and timely notice of the terms thereof, a person may not in any man- ner be required ,to resort to, or be adversely affected by, a matter equired to be published in the Federal Register and not so published. For the purpose of this paragraph, matter reasonably available to the class of persons affected thereby is deemed published in the Federal Register when incorporated by refer- ence therein with the approvarof the Director of the Federal Register. "(2) Each agency, in accordance with pub- lished rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying? "(A) final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as orders, made in the adjudication of cases; "(B) those statements of policy and inter- pretations which have been 'adopted by the agency and are not published in the Federal Register; and "(C) administrative staff manuals and in- structions to staff that affect a member of the public; unless the materials are promptly published and copies offered for sale. To the extent re- quired to prevent a clearly unwarranted in- vasion of personal privacy, an agency may delete identifying details when it makes available or publishes an opinion, statement of policy, interpretation, or staff manual or instruction. However, in each case the JuAti- fication for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Each agency also shall main- tain and-make available for public inspection and copying a current index providing iden- tifying information for the public as to any matter issued, adopted, or promulgated after July 4, 1967, and required by this paragraph to be made available or published. A final order, opinion, statement of policy, interpre- tation, or staff manual or instruction that affects ,a member of the public may be relied on, used, or cited as precedent by an agency against a .party other than an agency only f ? " ( ) it has been indexed and either made available or published as provided by this paragraph; or "(it) the party has actual and timely notice of the terms thereof. "(3) Except with respect to the records made available under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, each agency, on re- quest for identifiable records made in ac- cordance with published rules stating the time, place, fees to the extent authorized by statute, and procedure to be followed, shall make the records promptly available to any person. On complaint, the district court of the United States in the district in which the complainant resides, or has his principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, has jurisdiction to en- join the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant. In such a case the court shall. determine the matter de novo and the bur- den is on the agency to sustain its action. In the event of noncompliance with the or- der of the court, the district court may punish for contempt the responsible em- ployee, and in the case of a uniformed serv- ice, the responsible member. Except -as to causes the court considers of greater im- portance, proceedings before the district court, as authorized by this paragraph, take precedence on the docket over all other causes and shall be assigned for hearing and trial at the earliest practicable date and expedited in every way. - "(4) Each agency having more than one member shall maintain and make available for public inspection a record of the final votes of each member in every agency pro- ceeding. "(b) This section does not apply to matters that are? "(1) specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of the national defense or foreign policy; "(2) related solely to the internal person- nel rules and practices of an agency; "(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute; "(4) trade secrets and commercial or finan- cial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential; "(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memo- randums or letters which would not be avail- able by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency; "(6) personnel and medical files and simi- lar files the disclosure of which would con- stitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of Personal privacy; "(7) investigatory files compiled for law enforcement purposes except to the extent available by law to a party oilier than an "(8) contained in or related to examina- tion, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or "(9) geological and geophysical informa- tion and data, including maps, concerning wells. "(c') This section does not authorize with- holding of. information or limit the avail- ability of records to the public, except as specifically stated in this section. This sec- tion is not authority to withhold information from Congress." SEC. 2. The analysis of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking Out: "552. Publication of information, rules, opin- ions, orders, and public records." and inserting in place thereof: "552. Public information; agency rules, opin- ions, orders, records, and proceed- ings." SEC. 3. The Act of July 4, 1966 (Public Law 89-437, 80 Stat. 250), is repealed. SEC. 4., This Act shall be effective July 4, 1967, or on the date of enactment, whichever is later. Approved June 5, 1967. [From the Washington Post; Feb. 11, 1972] NSC URGES STIFFER LAW ON SECRETS (By Sanford J. Ungar) The National Security Council is propos- ing tougher regulations to keep classified. information out Of the hands of unauthor- 00030001-7 Lu arca _1, 1,172 ized government officials, defense contractors and the public: It suggests that President Nixon may want to go as far as seeking legislation similar to the British Official Secrets Act, which would have the effect of imposing stiff criminal penalties on anyone who receives classified Information, as well as on those who dis- close it. The recommendations are contained in the draft revision of the executive order that has governed the security classification system since 1953. The draft was submitted to the Depart- ment of State, Defense and Justice, the Cen- tral Intelligence Agency and the Atomic Energy Commission last month for their comments. A copy was obtained by The Washington Post yesterday. After suggestions have come back from those agencies, a revised draft is expected to be sent to the President for approval on his return from China. The National Security Council draft Is the result of a year's work by a special inter- agency committee headed by William H. Rehnquist, foirnerly an assistant attorney general and now a Justice of the Supreme Court. National Security Council sources said yes- terday that Rehnquist's contributions to the revision were "very important. . . He did yeoman work." Rehnquist resigned from the Inter-agency committee when he was sworn in as a mem- ber of the high court last month, And he has not been replaced. If adopted in its currtkit form, the - NSC. draft would freeze the existing secrecy stamps on thousands of documents now in special categories exempt from automatic declassification over a period of 12 years. The exempt documents now include "in- formation or material originated by foreign governments or international organizations," "extremely sensitive information or mate- rial" singled out by the heads of agencies and "information or material which war- rants some degree of classification for an indefinite period." The NSC draft abolishes special categories and introduces a "30-year rule" setting the time limit for declassification of all future secret government information. The time period over which some docu- ments would be automatically down-graded in security classification and eventually de- classified would be reduced from 12 to 10 years. Documents originally stamped "top secret" could be made public after 10 years. Those marked "secret" could be declassified after 8 years, and those with a "confidential" stamp 6 years. 1-c before that time has passed, the NSC draft suggests, "classified information or ma- terial no longer needed in current working files" may be "promptly destroyed, trans- ferred or retired" to reduce stockpiles of clas- sified documents and cut the costs of han- dling them. A House subcommittee investigating the availability of classified information has es- timated the cost of maintaining secret gov- ernment archives at $60 to $80 million an- nually. Although the special review of classification procedures was commissioned by President Nixon long ? before the top-secret Pentagon papers on the War in Vietnam were disclosed to the public last summer, the NSC draft re- flects a number of the problems debated during the Pentagon papers episode. Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 March 1, 19PProved For ReftergIN31,40A: . RIft1R130-0M9M30400030001-7 H 1639 A Among the recommendations in the NSC draft are: Creation of an "interagency review com- mittee," whose chairman Would be appointed' by the President, to supervise all govern- ment security classification activity and han- dle complaints from the public about over- classification. An annual "physical inventory" by each agency holding classified material to be sure that security has been strictly preserved. Establishment of a requirement that every- one using classified material not only have a security clearance, but also demonstrate his "need for access" to particular items "in con- nection with his performance of official duties or contractual obligations." Tighter control over "dissemination outside the Executive Branch" to such organizations as the Rand Corp. in California, which per- forms defense research under government contracts. ? Establishment of safekeeping standards by the General Services Administration to as- sure that all classified material is appropri- ately locked up and guarded. Markings on every classified document to ? make it possible to "identify the indi or individuals who originally classified each component." Establishment of its own rules by every government agency on when and how it will make classified information available to Con- gress or the courts. The NSC draft lists 41 government agen- cies which would have the authority to put classification stamps on documents and other materials. They range from the White House and Atomic Energy Commission to the Pan- ama Canal Co. and the Federal Maritime Commission. Several agencies which previously did not have such authority are added to the list, such as the White House Office of Telecom- munications Policy and the Export-Import Bank. Only two agencies?ACTION, successor to the Peace Corps, and the Tennessee Valley Authority?are to be restricted to the use of "classified" stamps, and banned from classi- fying documents "top secret" or "secret." Except for its final pages, which are stamped "For Official Use Only," the copy of the NSC draft obtained by The Post bears no security marking itself. It is in the final pages that the National Security Council makes its recommenda- tions for revising criminal statutes to deal with unauthorized'clisclosure of classified in- formation. The President is offered three options: Leaving existing law unchanged. Revising one section of the federal espion- age act to omit the requirement that dis- closure, to be considered criminal, must be ? "to a foreign agent." The revision would make ? it a crime to disclose classified information to. any unauthorized person. ? Seeking legislation like the British Official Secrets Act, which, severely punishes those who disclose and receive classified informa- tion. Touching on an issue that was repeatedly raised during the court cases involving the ? Pentagon papers, the NSC draft also in- structs: "In no case shall information be classified in order to conceal inefficiency or adminis- trative error, to preyent embarrassment to a person or agency, to restrain competition or independent initiative, or to prevent for any other reason the release of information Which does not require protection in the interest of national security." ? Several judges ruled last summer that pub- lication of the Pentagon papers, a history of American involvement in Vietnam, might cause embarrassment to government officials but would not endanger the national well- being. The draft also substitutes the term "na- tional security" wherever "national defense" was used in the previous regulation con- trolling the classification of information. One expert on security classification said yesterday that national security is generally considered a broader term which permits the classification of more material. The NSC draft also provides for classifica- tion of anything whose "unauthorized dis- closure could reasonably be expected to re- sult" in damage to the nation, a less strin- gent condition than was previously imposed. The preamble to the draft states that "it is essential that the citizens of the United States be informed to the maximum extent possible concerning the activities of their government," but adds that It is "equally essential for their government to protect cer- tain official information against unauthor- ized disclosure." The draft, says the NSC, is intended "to provide for a just resolution of the conflict between these two essential national inter- ests." [From the Washington Post, Feb. 12, 1972] PENTAGON FIGHTS SECRETS PLAN (By Sanford J. Ungar) The Defense Department is oppoSing a Na- tional Security Council recommendation that all classified government information be made public after being kept secret for a maximum of 30 years. Criticizing an NSC draft. revision of gov- ernment security regulations, the Pentagon has appealed for a "savings clause" that would permit agency heads to designate ma- terial affecting foreign relations which they believe must remain secret indefinitely in the interest of "national security." But the Defense Department also questions some sections of the NSC draft as unduly restrictive and has suggested changes that might have the effect of reducing the number of classified documents in government archives. The Pentagon suggestions are contained in a memorandum to the National Security Connell from J. Fred Buzhardt, general coun- sel of the Defense Department, The Washington Post has obtained a copy of that memorandum, one of several that will be considered by the National Security Council before submitting the draft for presi- dential approval. Meanwhile, members of Congress and other experts on security classification attacked the NSC draft for cutting back on public access to government information rather than ex- panding it. Rep. John E. Moss (D-Calif.), the author of the Freedom of Information Act, said that "no more stringent regulations are needed. They are the antithesis of a free society." Commenting on details of the NSC draft as revealed in The Washington Post yester- day, Moss was especially critical of the sug- gestion that the President seek legislation, similar to the British Official Secrets Act, which would severely punish anyone who re- ceives classified information as well as those who'disclose it. Such legislation, Moss said, "would be an outrageous imposition upon the American people. I will fight it, and I would hope that every enlightened American will fight it." ? Rep. William S. Moorhead (D-Pa.), whose House Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and Government Information will open new hearings next month, complained yesterday that the NSC draft was "aimed only at dos- ing information leaks in the executive branch rather than (making) more information available to the public and in Congress." Moorhead said he had requested a copy of the NSO draft from the White House. Earlier in the day, the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department declined to provide a copy to the staff of the Moor- head subcommittee, saying that it was only "a working draft." The Jan. 11 letter of transmittal which accompanied the NSC proposal when it was sent to the Departments of State, Defense and Justice, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Atomic Energy Commission, however, called it."the final draft." The Defense Department recommendations concerning the draft, sent to the NSC on Jan. 21, were the product of a review by the three military departments and "a working group composed of classification specialists, intelligence experts and lawyers," according. to Buzhardt's memorandum. Buzliardt observed in the memo that the Pentagon found so many problems with the draft that it should "be substantially re- worked before submission to the President." Among other matters, the Defense Depart- ment urged an updating of the definitions of the three security classifications as follows: "The test for assigning 'Top Secret' classifi- cation shall be whether its unauthorized dis- closure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the nation or its citizens." As examples of such damage, it cited a range of situations from "armed hostilities against the United States or its allies" to the compromise of cryptologic and communica- tions intelligence systems." "Secret" is to be used to prevent "serious damage" such as "endangerment to the ef- fectiveness of a program or policy signifi- cantly related to the national security" or "jeopardy to the lives of prisoners-of-war." "Confidential" refers to national security information or material, the unauthorized disclosure of Which could reasonably cause damage to the national security." No exam- ples were listed in this category. The Pentagon also said that "it is impera- tive that these restrictions be imposed only where there is an established need." The Defense Department objected, how- ever, to the NSC's proposed requirement that every classified document be marked to in- dicate who had declared it secret. Buzhardt's memo called this condition "both unrealistic and unworkable." Its strongest objection appeared to involve the NSC suggestion for a 30-year rule guar- anteeing that all secret documents are re- leased eventually. "A savings clause to provide for exceptions to be exercised only by the agency head con- cerned is essential to prevent damage to na- tional security," the Pentagon recommenda- tions said.. "There are certain contingency plans dat- ing from the 1920s which should be exempt from the 30-year rule," the Pentagon critique added. "Release of such documents would be unacceptable from a foreign relatisas stand- point for an indefinite period." William G. Florence, a retired security ex- pert for the Air Force, complained yesterday that the NSC draft, as reported in The Wash- ington Post, "will continue to permit hun- dreds of thousands of people to continue Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 Approved For Release Ktffa1URAZDA-RDP80-01601R0004 27 FEB 1972 lQ On Federal apers? . ' ? Elisberg Case ? .1Iangs on Answer By JACK C. LANDAU . Miami Herald-Newhouse Wire WASHINGTON ? Who The rule appeared to he ov,m4 the Pentagon papers or 'any other' government study? stated flatly in the 1909 Copy-. , . Until recently, the answer right Act: "No copyright would have (ownership right) shall sub- been simple. sist in the original te::t ef 6ov6rn- any work or in any publi- ment studies cation of the United States belong to the government, or an" reprint, public. There- in whole or in part." fore, accord- But when The. New York lag to this Times refused to stop nubli- view, newspa- cation of the Pentagon ra- pers pri- Pers, Assistant Attorney Vj .vate citizens General Robert G. 'Mardian ll f d informally: ELLSBEKG should be free argue ? " to publish any government I don't see why we can't report ? if it doesn't pose stop The Times, if a private "irreparable and immediate" danger to national security. ? But as the indictment against Daniel Ellsberg ? shows, the Justice Depart- ment, is developing a new legal restriction on freedom ? .Of the press. In its view, stich studies .are government property. Thus, the government (like - any private author) can' pros- ecute for unauthorized use of the information. , AN OFFICIAL of the Re- gistrar of Copyrights Office in the Library of Congress said: "I don't know what to think. No one has ever ar- gued before that the govern- The court of appeals re- men t owns information, -- jected the argument, but whether it's classified ?or press from publishing any- thing . . reports from HEW (Department of Health, Edu- cation and Welfa're) . . . anything at all except what they want to ha.nd out. "Iii many ways," he said, "this poses as much of a threat to the press as the at-, tempt to halt the Pentagon papers." UNTIL TI1E ? Pentagon pa- pers case last June, no one appeared to question the phi- losophy of unrestricted use of government publicalions, providing that the newsman could get the report. ? The late Justice Jo Harlan noted in his diss .the Pentagon papers that the 47-volume stud parently had been Joined." With this background, the Justice Department proceed- ed to indict Ellsherg for theft of "government studies, re- ports, memoranda and com- munications which were things of?value to the United States." Now; it's simple legal logic that the- government cannot indict Ellsberg, for theft of in- formation which the govern- ment deesn't own ?.unless; of ? cew?se,- the -government does own the Pentagon pa- pers.' ? - ? 0030001-7 corporation can stop you from using stolen informa- tibn, then why can't the gova ernment?" THE JUSTICE Department presented its 'view before the U.S: Court of Appeals in Washington. In asking that The Washington Post he ban- ned from publishing the Pen- tagon papers, Solicitor Gen- eral Erwin Griswold said that if "some enterprising paper" obtained a copy of an un- published manuscript by Er- nest Hemingway ? "perhaps stolen, bought from his sec- retary or found on the side- walk" ? Mrs. .HemingWay could enjoin its publication. not." (The exceptions are' Items ? such as secret code? books and'missile plans). A lawyer, associated with The Washington Post said: "If they 'succeed in arguing that the government is the Owner- of government re- Ports, then they can stop the ? Griswold raised it again in the Supreme Court and re- ceived a sympathetic hearing from Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who said: "You (The New York Times lawyer) say a newspa- per has the right to protect its sources, but the govern- Ment does not." . Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 %sIG'QST rrrs eCt79 Approved For Release 200610W3 l.CtA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 TAT An Appeal for a Sensible Policy on, National, Detense secrecy ? ? The Washington Post recently published' 2. Definition. A fatal defect of Executive Order 10501 was the absence of a definition of "national defense information." That-com- paratively narrow term was an improvement over the broader terms "national security" and "security information" which were dis- carded in 1953. However, it is imperative that the designation used be limited se- verely by specific definition to information which the President really believes would damage the national defense and which leads itself to effective control measures. , 3. Categories. Consistent with the urgent need to narrow the scope of protection, there should be only one eategora of de- fense information. Internal distribution des- ignators could be used to limit distribution of a given item, but there need by only one classification marking. Experience proves that three classifications -invite serious con- fusion, promote uncontrollable overclassili- cation, and reduce the effectiveness of the security system. 4. Authority to Classify. The President's as- sumed authority to impose a defense classi- sification authority since they are not classi- cation ought to be exercised by only a tiny fraction of the hundreds of thousands of people who rife now classifying. The new definition and great _importance of the infor- mation involved would permit limiting clas- sification authority to persons designated by the President and to such others as they might designate. (Individuals who put mark- ings on documents containing information classified by someone else do not need clas- tiers.) As a new procedure. anyone who as- signs a defense classification to material which does not qualify for protection should be made subject to disciplinary action as a counterfeiter. 5. Declassification. The millions of classi-. fled papers currently gushing forth cannot - possibly be kept under review for declassifi- cation on a document-by-document basis. But that is no reason for -perpetuating as- signed classifications as the NSC proposed. The President should take .the insignificant risk and cancel the classification on histori- cal material by appropriate order. As guid- ance, this writer authoreo DoD Directive 5200.9 in 1958 which canceled the classifica- news of a National Security Council rccom- - mendation that the existing secrecy policy in Executive Order 10501 for safe-guarding national defense information be reissued in new -order. Measures currently imposed to keep Congress and the people from knowi -es what the Executive branch is doing wouid be 'continued. We can all be thankful for the opportunity , to explore this subject with the President anti express our own views. Excessive se- creecy has ?developed into one of the most critical problems of our time The court cases and other events of 1971 show that the more secret the Executive branch becomes, the more repressive it becomes. It has al- ready sadopted the practice of honoring its own secrets more than the right of a free press or the right of a citizen to free speech. The NSC "final draft" revision, as ob- tained by The Washington Post. claims that an Executive Order is required to resolve a conflict between (a) the right oi citizens to be informed concerning the activities of the ? government and (b) the need of the govern- ment to safeguard certain information from unauthorized disclosure. Of course, that Sint- ply is not true. The Constitution did not cre- :ate- and does not now contain a basis for any such conflict. The interests and the power of the people are paramount in this country. The only conflict about this matter is the President's failure to recognize the citizens' (rights and ask Congress for legislation, in .. -addition to existing law. tint would provide the protection he wants for imformation bearing on the active, defense. of this nation. The information Could be called National Defense Data. A specific definition for the data could be similar to the one already rec- ommended in the report submitted to the -President and Congress last year by the Na- tional Commission on Reform of the Federal Criminal Code. The President. should take guidance from the fact that the Atomic En- ergy Act has been quite effective in con-. trolling Atomic Energy Restricted Data with- out objectionable impact on the citizens' right of access to government activities. If the President -still insists on having an Executive order on the subject of safeguard- ing information, here are some comments that could be helpful: 1. Updating. The procedures in -Executive Order 10501 for classifying defense informa- tion as TOP SECRET, SECRET or CONFI- DENTIAL are substantially the same as the Army and Navy used before Worlu War II to classify military information as SECRET.or ?CONFIDENTIAL. The policy was suitable for small self-contained militar y forces. All - of the SECRET and CONFIDENTIAL mate- rial held .by some of the large Army posts could fit in a single drawer of a storage cabi- net. Circumstances are -completely different today. The strength of our national defense Is not limited to military effort. It stems from the vast politico-social-industrial-mili- tary complex of this country. A cornmensu- ?rate interchange of information is essential. Therefore, such Executive order as the Pres- ident considers to be required should he rad- ically updated. tion on a great volume of information under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense that had originated through the year 1945. As for the smaller number el items that should be produced in the future, declassifi- cation by the originating authority would be. practicable and enforceable. Exceptional classified items, if any, sent to records repos- itories could be declassified atoomatically after the passage of a period of time such as 10 years. 6. Privately Owned Information. It is esti- mated that at least 25% of the material in this country which bears unjustifiable classi- fications was privately generated and is pri- vately owned. The Executive order should specifically exclude privately owned infor- mation from the defense classification sys- tem. 7. .Misrepresentation of Law. The s 'NSC draft revision would continue the existing misrepresentation of the espionage laws by warning that disclosure of information in a classified document to an unauthorized per- son is a crime. The law applies only if there is intent to injure the United States, with no reference to classification markings. Falsifi- cation of the law should be eliminated. 'The ? President could do the country a great service if he . would seek advice from Congress and others oureide the Executive branch regarding Executive Order 10501. It is hoped that many concerned citizens will help influence the adoption of that course of action. WILLIAM G FLORENCE. Washington. The writer retired from. the Air Force in May, 1971, after 43 years of government ser- vice, including 26 years as a security policy .spe-ciattsete S editorial, "Official Secrets.") . . Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 Approved For Release 20'08/011.MXIAMI:980-01601R000 2 2 FEB 1972 Offidal Secrets At least three times in the past year the admin. titration has suffered the embarrassment of unin- tended leaks of classified information. Intended leaks are a commonplace?a form of standard op- erating procedure. Nothing but embarrassment, however, was entailed in the publication of files stolen from the Media, Pa., office of the FBI, or in the publication of the so-called Pentagon Papers, or th the publication of some reports of National Se- curity Council sessions obtained and made public by columnist Jack Anderson. When we say "nothing but embarrassment" we mean: no irreparable injury to the country's security, no loss of human life, no disclosure of vital facts such as the sailing of trans- ports or the location of troops. Nevertheless, it is easy to understand why t.;.e -administration was embarrassed and why it would have preferred to keep these documents securely locked up in its own file cabinets. In fact, a great deal of what goes on in the executive agencies of the government is wisely and properly kept secret. No one with any practical sense would suggest that Cabinet meetings ought to he conducted on television or that the Pentagon publish all its war plans or that the Secre- tary of State's talks with ambassadors be made known to all the world. Confidentiality is a key to many kinds of policy planning, many kinds of con- tingency preparation, many kinds of difficult and delicate negotiation. Nevertheless, the first responsibility for the preservation of government secrets is clearly the government's. And clearly the government isn't discharging it very well. Thanks to yet another unofficial leak, this newspaper published the other day an account of the final draft of a proposed re- vision of the executive order establishing security classification procedures. It would prescribe, among other things, new standards for classification and declassification of government information. A highly sophisticated criticism of this proposal is I contained in a letter appeasing on the opposite page N today from William G. Florence, an experienced security policy specialist formerly with the U.S. Air Force. We have no quarrel with the proposed measures for tightening the physical safeguards for preserv- thg official documents. And we are in full accord with the philosophy of the proposal's opening state- ment: "It is essential that the citizens of the United States be informed to the maximum extent possible concerning the activities of their government. In order that it may protect itself and its citizens against hostile action, overt or covert, and may effectively carry out its foreign policy and conduct diplomatic relations with all nations, it is equally essential for their government to protect certain official information against unauthorized dis- closure." - One proposal tentatively put forward in the draft STAT 400030001-7 seems to us, however, to be fraught with danger to self-government. Existing -law makes it a criminal offense for any government employee or official to disclose classified information to a foreign agent; the proposal would make it a crime to disclose classified material to any unauthorized person, if the classification was "secret" or "top secret." In addition, it is suggested that legislation be enacted in imitation of the British Official Secrets Act, which would impose criminal penalties not only on the government employee, who divulges classi- fied information but on the recipient of the in- formation as well. That seems pretty plainly aimed at newspapers. But newspapers in America are not agents, or even allies, of the government. They are, by spe- cific provision of a written constitution?some- thing England doesn't have?wholly independent of governmental regulation, precisely in order to enable them to serve, in Mr. Justice Hugo Black's splendid phrase, the governed, not the governors. If they are to do this effectively, they must be free to publish, within the limits of their knowledge, what they believe the public ought to knew. The very ?essence 'of press freedom, it seems to us, lies in leaving the determination of what to publish to editors, when information becomes available to them, rather than to government officials. Under American law, the press may not publish with perfect impunity. It may be called to account and punished for publishing official information if it does so with reason to believe that the publica- tion will do injury ,to the United States. But this is a standard which imposes on the government, be- fore publication can be punished, the burden of proving injury?not merely embarrassment?and of proving intent. Thus a free press is left free, if its editors and publishers have the courage of their convictions, to publish what they think the public ought to know. There are risks in this system?as there are risks in all forms of freedom. But these are risks that a self-governing society must run if it wants to be in- formed, in spite of official classification, of corrupt deals like the Teapot Dome oil leases or the fact that government agents are maintaining surveil- lance of persons not charged with, or even sus- pected, of any violation of law, or the deliberate manipulation of public opinion to take the country into war. Official secrets are sometimes disclosed ? because someone inside the government regards. it as his patriotic duty to make the information available to a free press, some ramifications of which are discussed by Kenneth Crawford else- ? where on this page. But to foreclose the publica- tion of such information, when it is not actually in- jurious to the nation, is to foreclose an essential means of keeping control of the government in the hands of the governed. Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 PITTSBURGH, PA-pp A roved For Release 2006/01/03: CIA-RDP80-01601 POSTF gtz FIE 1972 ? 243,938 GOVERNMENT MOOD KEEPS COVER oorhe By MILTON JAQUES Ppst-Gozette Wanhinoton Correspondent WASHINGTON ? The mood In Congress and in the Nixon administration at this time is probably against reducing sec- recy .in government. ? And that is too bad, accord- ing to Rep. William S. Moor- head, .? Shadyside Democrat, Who heads the House subcom- mittee dealing with govern- Inca information policies. ?? On h i s own assessment, . Moorhead feels it would.proba- bly be futile this year to at- ' tempt-to get liberalizing legis- lation enacted to the 1967 Free- ? dons of Information Act. . That leaves Moorhead fac- ?ing the possibility of. holding extensi,ve hearings on the act this:-Year, with a view toward later legislation. . MoOr head 's assessment grow S Out of his study during the ',Past year of government Information practices. These range from the "ridiculous" as practiced by the intelligence .\/ apparatus, the CentoaLIntetli- gence Agency, or the "spooks" as Moothrrt calls them, to the just plain liureaueracy cover- ing-up of ' goofs and political deals with a secrets label. During the year, too, the publication ? of the so-called "Pentagon Papers" and the "Anderson Paper s" caused Shocks to race through the ' government over leaks in the secrecy erected around some official documents. THE PENTAGON PAPERS dealt ?with an official staff study; ordered by former De- fense Secretary Robert S. McNamara on the origins and background of the unpopular War In Vietnam. The other paPers disclosed concerned apparent differences between the administration's. pUblic -and private positions oh the India:Pakistan conflict. Moorhead, a lawyer, is deep- ly involved in the congression- al discussions on the sensation- al disclosures. He's chairman of, the House subcommittec defense interests of the na- foreign operations and govern-- ti01." ment information, a wilt of the bat, womo w15A House Government larirs?Y I x offalEc o,.rtmcktink uturptre? Sees No Secrecy C ? His thinking now is that Con- gress should at . some point assert its watchdog rote more over the area of official se- crets, and the process by which the government classi- fies its documents. -"You can't set up an execu- tive branch institution to cor- rect secrecy in the executive departmcot." Moorhead fig- ures as point of departure kr his study. If he had a proposal to .make, it would be to have Congress appoint a commission dealing with the matter or secret classification of government documents. The details of such a com- mission, and the legislation;to create it, according to Moor- head, are "negotiable." He is inclined toward a measure (S- 2965), introduced by Sen. Ed- round S. Muskie (D-Me.), the presidentiar-ispirant, which would provide Congress and the public a means for gaining access to certain information now locked in government files. ? ',MOORHEAD INDICATES he is also impressed with the testimony given to his subcom- mittee by at least one former Peritagon security official who claims an excessive amount of information is stamped class- fled. - "There are good citizens within government and outside who think this classification has been overdone," Moor- head says. The object of the Freedom of Information Act, he believes "is to make the maximum amount of informa- tion available to the public, not the minimum. -"ADemocraticsociety doesn't work well unless it has the.maximum." The testimony on over-clas- sification was supplied by Wil- liam G. Florence, who said that "disclosure of information n at least 99.5 per cent of th o s e classified documents could not be prejudicial to the Centage of information that should be withheld could range from one to five per cent, , instead of 9.5 per cent. . Florence obviously in the Moorhead view is one of those "good citizens" who believe . the. classification system has gotten out of hand. The mood in the Nixon ad- . ' ministration, a s Moorhead ' sees it, is toward greater se- crecy, not less. Efforts within the administration are direct- ed at stopping leaks, such as those in the Pentagon Papers and the incident involving col- ; urrihist Jack Anderson. Of course it is a legitiMate effort to try to prevent leaks," Moorhead says. "but it should have its counterpart in how to maximize the ao?tount of infor- mation available." in "covering up for goofs in government." "Whenever somebody h a s made a mistake, he may try to cover' that up with a secret label" Moorhead contends. "It took a change of admin- istration and a whole series of coincidences" for Moorhead and Sen. William Proxmire (D-Wis.) to get the informa- tion leading to their exposing of the Air Force's? problems with huge cost overruns on the C5-A aircraft. "We never would have got- ten that information other- wise," Moorhead says. . ALONG WITH other Demo-. crats, Moorhead also suspects the Republican' administration may be using secret tags to cover defense spending for what might be called political purposes. The charge grows out of the administration's call to Congress for extra funds this year for the department of defense. The feeling in Congress is that some of the money being spent in the 1972 election year could .be. interpreted as for political purposes if it is di- rected solely toward relieving unemployment a n d thereby helping "to reelect the presi- ? ? ! ANOTHER PROBLEM fac- ing the subcommittee, Moor- head feels; is. the amount of. ; lee way given a President in revealing secrets. During the ,e-ubcommittee hearings which tkgin next month former pros- ; idential press secretaries have j been invited to testify on this ? aspect of their work ? at the -White House. - President Nixon's recent speech revealing secret nego- tiations carried on with the North Vietnamese about their American prisoners fo? war was cited by Moorhead as in this area of security. According to Moorhead, the Nixon' speech disclosing the talks "blew the cover" (re- vealed the identity) and dis- closed the role of presidential adviser Henry Kissinger. This presents Congress with the ? problem that "if you only let the top elected political official blow the covers of a country, then he won't reveal all, just that which is advantageous to. .him and keep concealed that which isn't." ? Moorhead said the memoirs of former President Lyndon Johnson also revealed secrets with a one-sided treatment to- ward accuracy. ? . Secrecy's other uses, the ? 3 figure, PINti-REN0861614610KPOPk400030001-7 Committee. ' ? marprGTON POST PARADE MAGAZ Approved For Release 2Oubiui/0133: pararyi.?0-01601R00040 030001-7 EDITOR'S NOTE: Newspaper columnist Jack Anderson, who exposed the U.S. role in the recent Indian-Pakistan con- flict, has been with PARADE nearly 20 years and is today its Washington Bureau Chief. Readers will recall such articles in these pages as "Congress- men Who Cheat," "The Great High- way Robbery," and "Let's Retire Con- gressmen at 65." Like all investigative reporters, An- derson is provocative and controver- sial. Many government officials and .politicians of both parties object to his ferreting out secrets they would rcither keep hidden. In this article, Jack Anderson tells why he believes the people have a right to know. PARADE welcomes the opinions of Its readers. Tell us what you think of Anderson's views and in a future issue we will present g cross-section of the comments. - WASHINGTON, D.C. 0 you 'feel as an American citizen fhat you have the right to know about an impending war? This question is pointed up by the secret documents I got out of the White House. They tell a chilling story. While Americans sang of peace on earth last December, grim men sat in guarded rooms in Washington, Moscow and Peking making life-and-death decisions. The world might have awakened on Christmas morning, not to jingle bells, but to the roar of nuclear warfare. When I became aware of the de- veloping confrontation, I was deter- mined to inform the American people. The only way this. could be accom- plished was to rip the secrecy labels off the details. For the dangerous drift to- ward Armageddon, during the second week of December 1971, was classi- ? fied top secret. ? Two third-class powers, India and Pakistan, were fighting over the fate of East Pakistan. Just offstage, the world's, three great powers?China, Russia and the United States ? began making by Jack Anderson A tireless muckraker, Jack Anderson is responsible for important exposes. On Dec. 7-30 years to the day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor?a message was received in the situation room in the basement of the White House. It was stamped "Top Secret Um- bra." Umbra means the darkest part of a shadow. In U.S. intelligence circles, it is the syrribol for the darkest of secrets. This cable warned that three Soviet ships?a destroyer armed with missiles, a seagoing minesweeper and a tanker? had passed eastward through the Strait of Malacca to join other Soviet warships in the Bay of Bengal.- China rumblings Intelligence reports brought into the White House other evidence that the Soviets were supporting the Indian thrust into East Pakistan. There were simultaneous rumblings out of China that the Chinese might intervene on the side of Pakistan, It was a situation that the U.S. was better equipped to observe than to alter. On Dec. 8, Henry Kissinger, the Presi- dent's foreign policy czar, told a strat- Soviet Union, turning half of Pakistan into an impotent state and the other half into a vassal." He warned the as- sembled policymakers that they must consider the long-range consequences. They began planning at once to coun- teract the Soviet ploy. On Dec. 10, a de- cision was made to send an American flotilla, led by the carrier Enterprise, into the Bay of Bengal. The ships, called Task Force 74, were to make "a show of force." It was suggested the flotilla would divert Indian ships and planes from the war with Pakistan and, there- by, relieve the pressare on President Yahya Khan's beleaguered forces. al Forces 'erted The risks were apparent. On Dec. 10, the commander or the Seventh Fleet flashed the secret word that the "prim- ary air threat would be from IAF (Indian Air Forces) aircraft . ." The next day, Washington }iyarned Task Force 74 that it "must be alert to the possibility of provocative and irrational acts by hos- tile forces." . Adm. John McCain, the Pacific com- mander, asked for and received per- mission to maintain aerial surveillance of the Russian squadron. Not long afterward, a new Soviet squadron, including two guided-missile destroyers and a pair of submarines, set sail from Vladivostok for the troubled waters. The scene was set for another Gulf of Tonkin incident. In the secret docu- ments, the parallels are frequent and frightening. Meanwhile, other moves were taking .place on the ground. The White House situation room learned the Chinese were gathering weather reports along the China-India border, an unusual move indicative of military interest. . The Chinese were a worry to the Rus- sians. In remote Kathmandu, Nepal, in the Himalayas, the Soviet military at- tach?arned the Chinese attache that Chinese intervention _ to aid Pakistan would be met with massive Russian ,moves in a far morAilt&Sala MieRelea.megYs? wmectiwng grimly: "We may be wit- orce. altt0i31kCilA-BaRA0b91t601RI pone. 40316 : ccor. 04.'4. intelligence re- ins to a reliable clan- AA,141-41.11Nall 11..44.7( I.. 1 c' 'FEB 1972 Approved For Release 2006/01/03: CIA-RDP80-01601R000 _ ? }W RULES URGED ON SECRET PAPERS: Se9uri:ty Agency Proposes a Presidential Order on Law WOW to The New York Tlmes ? WASHINGTON, Feb. 10?The National Security Council has proposed an Executive order tightening regulations govern- ing.the handling of classified information and suggested the possibility that the President might seek legislation to make It a crime for unauthorized per- sons to receive secret docu- ments, a White House officiial said Thursday night. ? The legislative suggestion, if accepted, would result in a pro- posal by the President of a tough new law similar to the British Official Secrets Act, Which 1.. imposes stiff penalties on those who receive as well as on those who disclose classi- fied information. This was one of three alter- natives suggested for the Presi- dent in a draft proposal now being circulated among the De- partments of State, Defense and Justice, the Central Intelligence Agency, and other governmen- tal bodies, the White House of- ficial said. Of the two others, the draft suggested that the President might -seek revision of a sec- tion of the Federal Esr4onage Act to make it a crime to give classified information to any . unauthorized person. The law now provides penalties for dis- closure to "a foreign agent." , e 41 ? Other Passibility The other possibility suggest- ed was merely that present laws be left unchanged. These were the only legis- lative suggestions in the draft proposals, which were offered in response to the President's demand for a study of the handling of classifed material, made shortly after the publica- tion of the Pentagon Papers, the Defense Department's se- cret study of the United States drift into the Vietnam War. The other suggestions in the draft proposal applied primarily to the classification of Govern- ment documents, setting up regulations over how materials should be classified, the length of time certain documents could remain classified, and who would be allowed to re- ceive them. These, the draft proposal said, could be effected in a re- vision of the Executive order that now controls the handling of classified information. The draft was being circulat- ed to the various agencies for their comments. .sdiers"--4 400030001-7 Approved For Release 2006/01/03.: CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 STAT . . ? By Sanford J. Ungar I ? ', Washington Poet Staff Writer WWII. 2' Ftii 1972 Approved For Release 2D0 1/03 : ClA-RDP8Ofl1lQ01R000400 30001-7 elitagoia Fights. eerets Flati . a?. 1..4 ? " The Defense Department is opposing a National Security 'Council recommendation that all classified government in- formation be made public after being kept secret for a maximum of 30 years. Criticizing an NSC draft re- -vision of government security regulations, the Pentagon has appealed for a "savings clause" that would permit agency heads to designate ma- terial affecting foreign rela- tions which tiles believe must remain secret indefinitely in the interest of "national se-; ,eurity." But the Defense Depart- ment, also questions some sec- tions of the NSC draft as un- ;.duly restrictive and has sug- gested changes that might ? have the effect of reducing the number of classified docu- ments in government archives. The. Pentagon suggestions are contained in a memoran- dum to the National Security Council from J. Fred Buz- hardt, general counsel of the Defense Department. The Washington Post has obtained a copy of that memo- randum, one of several that will be considered by the Na- tional Security Council before submitting the draft for presi- dential approval. Meanwhile; members of Congress and other experts on security classification attacked the NSC draft for cutting back on public access to govern- ment information rather than ekpanding it. Rep. John E. Moss (D-Calif.), the author of the Freedom of Information Act, said that "no more stringent regulations are needed. They are the antithe- sis of a free society." ? Commenting on details of the NSC draft as revealed in The Washington Post yester- day, Moss was especially criti- cal of the suggestion .that the President seek legislation, similar to the British Official Secrets Act, which would sev- erely punish anyone who re- ceives classified information as well as those who disclose I it. . ? ? Such legislation. Moss said, "would be in outrageous im- position upon the American I people. 1 will tight it, and I I would hope that every enlight- ened American. willAiiiviiio4e" Rep. William S Moorhead (D-Pa.), -w-tose House Subcom- ? mittee on Foreign Operations: and ilovernmeat Information will Open new hearings next month, complained yesterday that the N,-,C draft was "aim :id only t_ closing infor- I matioa leaks -in the executive; branch rither than (making) I more informati.?n available to the public and to Congress.!' said he had re-1 ? quested a copy of the NSC , draft tram the White House. ? ' Earlli !ti??_1n the day, the Of- fice of Legal Counsel at the , Justice Department declined to provide a copy to the staff of the -Moorhead subcommit- tee, saying that it was only a working draft. The Jan. 11 letter of trans- - mittal which accompanied the NSC proposal when it was sent to the Departments of State, Defense and Justice, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Atomic Energy Com- mission, however, called it "the final draft" The Defense Department recommendations concerning the draft, sent to the NSC on Jan. 21, were the product of a review by the three military departments and "a working group composed of classifica- tion specialists, intelligence experts and lawyers," accord- ing to Buzhardt's memoran- dum. Buzhart observed in the Irmo that the Pentagon 'eund so many problems with the draft that it should "be arbstantially reworked before I mhmission to the President." AmJi-t; odic,: matters, the, Defense Department urged an I updating of the definitions of I the th-ee security classifica-i tions an. follows: ?i ? "The test for assigning ;Top Secret' ? classification i shall be whether its unauthor- ized disclosure .,ould reasona- bly be expected to cause ex-: ceptionally grave damage to the nation or :is citizens." As examples of :inch dam- age, it cLed a range of situa- tions from "armed hostilities against the . United States -or its allies" to the compromise of cryptologic and communica- tions intelligence systems" ? "Secret" is to be usea to preveitt "set toils damage" , 'polIcY?significantiy. related - to the natonai security" or "jeopardy to the liseS of pris- oners-?f -war." ? .. ? "Contidential" refers to national security information or material, the unauthorized disclosure of which could 'rea- sonably cause damage to the national security." No exam- ples Were listed in this cate- gory. . The 'Pentagon also said that "it is imperative that these re- strictions be imposed only where there is an established need." . The I.),?fense Department ob- jected. however, to the NSC-'s I proposed requirement - that I every classified document be marked to indicate who had deciared it secret. Buzhardt's memo called this condition "both um ealistic .and unwork- able.", 7sIts strongest objection ap- peared to involve the NSC uggesticn for a 30-year rule guaranteeing that all secret I documents are released even- tually. Ily.s a v i n gs clause to provide for executions to be exercised wily by the agency head con- cerned is essential to prevent damage to national security," : the Pentagon recommenda- tions said ? . "There are certain contin- gency plans dating from the. 1920s which should be exempt from the 30-year rule," the Pentagon .critique added "Re- lease of such documents would be unacceptable from a foreign relations standpoint for an indefinite period." Williani G. Florence, a re- - tired security expert for the : ?Air Forte. complained yester- day that the NSC draft, as re- ported in The Washington Pest, will continue to permit hundreds of thousands of peo- ple to continue putting unwar- ranted security classifications on information." Florence referred to the practice as ' "illegal censor- .ship." ? . , . dalittWA1 CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 VISIIINGTON POST Approved For Release 16616440191A-RDP80-0160 ST AT The Washington Merry-Go-Round Protesters Leak Their ? By Jack Anderson The planners in the White ;House basement, who howled in pain over our disclosure of their India-Pakistan secrets, have slipped fragments from the same secret documents to their friends in the press. This illustrates how the White House uses official se- crecy to control the flow of news to the public. Favorable facts are leaked out: unfavora- ble news is suppressed. ? The official lcakers are now spreading the word that Presi- dent Nixon's pro-Pakistan pol- icy was not the disaster it ap- peared but really saved West Pakistan from dismember- ment. ' ? As evidence, the boys in the basement leaked a few selec- tive secrets to our column- I writing colleague; Joseph Alsop, who has excellent con- tacts at the highest levels of government. Alsop stated "on positive au- thority" that the U.S. govern- ment had "conclusive proof" of India's intention to crush ? the main body of the Pakistan army in. West Pakistan. This positive proof, he wrote, was 'the centerpiece of every one of the. CIA's daily reports to the White House during the crisis period." We have read the CIA's daily reports to the White House during the India-Paki- stan war. They are stamped "Top Secret Umbra," a desig- ? nation reserved 'for the dar- kest of the CIA's secrets. Alsop's 'Proof' Alsop told us he never read the CIA reports himself. He had no way of knowing, there- fore, that his sources gave him only part of the story, These CIA digests, true enough, raised the possiblitY of an Indian attempt to crush West Pakistan. But the same disgests also suggested India would accept an early cease- fire. Here is a typical excerpt: "There have been reports that (Indian Prime Minister) Gan- dhi would accept a cease-fire and international mediation as. soon as East Bengal had been liberated ... On the other hand, we have had several re- cent reports that India now in- tends not only to liberate East Bengal but also to straighten its borders in Kashmir and to destroy West Pakistan's air and armored forces." The strongest CIA warning was sent to the White House on December 10. "According to a source who has access to information on activities in Prime , Minister Gandhi's of- fice," declared the report, "as soon as the situation in East Pakistan is settled, Indian forces will launch a major of- fensive against West Paki- stan." But the CIA also took note of repeated Indian assurances to American Ambassador Ken 1R000400030001-7 tat Secrets Keating that India has no ter- ritorial ambitions and wished only tO end the conflict with the least possible bloodshed. Dubious 'Proof' It is clear from the secret documents in our possession that the CIA had no "conclu- sive proof" of an Indian plan to dismember West Pakistan. The CIA. had received a num- ber of reports that a major In- dian offensive might be immi- nent on the western front But these were discounted by both the State and Defense Depart- ments. Only Henry Kissinger, the President's foreign policy czar, seemed eager to believe the worst. Alsop's sources also told him that President Nixon in- tervened with the Kremlin, threatening "an ugly show- down," to stop Mrs. Gandhi's army from carving up West Pakistan. In response, Alsop claims that the Kremlin hurriedly dispatched Deputy Foreign Minister Vasily Kuznestsov to New Delhi on December 12 to tell Mrs. Gandhi not to attack West Pakistan. The secret CIA report on his mission, however, doesn't mention any ultimatum against attacking West Paki- stan. "Vasily Kuznestsov arrived in India on 12 December to discuss the political recogni- tion of Bangladesh by the So- viet Union ...," according to the CIA. "Kuznestsov has told Indian officials that the Soviet Union is not prepared to rec- ognize Bangladesh until Dacca falls and until the Indian army successfully liberates Bangladesh from Pakistani forces." . The question of an Indian offensive against West Paid- stan was brought up the next day by Soviet Ambassador Ni- kolai .-Pegov. Reported the I CIA: "Pegov pointed out that iIndia has achieved a marvel- ous military victory. Pakistan is no longer a military force, and it is therefore unneces- sary for India to launch an of- fensive into West Pakistan to crush a military machine that no longer exists. "If India should decide to take Kashmir, Pegov added; the Soviet Union would not-in- terfere, but India would have to accomplish this Objective witlalin the shortest possible time." Joseph Alsop is an enter- prising and conscientious col- umriist. He acknowledged to us that "it is possible to be lied to on the very higheSt level." But he assured es his source had "never lied be- fore." The evidence in our posses- sion, however, suggests that the White House is playing peekaboo with CIA secrets to distort the truth. , Bell-McClure Syndicet? 04. Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 THE INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE (Paris) 12 Jan 1972 Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R STAT 0400030001-7 Thy Name, Oh Liberty! ? 111IPPARIS.?A few years agu Mau- rice Couve ? de Murville, the, -eminent French statesman who has served his country both as 'foreign minister and premier, complained to me that it Was im- possible to talk confidentially ? with American leaders. The rea- son, he said, was that they im- mediately made memoranda of such conversations and distribut- ed them in Washington and al- lied capitals. Often these sub- sequently leaked to. the press. Rather sadly he commented that the substance of ? every ..k.._ almost invariably was spreac.:'?::- yowl its designated aliclienee. .?, Be- cently Couve dc Murville had had 'a very confidential discussion ' with an: important American and yet, two days later, it was publish- ed in the newspapers. If the French government specifically requested that special care be taken to safeguard 'secrecy, re- ports were: merely: labelled "top secret" instead of 'secret" when they were circulated?and often Leaked, 2 By C. L. Sulzberger This made it extremely hard for France to deal with the United States.. At that time. there Were certain pressing and sensitive issues which Faris felt required urgent review with Washington. Yet it was frustrat- ed because even in informal con- versations a man like the Amer- lcdn secretary of state would dic- tate memoranda?and then these memoranda, or their substance, would be classified and sent around. Mesmerized This aspect of the question now obsessing the United States? when does the government have a right to keep its attitudes secret??is infrequently consider- ed. .Many are mesmerized by the thought that the public has a right to know .everything, . It doesn't?and' if seriously consulted on that, very issue, would probably confirm as much. ? Americans choose their govern- ment. by free election and then freely accept its temporary rule. But they cannot expect to moni- tor every decision before, during and after it has been made, espe- cially decisibns affecting national security. or the interests of for- eign nations. In the latter case, those foreign .nations will simply freeze up and cease to deal with US if all their secrets are aired. .1 have no 'doubt that stififng bureaucratic habits of the Amer- ican administrative machinery continually err by over-classifying masses of information that prop- erly belong in the public domain. This tendency?which is ob- servable in all governments everywhere?should be rigorously curbed. But that does not mean the people should be in a position to debate military movements-of each naval vessel or army divi? sion, the. daily give and Lake of disarmament discussions with Russia, tentative suggestions for truce arrangements in the Middle East or all tentative travel plans of President Nixon. The exercise of such a privilege would produce administrative chaos equivalent to anarchy, would strengthen our adversaries abroad and cost us our last, foreign friends.. '? "Oh liberty! Liberty! What crimes are committed in thy. name," wrote an outraged Lamar- tine and this is most certainly a ? . danger that can be extended to liberty of the press. Raymond Aron, the brilliant French pro- fessor and, commentator, is much disturbed. He writes: ? "As far as I am Concerned, it strikes me as contrary to the duties of the citizen of a demo- cratic country, in a normal pe- riod, to establn himself as a judge of what should or should not be published... "The path upon which men in political life, functionaries and journalists are engaged in the United States seems dangerous to me... will journalists try to install microphones in the desk of the Pfesident in the name of the public's right, to be in- formed?" An excess of freedom in any ' form' of life produces license or abuse, whether applied to eating, drinking, sex, driving automobiles or making noise. Such excesses are well recognized and generally democratic societies have built- in restraints against them, ulti- .mately applied by servants of the community paid to enforce laws suited to the general convenience. It seems to me that an excess of freedom can also infect the press. The proof of this. of ' course, is that no American jour- nal' lvtaild knowingly publish blueprints of vital secret weapons or State Department codes. But it is evident that dangerous fron- tiers are being. trespassed when highly classified information is made public and .thereby U.S. relations with foreign countries are jeopardized. This threatens confidence in the United States of those large areas abroad which depend upon our stability and discretion for their own security. ? ;Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 XORK TAIAE3 Approved For Release 20196/4M4q1A-RDP80-016014000 Avoiding Cosia)...:i . liy.C. L. SULZBERGER Therefore, it says: "For the sake of the free world we must strike now. PARIS?The following has been sera to me through the good offices of Baron C. L. Munchausen, a secret agent whom I have found to be totally Unreliable over the years. This is being written as a public service. Because of the shortsighted- ness of the Founding Fathers, who imposed on the U.S.A. a Presidential system of government that -does not allow give-and-take debate between a prime minister and parliament (as in England), the press must assume that role. In this capacity, as a newspaperman, I have been made privy to highly classified documents from SHAPE headquarters, Belgium, the seat of the North Atlantic Alliance and Gen. Andrew Goodpaster, NATO commander and top United States officer in Europe. These documents are labeled "TOP SECRET, NATO COSMIC." They confirm a clear U.S. intention, endorsed by all North Atlantic allies save 1,rance, to stage a?surprise aggres- sion against the Soviet Union on April 9 1972, the Russian Easter and, even under the Communist system, a day of feasting when the guard is down. Pentagon experts estimate the action may cost the lives of at least ten million people between Leningrad, Murmansk and Archangelsk. ? This operation, only just approved, Stirred violent debate at the top alli- ance echelon. Gen. Burnt Njal, chief ? Of the Icelandic military mission, was so indignant that he sent a personal envoy to me bearing Xeroxed copies of the principal documents. In an accompanying letter he spe- cifically authorized me to use his name as the source. He added: "Unless the American press can halt this mad- *cap project immediately it threatens to touch off World War HI' and un- controlled holocaust. Fortunately you are not inhibited by any official secrets act prohibiting publication of classi- fied documents." The diabolical OPERATION LEM- MING agreed on by the NATO defens.2, ministers denies any aggressive action against the U.S.S.R. while simultane- ously threatening all-out retaliatory nuclear strikes should the Russians take "protective" action. . (According to one document classi- fied NODIS EYES ONLY SACEUR) our force estimates indicate that within eighteen mo'nths the Soviets will have surpassed our own planned defense levels when their new MIRV systems and submarine program near corn? pletion. Approved Fdr R Our optimum calculation is that this will insure such a heavy setback to Soviet planning that for two decades there will be no. further threat. We FOREIGN AFFAIRS STA 00030001-7 General Njal, In a personal letter, says: "It is your duty as an American journalist to report these facts before it is too late. This is the only recourse left to me. My own Government has? ignored my warnings. It prefers to concentrate attention on the extension of territorial fishing limits. "Although I have the highest regard for the people of your country it is may then turn our attention toward plainly evident to me that this scheme China. At the very least, by destroy-'is directly related to President Nixon's mg the population of Leningrad and campaign for re-election." the two principal White Sea ports, we will insure control of the Baltic and the North Atlantic." "Operation Lemming" stems from two plans dating back to early cold war days. A certain U.S. Brigadier General Michela first contemplated something of this order after reading a report from Maj. Gen. Patrick Hur- ley, then in Chungking. The Hurley study said Genghiz Khan, when investing the impregnable Chi- nese fortress of Volohai,? raised his siege in return for, delivery by the Volohai commander of one thousand cats and ten thousand swallows. Gen-. ghiz then had woolen tufts tied to their tails, lit these and released the crea- tures. They returned to their lairs and nests and burned the city down. Hurley proposed similar tactics be used against Chinese Communist strongholds. This was refused but Michela, assigned to a special Wash- ington study group, suggested a simi- lar operation against Soviet Russia by infecting with deadly and communi- cable germs herds of reindeer. The reindeer would be driven from northern Norway into Soviet Karelia. Selected Lapp agents had been en- rolled by the C.I.A., but the project was abandoned because of fears that symbolic linking of reindeer and Santa Claus would prove too much for U.S. public opinion?should there ever be subsequent leaks. The present plan envisions use of lemmings, sthall migratory rodents whose traditional westward trips often end in mass suicide by drowning in boreal waters. According to Njal, however, American scientists have dis- covered a method of reorienting the lemmings' sense of direction so their leaders can be turned eastward and will pour into Russia. Camouflaged biological stations have been established at Norwegian loca- tions. There, lemmings are being sprayed with solutions containing deadly botulism germs prepared to have no effect on rodents but unbe- lievably infectious and deadly for higigb 2006/01/03 : CIALRDP80-01601R000400030001-7 WASHINGTON POST, Approved For ReleasebttiOgia : CIA-RDP80-01601R0004000 _ Joseph Kraft.' The Ancleis'on apers JACK ANDERSON achiev? 3 that "he (the President) suspicion that the depart- ed a journalistic coup in pub. wants to tilt in favor of Paki. ments and agencies are full stan." of crypto-Democrats out to get se- cret White House meetings on lishing the minutes of the se- gOn. Dec. 7, in a background the tn gadtmo iVestirnattleonnsi?fids. oAnr1i3ci se_sion with reporters subse- the India-Pakistan crisis. But quently released by Sen. Bar- that deep suspicion is going how much of a hero is the ry Goldwater, Dr. Kissinger to yield two sets of adverse man 'Who leaked the informa- said: "There have been some reactions. ? For one thing, security will' , tIon? comments that the adminis- be tightened. There is apt to t-My strong impression is tration is anti-Indian. This Is be an end to the kind of min- that he accomplished very lit- totally inaccurate." utes that were taken at Dr. tte public good, if any. On the Seen thus starkly, Dr. Kls? Kissinger's meetings. They contrary, his actions are al- singer told a flat lie. My im- will certainly not be spread most certain to drive the Nix- pression is that, taken in the tnthri; the bureaucracy any- .an administration deeper than larger context, his remarks Secop.dly, the limited access ever into secret dealings on a at the secret conference were which experienced officials restricted basis, not in such flagrant contra- now have to White House de- On the good side of the diction with his remarks at cision-making is going to be edger, the leak has now pro- the background briefing. Still, even further curbed. The vided unmistakable informa-, he was plainly trying to. ma- President and Dr. Kissinger tion that the President delib- nipulate public opinion. are. going to keep things to Icy in favor of Pakistan and . ? erately tilted American poi- BUT SO WHAT? Does the themselves more than ever., new evidence do more than Important decisions which are against India. But that much was known to everybody in confirm a universal Judg- even now made with too little touch with the State Depart- ment? After the U-2 and the /consultation. ? and with too ment and White House at the Bay of Pigs and the credibil- small an input from the out- time of the crisis. ity gap, is there anybody not side are going to be made by' Sens. Edmund Muskie, Ed- impossibly naive or 111-inform- an ?even more narrowly dr- ward Kennedy and Frank . ed who doesn't know that the cumscribed group of men. Church, among others, said government lies? Is one more No doubt Anderson gets bit of evidence a noble act? high marks for his acumen so. Hundreds of us wrote it. and industry and courage as Indeed, one reason Henry Kis- Or is it just a pebble added a journalist'. But his source, to the Alps? the man who leaked the stuff,Singe held hi background a briefing of Dec. 7 was to take Set against these gains, is something else. Whatever h' .there is the way the admlnis- is motives, he has done this the edge off the charges the White House was biased in tration is .apt to react. Maybe country _a disservice. ? favor of Pakistan. the President and Dr. Kissin- A second and more impor- ger are going to say to them- taut gain from the revelation selves: "Golly, we sure erred in not telling the truth and has to do with information nothing but the truth. Jack about -the way the govern- Anderson has taught us that ment works. The secret min- utes provide detailed, irrefu- honesty is the best policy." table evidence that clay-to-day But much more likely, they foreign policy is made in the are going to feel that the min- White House as never before. utes of- the meeting were le- They equally show that top gitimately classified internal . officials allowed themselves working papers of the govern- y to be treated as mere lackeys ment. Probabl they are going by the White House. Some of to feel that the stuff was leak- them?including such sup- ed not for any large purpose, posed heavyweights as the but out of opposition to the chief of naval operations? policy, And almost certainly? said, and apparently regularly and I say this as an opponent say, things silly enough to of the policy?they will be Issue from the mouth of right in this surmise, Bertie Wooster. In these circumstances, the ? Then there is the matter of limited trust they have in the outside world is going to be truth-telling. According to the minutes released 4 Ander- even more sharply. limited. meeting, of officials on Dec. have. of me hureaucracy.7?a Eon, Henry Kissinproyegi Rim Redellide *wove-fugal' CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 , ExTp,n A ruBLInER Approved For Release 2004014n :=-RDP80-01601R0004 Anderson scoop a challenge to secrecy system Played originally in its customary spot on the comics page in the Was hinton Post, Jack Anderson's Merry-Go-Round column based on secret/sensitive White House notes burst into front page head- lines in that newspaper on Wednesday (January 5). Anderson said he intended his revela- tion of India-Pakistan war policy memos to challenge the government's security classification system. He declined to iden- tify his sources but suggested they hold high places in the Nixon Administration. "To name the sources," the columnist said, "'would embarrass the Administra- tion and make a very funny story." Taking him up on his televised offer to make the documents available to members of the press and officials, a Washington Post representative inspected them and then obtained typewritten copies of photo- copies of the documents in Anderson's possession. Later, Anderson gave copies of his material to other newspapers, the AP and UPI. More than column gave Post reporter Sanford J. Ungar said the full texts provided substantially more details of discussions of the National Se- curity Council's Washington Special Ac- tion Group than Anderson had given in his column which was distributed by Bell- McClure syndicate to about 700 newspa- pers for publication Monday, January 3. The documents substantiated Ander- son's story that Dr. Henry Kissinger, the President's adviser on foreign policy, had directed administration spokesmen to sup- port the anti-India policy. Kissinger as- serted his remarks had been quoted "out of context." Initially, Anderson told the Post, his sources provided only a few documents, written on the stationery of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and of a Defense Depart- ment officer, G. Warren Nutter. Eventual- ly he said he talked them into compiling for him what he considered to be a com- plete set. Then he decided it would be a good opportunity to force a showdown on the system of classifying government in- formation. The FBI reportedly was trying to de- termine the source of the leak. Anderson said he also had copies of cables from U.S., ambassadors to India and Pakistan, as well as numberous other documents bearing on American policy, but he decided to protect them lest they be useful to cryptographers. _ Ellsberg arraigned The columnist's coup coincided with the arraignment of Dr. Daniel Ellsberg on a new set of charges related to his leaking of some of the Vietnam war policy papers to the press last summer. Federal Judge Matthew Byrne Jr. in Los Angeles set trial for March 7 for both Ellsberg and his co-defendant, Anthony J. Russo, but indicated it may have to be postponed. Ellsberg, who has admitted giving the documents to news media, declared in court, "I am not guilty for any of the offenses charged." He pleaded "not guilty" to each of 12 counts in an indict- ment, charging theft of official documents and conspiracy. His attorney, former U.S. Senator Charles Goodell, (R-N.Y.), told newsmen the indictment "charges Ellsberg and Russo with stealing the truth and telling it to Americans." Ellsberg said he "de- cided to give the Pentagon papers to the American people" more than two years ago when Goodell introduced a bill to end U.S. involvement in Vietnam by the end of 1970. 0030001-7 Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 CHICAGO, ILLf?PProved For Release 200.6/01/03: CIA-RDP80-01601R00 TRIBUNE 1 ? Si ? 767,793 a 041(6' 27972(--- ea rqT 7'7 dr6 C STAT 400030001-7 STAT zzpers Gra india? BY JOHN MACLEAN [Chicago Tribune Press Service] WASHINGTON Jan. 5?The resident tnat e are no e- rederal Bureau of Investiga- - "Kissinger: I am getting hell administration more than it every half hour from the .tion today investigated leaks of ing tough enough on India. lie secret memoranda of high-level., has just called me again. He White House consultations dur-1, does not believe we are carry- the/Jack Anderson, whose svndi- India-Pakistan War. ing out his wishes. He wants / 1, to tilt in favor of Pakistan. He cated column Washington feels everything we do comes ' Merry-Go-Round appears in out otherwise." "Dr. Kissinger said that who- -700 newspapers, released the e text of the secret papers. ver was putting out back- Anderson has been writing dolunms from the material 'and .has concluded "that Presiden- tial_ braintruster Henry Kiss- inger lied to reporters when he told th, the Nixon adminis- tration wasn't anti-India." . Why Papers Released Anderson released the papers 'because Kissinger, President Nixon's chief adviser on na- tional security affairs, said Anderson "took out of context" . remarks indicating the admin- istration was against India in its recent war with Pakistan. ground information relative to the current situation is pro- voking Presidential wrath. The . President is under the 'illu- sion' that he is giving instruc- tions; not that he is merely being kept appraised of affairs as they progress. Dr. Kissinger asked that this be kept in mind." "Dr. Kissinger said . .? 'it is quite obvious that the Presi- dent is not inclined to let the Paks be defeated.' " "Dr, Kissinger then asked whether we have the right to authorize Jordan or Saudi Ara- The FBI investigation re- bia to transfer military equip- portedly has narrowed down ment to Pakistan." [Anderson to the National Security Coun- said this morning on the tele- cit after checks in the Depart- vision program Today that he meats of State and Defense, has additional memos which Spokesman for the White show that fighter planes were House, State Department, and Pentagon used nearly identical phrases as they declined to answer all questions on the A cutoff of military aid to Subject. The response of Charles Pakistan was ordered early Bray, State Department spokes_ last year]. man, was typical when he told ? "Dr. Kissinger also directed reporters: "I won't discuss the that henceforth we show a cer- issue." Asked why he wouldn't tam n coolness to the Indians. he said, "because I won't." The documents are minutes Of. three meetings of a special action group of high level of- ficials of the National Security Council. I Some of Highlights Excerpted from t1413KRY here are some of the high- lights: among the things being con- sidered in a scheme to "sneak" aid to the Pakistanis. The Indian ambassador is not to be treated at too high a level." From High Sources Anderson indicated the docu- ments came from high sources within the Nixon administra- earFor Release 2006/01/03 "If the. sources were identi- fied, it would embarrass ?the would me," he said. "It would I make a very funny story." i Anderson said his sources for the story consider United States handling of the Indian-Pakistan affairs a "colossal blunder." Anderson released the docu- ments to newsmen with the urging that they compare them with Kissinger's remarks dur- ing a briefing of newsmen on Dec. 7. ' Kissinger held a lengthy and unusual .briefing on that day detailing what he said were the Nixon administration's actions regarding the India-Pakistan conflict. He disclosed that India had attacked Pakistan even tho the United States has informed India that Pakistan was willing to make concessions. - 'India a Great Country' ? "There have been some com- ments that the administration is anti-Indian," Kissinger said. "This is totally inaccurate. "India is a great country ... when we have differed with ? India, as we have in recent weeks, we do so with great sadness." . The memoranda released by Anderson deal with meetings held before this briefing, the last one on the day before the briefing, ?Dec. 6. 1 The sessions were attended by heads of the Joint Chiefs of ? Staff, Centr Agency, and representatives of the Defense and State Depart- ments. ? ? Kissinger was chairman -of the meetings, which typically involved an appraisal of the situation in the India-Pakistan conflict followed by discussion of hi S,..x.gikey and possible ac- i? -rWra0-01601R0004 All the Anderson documents" / were marked "secret/sensi- tive," but it is doubted the federal government will take any action to stop publication. . The Supreme Court's decision last June in the Pentagon Pa- pers dispute ruled in favor of newspapers publishing the se- cret Pentagon study. The high court cited a 1963 decision that "any system of prior restraint of expression comes to this court bearing a heavy pre- sumption against its constitu- tional validity." The Supreme Court said then that government had failed to Meet- the "heavy ?burden" needed to justify such.a move. A typical .exchange 'involved Kissinger and Maurice Wil- liams, of the State Department staff., During the Dec. 6 meeting, Kissinger asked if there al- ready had been a massacre of Bihari people living in -East Pakistan. Williams said he ex- pected there would be killing of these people in reprisal for their support of West Pakistan. "Mr. Williams states that perhaps an international hu- manitarian effort could be launched on their behalf. Dr. - Kissinger asked whether we should be calling attention to , the plight Of these people now. Ir. Williams said that most of these people were centered, around the rail centers . . . and that some efforts on their behalf might now well be : started thru the United Na- ? tions. "Dr. Kissinger suggested that this be done quickly to prevent a bloodbath. Mr. Sisco [Joseph Q9134C)(M)194 Far Eastern af- . J flflOtL?-IT:7711 Approved For Releas2aY/0119R3 : CIA-RDP80-01601 000400030001-7 , Washington; Jan. 5 (NEws Bureau) ?Disturbed Nixon administration officials: admitted today, after a two-week intensive manhunt, that they have failed to uncoveri the source of the most Sensationalleak of White House secrets in modern history. - ?. The secrets, revealing in now ' les of cables, ,orders, direct-Fes .' painful detail the inner debates Of the National Security Conn- and official recommendations. 1 cil's Washington Special Action The administration was caught Group at the peak of the ludo- flat-footed with no warning of Pakistan war, were wrapped up a leak on Dec. 14 when the first in three long_ memoranda for the? Anderson column appeared, quot- record. - ing notes about meetings held White House Silent barely a week earlier. The quotes ., Syndicated columnist Jack, were authenticated quickly and Anderson released texts of the ' the bunt for the source was he- memos to the press generally to- gun. 'day. He has been -quoting seg; One official said that to date,. rnents of them in occasional the case has been regarded as -columns for two weeks. an ' "administrative" affair and - The White House, which is di- not a cause for criminal action. reefing the search for the leak, There were 11 officials at the .refused comment on the case. But in private officials expressed first meeting and 19 at each of grave concern that sensitive the next two. Henry Kissinger, ?,col-crimicnt infi-Tmation distri- foreign affairs adviser to ' the buted enly on a "need to know" ba-?is could become public so President, presided at all three I SW if ay. meetings, and Central Intelli- There was no denial of the gence Agency Director ' Richard -authenticity of the documents. Helms was Present at all of them, Anderson, amused at the ad- but representatives from t Ii (. ministration's discomfort, said State Department and - the Pen- the papers came from high tagon varied. - . "sources, and added, "If the ; sources were identified, it would embarrass t h e administration i .more than it would me." . .. FBI Makes Check i----An official dose to the man- hunt denied that a "high source" Was involved with the leak but mould not amplify the statement. '? The FBI, asked to assist the !'search, has made. a cursory check but because of the, small number of top- level officials who were .present at the Special Action }Group meetings, has not launched an intensive investigation -z- vet.- ? The case is considered of vastly , greater importance than that of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon . ?papers, because it is undeniable -evidence that someone with a pipeline to innermost White - House consultations has other ;than the interests of Presidenti 'Nixon at heart. r?ROTITever; because of the nature, of the douuments, and despite their super - sensitivity, it was suggested by some officials that the individual concerned probably would not be prosecuted, but Merely- fired, if his identity be- came known. The memos were records of notes of the Special Action Group meetings on Dec. 3, 4 and 6, not official transcripts. While the papers were stamped "secret 'sensitive," they did not include, as did the Pentagon papers, cop-.. STAT Approved For Release 2006/01/03: CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 t Low-Key' U.S. Inquiry tbn Disclosures Foreseen NEW YORK TIMER Approved For ReleeteMOWC41/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R0004 0030001-7 nderson Ready for Battle " Government but Appears Unlikely to Get One ? es ' By JACK ROSENTHAL i"4 1 ' ? Special to The New York Times , oWASHINGTON, Jan. 5?The referring to Dr. Daniel Ellsi "When I first ? starting get- tides prior to releasing the full i - lumnist Jack Anderson said berg, the former Defense De 1 ting them," he said, "I felt very documents to other newspapers, 'Co ' partment official indicted for!istron?1h that these documents . . his-role in the Pentagon papers Ishoulcl not have been classified,/, d day that he was ready, if .necessary, for a battle with the .0overnment over his disclosure of _secret. India-Pakistan papers, but he appeared unlikely to gee it. . -The Justice Department con- Ceded that the matter was un- of- -White House strategy ses- Round, a Washington expose, der investigation but would say sions during the Indian-Pakis-I column with more than 700 military secrets involved, only no-more. And officials of three tani war, to 17 ncw potential embarrassment.spapers,j newspaper subscribers, since i agencies, speaking privately, the Asmiciated Press and United the death in 1969 of Drew "And if something is classi- ' ' left the impression that the Ad- Press International Pearson, its founder. Five other fled 'Secret' just because it At first, he declared, he was case. In fact, Mr. Anderson saidd 'secret,' but `censored.'. The "cautious, even timid." The h ? fl ' d 1 ? 'security stamp is being used 'fighting was still going on and . . . ,. is continuing. ;as promiscuously as a stapling -Today, his office distributed'ne." i copies of three of the docti-i; Mr. Anderson has presided ments. secret internal accounts over Washington Merry-Go- .he had determined that he ;would print no military secrets, he declared. It became evident to him, he E went on, that there were no ministration regarded the dis- The impression of apparent! reporters work for Mr. Ander- .clo'sures more as an embarrass- Government calm appeared to! son, but it was he himself who ment than as a damaging differ from the reaction mr.; obtained the documents in the could be embarrassing, then secrecy no longer means any- thing," he asserted. "I said to my staff, 'Let's publish all we . One official said that "meas- eneed. "I've had no overt, di-II 1 Through its 35-year history, , current controversy. security breach. Anderson said he had experi-ican get until the Government; ?itred, low-key analysis" might even be a more accurate de- told of recerect threats," he said, but lie:.the column has developed a adopts a sensible policy on classification." wing telephcmeireputation for pursuing tips and ... scr,iption" than the word "inves- calk from two officials, alsol rn : leads from Government e- tigation, in contrast to prior friends, saying that he risked: vitensive inquiries by the Jus- being indicted. . tice Department into security And there are more subtle, ployes, often anonymous. Mr. Anderson today offered the following guarded chronol- leaks. sophisticated pressures V011 ?gY of how he had obtained 7-4 is widely felt that these learn to sense," the columnist the current set of documents. hftve often been undertaken said "During "During the India-Pakistan more for deterrent effect than He said he understood that I war, one of my sources told me out-of real hope of discovering f}'dpral inveotierir,n ,,- 1 we were bungling. Here was a ?.reporters' sources. But this time. an official said: "There's no,banging of cymbals. Right now, we're assessing where we are " . disclosures was being coordi- conflict between a military dic- nated bv Robert C. Mardian. :tatorship and the world's sec- head. of t he .1 ustice Depart- !ond largest democracy, and iwhose side did we?the largest ment's Interol Security Divi- idemocracy?come out on? The ?? Reflecting the same relative "I,f fMr.n is going Mardian ? ? ? no to ,dictatorship." senior Pentagon sources investigate me, I guess gl should ? His sources became even -said the disclosures primarily investigate him," Mr. Anderson more troubled, he recounted, -affected diplomatic sensitivity declared. "1 expect I'll find out .when American warships were Tither than military security. more about him than he will ??sent into the Bay of Bengal. i , j..ower-Level Source Seen on_tne. I don't tnink the Gov-. They feared that' the Soviet =?.? Union might react. "It sounded tAnd some officials, noting ?-? ernment has ac much right til like another Gulf of Tonkin sit- l :that, as many as 25 persons in investigate reporters as they! like but much hairier," Mr. The?Pentagon alone had access do to investigate the Govern- i0..the documents, which dealt ment- with United States policy to- In any event, he added, he ward the Indian-Pakistani con_ is sure no investigation can Viet, expressed belief that Mr. uncover his sourees?"unlesS And,erson's source was not a the sources themselves are trusted senior official but pos- careless." He said no previous '4ibly a junior assistant. - investigation, including one i This was. at odds with Mr. last summer that reached the Anderson's view, expressed in grand jury stage, had succeed- an"- interview today. "my ed in doing so. The investiga- solutes?and they are plural_ tion last summer concerned an are .some of their own boys," article Mr. Anderson had writ- be7said. "And if they want to ten about plans for bombing finger them, they're going to in Vietnam. wind up' with bubble gum all The view within the Govern- over their faces."A.? ment that the disclosures were ,,,These sources are fit4ticttiledeFetrifielease 2Q061OrW ?bergs who left the Government .aging, squared with Mr. Ander- iwo?years ago," he continued, il son's own assessment. Anderson said. Documentation Requested He said he had persuaded his sources that if they wanted him to .write about their -fears he would have to have access to documents to authenticate his reports. "They gave me a dozen rep- resentative documents."' Mr. Anderson said. But he insisted that he could not rely only on selected papers. he explained. "In time, they let me see a whole massive file of docu- ments " he said. "Then I, not 8idyChAi-REQ81140601R00 400030001-7 Ultimately, he used secret passages in a- toal of seven ar- te.....?????????411 NU YORK TIUg Approved For Release62nO1ga : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 wa: Texf? of secret -Documents on ribp7Leve Special to The New York Times WASHINGTON, Jan. 5?Following are the tests of three secret documents made public today by the columnist Jack Anderson describ- ing meetings of the National Security Council's Washington Special :Action Group on the crisis between India and Pakistan: Memo on Dec. 3 Meeting ? Secret Sensitive ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE - WASHINGTON, D. C. 20301 r? Refer to: 1-29643/71 'International Security Affairs :Memorandum for Record . SUBJECT ? WSAG .meeting on India/Pakistan !participants. ? 'Assistant' to the President for national t security. affairs?Henry A. Kissinger 'Under Secretary. of State?John N. ; Irwin Deputy Secretary of Defense?David / Packard Director, Central Intelligence Agency? Richard M. Helms ,Deputy Administrator (A.I.D.)?Maurice J. Williams ( 'Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff? Adm. Thomas H. Moorer Assistant Secretary of State (N.E.E.A.R.) ?Joseph J. Sisco ? Assistant Secretary of Defense (I.S.A.) ? -??G. Warren Nutter Assistant Secretary of State (1.0.)? Samuel De Palma Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (I.S.A.)?Armistead I. Selden Jr. ,Assistant Administrator (A.I.D/N.E.S.A.) ?Donald G. MacDonald TIME AND PLACE . 3 .December 1971, 1100 hours, Situa- tion Room, White House. SUMMARY I Reviewed conflicting reports about major actions in the west wing. C.I.A. agreed to produce map showing areas ;of East Pakistan occupied by India. .The President orders hold on issuance of additional irrevocable letters of -credit involving $99-million, and a hold 'on further action implementing the $7- P.L. 480 credit. Convening of :Security Council meeting planned con- tingent on discussion with Pak Ambas- sador this afternoon plus further clari- fication of actual situation in West .Pakistan. Kissinger asked for clarifica- lt;on of secret special interpretation of iMarch, 1959, bilateral U. S. agreement with Pakistan. KISSINGER: I am getting hell every half-hour from the President that we HELMS: Concerning the reported ac tion in the west wing, there are con- flicting reports from both sides and the only common ground is the Pak attacks on the Amritsar, Pathankot and Srina- gar airports. The Paks say the Indians are attacking all along the border; but the Indian officials say this is a lie. In the cast wing the action is becoming larger and the Paks claim there are now seven separate fronts involved. KISSINGER: Are the Indians seizing territory? HELMS: Yes; small bits of territory, definitely. SISCO: It would help if you could provide a map with a shading of the areas occupied by India. What is hap- pening in the West?is a full-scale at- tack likely? MOORER: The present pattern is puz- zling in that the Paks have only struck at three small airfields which do not house significant numbers of Indian combat aircraft. HELMS: Mrs. Gandhi's speech at 1:30 may well announce recognition of Bangladesh. MOORER: The Pak attack is not credible. It has been made during late afternoon, which doesn't make sense. We do not seem to have sufficient facts on this yet. KISSINGER: Is it possible that the Indians attacked first and the Paks sim- ply did what they could before dark in response? MOORER: This is certainly possible. KISSINGER: The President wants no more irrevocable letters of credit issued under the $99-million credit. He wants the $72-million P.L. 480 credit also held. WILLIAMS: Word will soon get around when we 'do this. Does the President understand that? KISSINGER: That is his order, but I will check with the President again. If asked, we can say we.. are reviewing our whole economic program and that the granting of fresh aid is being sus- pended in view of conditions on the subcontinent. The next issue is the U.N. IRIVIN: The Secretary is calling in the Pak Ambassador this afternoon, and the Secretary leans toward making a U.S. move in the U.N. soon. KISSINGER: The President Is in favor .are not being tough enough on India, of this as soon as we have some con- 'He has just called me again. He does firmation of this large-scale new action. not believe we are carrying out his If the U.N. can't operate in this kind of 'wishes. He wants to tiliktegrENtrd oittRiNeatfec120053/01103tYMAGRDP Pakistan. He feels every g we do to an end and it is useless to think of comes out otherwise. - U.N. guarantees in the Middle East. SIS-CO: We will have a recommenda- tion for you this afternoon, after the meeting with the Ambassador. In order to give the Ambassador time to wire ome, we could tentatively plan to con- vene the Security Council tomorrow. KISSINGER: We have to take action. The President is blaming me, but you people are in the clear. SISCO: That's ideal! KISSINGER: The earlier draft for Bush is too even-handed. SISCO: To recapitulate, after we have seen the Pak Ambassador, the Secretary will report to you. We will update the draft speech for Bush. KISSINGER: We can say we favor political accommodation but the real job of the Security Council is to prevent military action. SISCO: We have never ha'd a reply either from Kosygin or Mrs. Gandhi. WILLIAMS: Are we to take economic steps with Pakistan also? KISSINGER: Wait until I talk with the President. He hasn't addressed this problem in connection with Pakistan yet. ? SISCO: If we act on the Indian side, we can say we are keeping the Pakistan situation 'under review." KISSINGER: It's hard to tilt toward Pakistan if we have to match every Indian step with a Pakistan step. If you wait until Monday, I can get a Presiden- tial decision. PACKARD: It should be easy for us to inform the banks involved to defer action inasmuch as we are so near the weekend. KISSINGER: We need a WSAG in the morning. We need to think about our treaty obligations. I remember a letter or memo interpreting our existing treaty with a special India tilt. When I visited Pakistan in January, 1962, I was briefed on a secret document or oral understanding about contingencies aris- ing in other than the SEATO context. Perhaps it was a Presidential letter. This was a special interpretation of the March, 1959, bilateral agreement. Prepared by: /S/ initials JAMES M. NOYES Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern, African and South Asian Af- fairs Approved: ? (illegible signature) For G. Warren Nutter Assistant Sec- retary of Denfense for International Security Affairs Distribution: Secdef, Depsecdef, CJCS, ASD(ISA), PDASD(ISA), DASD: NEASA r.581ACO, ? 1 4 ? 440 IP3NSCA: 74, 1AT SAT corltlzuod N.EW YORK TIMES Approved For Releafieale6W14103 : CIA-RDP80-01601 113. ENVOY IN INDIA DISPUTED POLICIES BACKING PAKISTAN Keating Said Explanation of Nixon's Stand Was Hurting .:.;.:Americans' Credibility ACTS ALSO QUESTIONED Ambassador's Cable Bared . by Columnist, Who Also Replies to Kissinger By BERNARD GWERTZMAN - specig to The New York Times . WASHINGTON, Jan. 5?Ken- neth B. Keating, United States Ambassador .to India, com- plained in a secret cablegram to The documentrprovide "ari unusual look into the thinking and actions of Mr. Nixon and his advisers on national se- curity affairs at the start of the crisis, which eventually led to the Indian capture of East Pakistan and the establishment of, a breakaway state there under the name Bangladesh. Because the White House Se- curity Action Group, known here as WSAG, did not have a source of contention between i that he was correct in predict- formal structure, the language Mr. Kissinger and Mr. Ander- ing that the Russians would of Mr. Kissinger and the other :son. In it Mr. Kissinger said that Push for permanent use of a participants was often looser,!1the -United States was not base at Visag, on India's east "anti-Indian" but was opposed coast. more piquant and franker thanj to India's recent actions. Mr. Often Mr. Helms simply read that in public statements byl Anderson, seizing on the denial, rival claims by Pakistan and Mr.-Kissinger and other Admin- sought to prove that the Ad- India, without making any istration spokesmen at the ministration was "anti-Indian," judgment on their accuracy? time. and therefore lying. ! indicating that the United On Dec. 3, the day that full- scale fighting broke out, Mr. Kissinger told the White House strategy session, according to one document: "I am getting hell every half- hour from the President that we are not being ;tough enough on India. He has just called me tion withtion with Foreign Min-hdians from extinguishing West again. He does not believe we India "was reluctant to see a ister Swaran Singh was that IpaAkifsttearn.t"h" e war was over Mr. are carrying out his wishes. He relief program started in East;iNixon said in an interview in STAT R000400030001-7 Pakistan. 'Ambassador 'Keating cated that intelligence informa- is also understood to have tion on the situation in South argued since March. when the Asia was quite thin, at least repression began, for a state in the early stages. . Mr. Helms and the Joint Chiefs of Staff?while agreeing that India would win in East Pakistan ? disagreed on the time it would take. Adm. Elmo R. Zumwalt. Jr., Chief of Naval Operations, came close by say, ing it would take one to two weeks but there is no sign yet ment against Pakistan. Mr. Keating's cable, dated Dec. 8, was in response to the United States Information Agency's account of a briefing given by Mr. Kissinger at the White House on Dec. 7, setting forth the Administration's justi- fication for its policy. That briefing also became a .Dispute Over Relief In his briefing Mr. Kissinger States had no independent in- formation. Fears for West Pakistan said, among other things, that' the United States had allocated! By Dec. 6, when it was clear $155-million to avert famine in I that the Indians would win in East Pakistan at India's "spa- East Pakistan, Mr. Sisco said cific request." , that "from a political point of Mr. Keating said that his;.view our efforts would have to recollection from a conversa-The directed at keeping the In- Washington during the Indian- _ ;Pakistan pribr to a political wants to tilt in favor of ----------------Pakistan ilTime magazine that theArneri- Pakistani war that the Nixon , settlement on grounds such an,1 can intelligence com munity stan. He feels everything Administration's justification for we do effort might serve to bail out" i had reason to believe that out otherwise."mes Its pro-Pakistanpolicy detracted coGen. Agha Mohammad Yahya,' there were forces in India from American credibility. and The group included John N. Khan, then President of Paki- a pushing for total victory but was inconsistent with his knowl- Irwin, under secretary of state Richard Helms, Director of state;/ tan. who was displaced after that under pressure from the he loss of East Pakistan. ; United States the Soviet Union edge of events. , The Ambassador noted that convinced India to order a and Adm al Intelligence,Centr ? The secret message to the' 'the briefing said that the IP,dian' cease-fire once East Pakistan 4, Thomas H. I'vloorer, -State Department was made Chairman; Ambassador in Washington, L.1 surrendered. ? of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. K. Jlia, was informed on Nov.; 'availible?TO.?The 'New York This version of events has The next day, Dec. 4, the,19 that the United Sttates and' been officially denied by New Times at its request by the syn- United States called for a meet. Pakistan were prepared to dis-i Delhi, which said it had no diCated columnist Jack Ander- ing of the United Nations Sc-cuss a precise schedule for po-1 plans to invade West Pakistan. son; who says he has receiVed curitY Council to discuss the,litical autonomy in East Paki-{ But in the period covered by from:Unidentified United States war and to press India for a stan but that India had sabo- the documents made public by Government informants"scores" withdrawal. Joseph J. Sisco, As- taged the efforts by starting the; Mr.- Anderson there seemed of 'highly , sistant Secretary of State for war, considerable confusion in th classified documents "The only message I have on e Near Eastern and South Asian Administration. At one point rethting *to the conflict last Affairs, told newsmen that the record of this conversation Mr. Kissinger said that Mr. month. ? United States believed that makes no reference to this crit- ;Nixon might want to honor ' Today Mr. Anderson?assert- India bore "the major respon- ical fact," Mr. Keating said. I any requests from Pakistan for -ing-that he was irked by a com- sibility" for the fighting. Mr. Kissinger said at the . . I American arms ? despite an ment from Henry A. Kissinger, President Nixon's adviser on national security disputing thein Washington since most dip-. we had no reason to believe session to look into the possi- hat military action was that accuracy of some of his recent!lomats and officials had ex-,t; bility of shipping arms quietly pecte iimminent and that we did not columns?released the Defense,. d a more neutral stance. De- have time to begin to work on ' to Pakistan But the State De- r 'partmen t said today that no ,pepartment's record -of three! Disagreed With 'Tilt'. la peaceful resolution." action was taken. lop-level White House strategy Critics of the Administrationl "With vast and voluminous jesSions held at the start of such as Senator Edward M. 'efforts of intelligence commu- Carrier Sent to Rejoin Kennedy, Democrat of Massa-Inity, reporting from both Delhi "It is quite obvious that the the two-week war. chusetts, - and Senator Erankiand Islamabad, and my own President is not inclined to let ? !Secret Sensitive' Reports Church, Democrat of Idaho, had:decisions in Washington, I do the Paks be defeated," Mr. ? The reports of the meetings been complaining about IvIr.;not understand statement that Kissinger said, apparently re- of Dec. 3, 4 and 6, were classi- Nixon's failure to criticize Paki.a'Washington was not given the ferring to the possibility of the stan for her bloody represseion'slightest inkling that any mili- loss of West Pakistan, fled' "secret sensitive." A low- of the East Pakistani autonomy ?tary operation was in any way key. investigation is underway movement and the arrest of its ? imminent,' " Mr. Keating re- to ascertain who leaked the leader, Sheik Mujibur Rhaman. sponded. He said that on Nov. documents to Mr. Anderson. He Mr. Anderson has indicated said today that he was ready, that, the documents in his pos - . . _ 19 he sent a cable "stating se. inn scgri leaked oboyeaoffi- specifically that war is quite The 'decision by the Adminis- .briefing, that when prime Min- I American embargo on arms to tration to attach blame to India ister . Indira. Ghandi was in India or Pakistan. Washington in early November, . came as something of a surprise It was decided at the Dec. 6 if necessary, for a ba0tXp epra s QE e gRaed2 atdoWntrAt, 894:gown Page, I ;7.] House strategy sessions indi- the' Government. [Details on'The reVE Administration's "tilt" toward Later on in the crisis the United States sent the nuclear- powered aircaft carrier Enter- prise into the Indian Ocean, ap- parently as a show of force to. deter any attack on West Pak- at. the [lined . coptinued ? -( WASHINGTON POST Approved For Release 2006/9M3, ..gIA-RDP80-01601R00 _ 6 Ji-wi 191 G Classification of Documents . _.. 13y Sanford J. Ungar , Washington Post Staff Writer , ; ep. F. Edward Hebert (D- La.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, yesterday announced "a major inquiry into the problem of proper classification and han- dling of government informa- tion involving the national se- euritY." - He said it was "a- coinci- dence" that the investigation would come on the heels of the"release by syndicated col- umnist Jack Anderson of se- cret government documents concerning American policy in the Indo-Pakistani war. i" , Nonetheless, the disclosure ? of the top-secret Pentagon papers on the history of Viet. nam war last summer, and memoranda describing meet- ings of the National Security Council's Washington Special Action Group. The sources stressed that the memoranda,-prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and for G. Warren Nutter, assist- ant secretary of defense for international security affairs, had been 'circulated only within the Pentagon. They said they were espe- cially surprised by the leak of the memoranda, because it would be relatively easy to trace their limited distribu- tion. Other government officials, however, pointed their fingers elsewhere. - One White House official said he suspected that the now Anderson's release of cur- State Department was the rentdocuments, appeared to source of the security breach.; _ ,have focused new concern "You know that place leaks throughout the government like a sieve," he said, especial- over the troubled security lY in instances that might classification system. make Henry A. Kissinger, Hebert assigned ? the new President Nixon's natiorral se- probe, which will begin curity adviser, look bad, shortly after Congress recon- At the Pentagon, on the yenes Jan. 18, to a subcommit- other hand, attention was di- tee headed by Rep. Lucien verted to the National Secur- Nedzi (D-Mich), a critic of the ity Council. . Pentagon and of administra. The Justice Department con- tion policy in Vietnam, tinued to decline comment on In 'a telephone interview the continuing FBI investiga- last night, Nedzi said that "it tion. is not my intent to investigate Anderson continues his bat- the leak" of documents to An- tie against government secrecy derson. ' today, switching from the 'J'What we what to go into Indo-Pakistani war to secret are the general problems of White House documents used by President Nixon in prep- classification and security, oration for meetings at San .how much is required and how Clemente with Japanese Prime It is handled and what kind of Minister Eisaku Sato. new legislation may be neces- In a column distributed to tory," Nedzi said. 700 newspapers, including The 4 He acknowledged, however, Washington Post, Anderson that the Anderson documents, discloses the contents of brief- three of which appeared in ing papers prepared for the full in The Washington Post President. . ? 7`yesterday, would "almost nee- Those papers, And e r son lessarily" come up during the says, indicate that Sato has been dismayed with American probe. policy in the Far East and is . Meanwhile, government in- considering an independent vestigators pressed their ef: Japanese aproach to China. iforts to locate the source of Anderson quotes a cable from Armin Meyer, U. S. Anderson's documents. ? Ambassador to Japan, which ? A report circulated yester- said that "whereas heretofore day among high-level adminis- anti-Americanism was pretty tration sources that theAmpamy1pdpia:i.%ag lierikvi tigation had alreadrilih- position iMrel'Wnt'SYM pointed pffices in the,Pentag-I tendentious press, develop-I on as the probable source of ments of past few months have fostered seeds of doubt within n rmally American-oriented ommunity." Meyer also told Washington that the Japanese have the "impression that Japan is eing asked to maintain cold- -ar confrontation posture while President's mission to Peking gives (the U.S. govern- ment) advantage of appearing to be more progressive and peace-minded." In San Clemente, one Japanese diplomat in the Sato party told Washington Post reporter Stanley Karnow that it was "alarming" to 400030001-7 I Boston o e a pu s e e texts of the memoranda in yesterday's editions after they received them from the Los Angeles Times-Washing- ton Post News Service. The widespread appearance of the documents in news- papers throughout the coun- try appeared to obviate the possibility of any action in court by the Justice Depart- ment, as in the case of the Pentagon papers. The New York Times said it would publish the docu- ments in today's editions. Responding to Anderson's , suggestion Tuesday that the 'secret documents and others learn the content of the secret in his -possession could be American papers. ? made available to Congress as "I must pay my compliments the basis for an investigation to the White House," he added, of American policy toward however. "They i understand India and Pakistan, a high. Japanese attitudes. very well." i:anking aide for the Senate The diplomat said he was Foreign Relations Committee especially concerned by refer- said "I think that's fine." enccs in today's Anderson Sen. J. W. Fulbright (D- column to growing interest! Ark.), chairman of the corn- in Japan in a revision of the mittee, was in the Caribbean American-Japanese security;on vacation and could not be treaty, reached for comment. Assistant White House press Fulbright staff aides direct-i secretary Gerald Warren con- ed attention, however, to a , tinued to refuse comment on' report issued by the Foreign; any of the disclosures in the' Relations Committee on Dec. Anderson columns, and Kis -I 16, which said, "The problem' singer, who is in San Clemante: for Congress in the foreign with the President, refused to affairs field . . . goes beyond discuss them. "'reducing unnecessary .classi- In response to a question" fication." about Kissinger's earlier corn- The report added, "It in- ment to reporters that Ander- volves finding a way for Con- son had taken comments about gress to make certain that it! India and Pakistan "out of con- receives the full information' text," Warren said, "I am sure necessary for exercising its Dr. Kissinger stands by what war and foreign policy pow." he said. . . . The President is ers, including information aware of the matter." which most people would Anderson said Tuesday that agree should be kept secret he was releasing the full texts I from potential enemies, of the three documents to re-, "It may also involve finding Lute Kissinger's claim. There was a run on Ander- 1 son's Washington office yes-1 terday for copies of the secret! documents which had ap- peared in The Washington Post. By day's end, a member of his? staff said, 18 news organi- zations had picked up copies of the three memoranda and another nine had asked that they be sent in the mail. 'R?OPliicago un- imes, . e a way for Congress to share, In determining what informa- tion is classified and thus kept secret from the Ameri- can people." That appeared to be the focus of the upcoming loves- Itigation by the House Armed' Services Subcommittee. Nedzi: said that it might not be' "appropriate" to look into Kis-; singer's activities, but said; the probe would focus on the amoAffelmaiion is harOle& within 'tile' Francisco Chronicle sari The, 0011t1=11.ed WAS13INGT011 STAR ? Approved For Release 2006/01/03 ...CIA-RDP80-01601 6 JAIJ 13/4 STAT R000400030001-7 a m Curb$-. Sn . Aistan Papers ' By LYLE DENNISTON Star Staff Writer ; The government apparently will take no legal steps to stop further disclosures in the newspapers Of secret docu-. ments describing White House' Meetings on foreign policy. An official investigation of the leak of classified papers to Washington columnist Jack Anderson is aimed primarily at stopping the leak, govern- ment sources said. It is possible, they added, that the person or persons who passed out the docu- ments could face criminal prosecution. There is no sign of an early move on a criminal case, but it has not been ruled out. However, neither Anderson nor any newspaper which pub- lished documents he had sup- plied to them is in-legal trou- ble now, and probably will not be later, it was indicated. Anderson has been publish- ing materials out of the minuteS of White House strategy sessions ? mainly dealing with the India-Pakistan war for more than a week. The passage of that much time without a government court challenge was interpreted as a strong sign that there will be no such challenge. Anderson published material today from other documents showing deterioration of U.S. relations with Japan. Official sources recalled that 'the Justice and Defense de- partments acted within a mat- ter of hours in June to try to .stop the New York Times from disclosing the contents of the -so-called Pentagon papers ? the- 47-volume study of the ori- gins of the Vietnam war. At that time, officials were asked to make quick assess- ments of the possible threat of disclosure to national security, and research was done swiftly on the legal remedies availa- ble if such a threat were deemed to exist. ' There is no indication that any such activity is no gq' on about Anderson's sures. Court Ruling Cited criminal case like the one it ' is pressing against Daniel Part of the reason for this, Ellsberg, who admitted leak- efficials indicated, was the dif- ing the Pentagon papers, and iic...ulty the Supreme Court has against ii;llsberg's close. posed for any atttempt by the friend, Anthony Russo Jr. government to stop news me- 0:a digclosures of classified documents. By a 6-3 decision cs June 30 permitting publica- tion of the Pentagon Papers, the court said: "Any system of prior re- straints of expression comes to this court bearing a heavy presumption against its consti- tutional validity . . . The gov- ernment thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification of the enforcement of such a restraint." Apparently, officials have made up their minds that the kinds of disclosures being made by Anderson do not raise enough of a threat to security to justify a court challenge. The main threat officials ap- parently see at this point, it was indicated, was to the se- crecy of White House meet- ings on sensitive issues of di- plomacy and military policy. Revisions in Works The discloSkire of the new set of secret papers came after the government had begun taking a series of steps to re- \ ise its document-classification procedures. . Existing law needs revision, Hebert said, to "strike a prop- er balance between the right of the public to know and the indispensable ability of our government to function effec- tively." But abuse of the clas- sification..system doesn't give bdividuals the right to ignore classifications, he said. It is clear, however, that the altered system of security v classification is far from fully developed at this point. For example, an interagency committee . which has been meeting since last January to plan a complete overhaul of classification methods is still at the job, but has recently lost its chairman ? Asst. Atty. Gen. William H. Rehnquist, who is about to become a Su- preme Court justice. He has not been replaced yet. . In addition, a long-dormant Pentagon board which gave guidance on classification has been "revitalized," and has started taking some action, First Objective but apparently has not issued Thus, the first object of the broad new directives. current investigation is to find Efforts to keep up the pros- out how the minutes of those sure on the government to sessions could get past the reduce the number of docu- controls the government main- ments that are classified are tains over classified docu- expected to resume in Con- ments. gross this year. If that leak is not shut off, A House Government Opera- one source suggested, it could tions subcommittee, which last force officials holding strategy year took seven days of mostly sessions to alter the way such critical testimony about the meetings are conducted and extent of classification, is the method of communicating planning to hold three or four their results to other officials' months of hearings starting in who neeed to know what was March on the over-all issue of discussed or decided. "freedom of information" in Viewed in that light, the in- the government. vestigation appeared to be pri- Rep. F. Edward Hebert, manly a security study, rath- D-La., chairman of the:House er than an attempt to lay the Armed Services Committee, basis for criminal action said yesterday that soon after against the source of the leak. Congress reconvenes a sub- However, officials said it committee of his panel will would be wrong to conclude open an inquiry into the clas- sification of government fivy 03c z ea I A-RD ROO -0160 IR.000400030001-7 to6. thot4e *ailment Ji 4 VITISEI,c;174.Cii DA!' 5 JAN 1972 Approved For Release 2006/01/03: CIA-RDP80-01601R Jock Anderson: A funny story 00400030001-7 , - - By TED KNAP Scripps Howard Staff Writer : .The Justice Department has directed the 'FBI to investigate who leaked highly embar- rassing classified documents detailing White "House policy meetings on the India-Pakistan var. to columnist Jack Anderson, administra- -tion.sources said today. A Justice Department spokesman ended sev- eral days of "no comment" by admitting for the first time that the matter was "under Investigation." ? Earlier reports were that a search for the source of the leak was being conducted only within each of the departments which had offi- 'cials at the secret meetings. Government sources said the probe now has moved to a 'higher level with the calling in of the FBI and 'also the Internal Security Division of the Jus- tice Department, which would handle any pro- secution. NO MUZZLE But the government has not tried to sup- press further publication of the Anderson col- umns, as it did after ,initial publication of the Pentagon papers last year. ' 'The Washington Post today said Mr. Ander- son gave it the full texts of three of the secret documents. The Post, which carries Mr. An- derson's column, said the three documents /Swere on the letterhead of the Joint Chiefs of taff and of Warren G. Nutter, assistant secre- tary of defense for international security af- fairs. The Post quoted Mr. Anderson as saying his . sources for the papers hold high positions in , the Nixon administration. ? "If the sources were identified," the Post quoted Mr. Anderson, "it would embarrass the administration more than it would me. It would make a very funny story." ? Mr. Anderson said the documents show that, contrary to the administration's professions of strict neutrality, Mr. Nixon sided strongly with the military dictatorship in West Pakistan against the world's largest democracy in In- dia. ? " !GETTING HELL' Dr. Henry Kissinger, Mr. Nixon's chief ad- viser on national security, was quoted as say- pig in a Dec. 3 strategy session, "I am getting Jack Anderson, left, and henry Kissin- ger. hell every half hour from the President that we are not being tough enough on India." Mr. Anderson said the documents disclose that Dr. Kissinger sought to get around the ban on U.S. arms shipments to Pakistan by having them sneaked in thru Jordan or Saudi Arabia "Dr. Kissinger asked whether we have the right to authorize Jordan or Saudi Arabia to transfer military equipment to Pakistan," 'Mr. Anderson quoted from the Dec. 6 minutes. "Mr. (Christopher) Van Hollen (State Depart- ment Asia expert) stated that the United States cannot permit a third country to trans- fer arms which we have provided them when we, ourselves, do not authorize the sale direct to the ultimate recipient." - 'OUT OF CONTEXT' - Dr. Kissinger said yesterday in San Cle- mente, Calif., that Mr. Anderson quoted "out of context" from the documents, but refused to elaborate. In response, Mr. Anderson told Scripps-Howard newspapers he would make the full memoranda available to the public. Mr. Anderson wrote that a cable from Ken- neth Keating, U.S. ambassador to India, warned that "any action other than rejection (of the plan to ship planes to Pakistan by way of Jordan) would pose enormous further diffi- culties in Indo-U.S. relations." The documents indicated the United States was considering sending eight F104s via Jor- dan to resupply the Pakistan air force, which had been crippled by initial Indian attacks. The war was over in two weeks, before any such shipment was made. Mr. Anderson said the documents indicate that a final decision had not been reached. Mr. Anderson said the President overrode the advice of State Department senior officials to appeal to the West Pakistan government to atop persecuting Bengalis in East Pakistan, and to remain neutral between West Pakistan and India. One of those participating in the secret meetings wrote this report, according to Mr. Anderson: ? Dr. Kissinger said that we are not trying to be even-handed; The President does not want to be even-handed. The President believes. that India is the attacker. . . . "Dr: Kissinger said that we cannot afford to ease India's state of mind. "The Lady' (Mrs. Indira Gandhi, India's prime minister) is cold-blooded and tough and will not turn into a Soviet satellite merely because of pique. We should not ease her mind. He invited anyone who objected to this approach to take his case to the President." STATE LEAK ? Speculation here is that the leak came from the State Department, which has .had its ego bruised lately by Dr. Kissinger's emergence as, the dominant foreign policy figure in the ad; ministration. Mr. Anderson refused to pinpoint his source. The minutes described meetings in early De- cember of the Special Action Group, com- prised of State, Defense, CIA, and WhiteA. House officials. The papers were variously classified, including "secret sensitive." Mr. Anderson said he has received two calls from "friends" in the government warning that he could be indicted. Government officials said that altho classifi- cations were violated, the substance of the re- ports indicates they would not be covered by laws against sabotage or espionage.? When several newspapers published excerpts of the secret Pentagon papers last year, Atty. Gen. John Mitchell asked the courts to sur- press further publication. His request was re- jected by the U.S. Supreme Court. Following an FBI investigation, the government is prose- cuting Daniel Ellsberg for having leaked the papers to the press. Approved For Release 2006/01/03 : CIA-RDP80-01601R000400030001-7 WASHING:1W 1_OS1 Approved For Release 2006ktigl: M-RDP80-01601R0 Xish?:' Bell. ..Fro Fotiounng IS a typescript of the secret documents Milted over to The Washing- ton Post yesterday by Syndi- cated columnist J.ack. Ander- son.. ? SECRET SENSITIVE -ASSISTANT SECRETARY . OF DEFENSE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301 " Refer to: 1-29643/71 DOWNGRADED AT 12 YEARS INTERVALS ? (Illegible) Not Automatically Declassified INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS . MEMORANDUM FOR - RECORD SUBJECT: WSAG Meeting on India/Pakistan Participants: Assistant to the President for Nation- al Security Affairs? henry A. Kissinger Under Secretary of State-- John N. Irwin Deputy Secretary of Defense ?David Packard Director, Central Intelli- gence Agency?Richard ? M. Helms Deputy Administrator (AID) . Maurice J. Williams II Chairman, Joint Chiefs of ?-. Staff?Admiral Thomas Moorer Assistant Secretary of State (NEA)?Joseph J. Sisco Assistant Secretary of De- fense (ISA)?G. Warren Nutter Assistant Secretary of State (I0)?Samuel DePalma Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense -(ISA)7--Armistead. I. Sel- - den" jr. Assi s t nt Administrator (AIDINESA)?Donald G. MacDonald Time and Place: 3 December -1971, 1100 hours, Situation Room. White House. SUMMARY: Reviewed conflicting re- MIAs about major action in V the West Wing. CIA agreed to ' produce map showing areas of East Pakistan oc- cupied by India. The Presi- dent orders hold on issuance of additional irrevocable $99 million, aria, a .h&PRIEOVLideFbtaReleatibis21106/01/Okadt144/144QAPJA000400030001-7 letters of credit involving Bush. Corit.thIled further actiOn'implementing the $72 PL 480 cred- it. Convening of .? Security Council meeting planned contingent on discussion with Pak Ambassador this afternoon plus further clari- fication of actual situation in West Pakistan. Kissinger asked for clarification of secret special interpretation of March 1359 bilateral U.S. agreement with Pakistan. KISSINGER: I am getting hell every half hour from the President that we are not being tough enough on India. He has just called me again. He does not be- lieve we are carrying out his wishes. He wants to tilt in favor of Pakistan. He feels everything we do comes out otherwise. HELNS: Concerning the reported action in the West Wing, there are conflicting reports from both sides and the only common ground is the Pak attacks on the 'Am- ritsar. Pathankat, and Srin- agar airports. The Paks say the Indians are attacking all along the border: but the Indian officials- says this is a lie. In the East Wing, the action" is becoming larger and the Paks claim there are now seven separate fronts involved. ? KISSING-ER: Are the In- dams seizing territory? HELMS: Yes; small bits territory, definitely. . SISCO: It would help if you could provide a map with a shading of the areas occupied by India. What is happening in the West?is a full-scale attack likely? MOORER: The present pattern is puzzling in that the Paks have only struck at three small airfields which do not house significant. numbers of. Indian combat . take action. inc President aircraft ? . is blaming me, but you HELMS:. Mrs. - Gandhi's j people are in the clear. speech at 1;30 may well an- SISCO: That's. ideal! nounce recognition of Ban- - KISSINGER: The .earlier gla Desh. draft statement for Bush. is MOORER: The Pak attack too evenhanded.. is not credible. It has been SISCO: To recapitulate,' made during late afternoon, after we have seen the Pak which doesn't make sense. Ambassador, the Secretary We do not Sea:nn to have suf- will W ' m Lie ]ria the Preside sy: ? KISSINGER: IS it possible KISSINtiER: We can say that the Indians attacked I've favor political accommo- first, and the Paks simply dation but the real job of did what they could before the Security Council is to dark in response? . prevent military action. MOONER: This is certain- AISCO: We have nevar ly possible. ? . KISSINGER: The Presi- had a reply either from Ico- Oent wants no more irrevo- sygin or Mrs. Gandhi. y::1)1e letters of credit issued WILLIAMS: Are we to ::,aler the $99 million credit. take economic steps with wants the $72 million Pakistan also? ? .44) credit also held. KISSINGER: Wait until I rf.,1 AMS: Word will talk. with the President. . soon et around when He hasn't addressed this i! we problem in connection with do !hi ?? Does the. President underst Ind that? Pakistan yet. KISSI.NGER: That is his SISCO: If we act on the order. but I will check with Indian side, we can say we the President again. If are keeping the Pakistan sit- ? as.ked, .we can say we are uation "under review." reviewing our whole eeo- KISSINGER: It's hard to nomie program and that the tilt toward Pakistan if we granting of fresh aid is being have to match every Indian suspended inview of condi- step with a Pakistan step. tions on the Subcontinent. If you wait until Monday, I The next issue is the UN. can - get a Presidential de- IRWIN: The Secretary is cision. calling in the ? Pak Ambas- ' PACKARD: It should be sador this afternoon, and easy for us to inform the ? the Secretary leans toward banks involved to defer ac- making a U.S. move in the tion inasmuch as we are so U.N. soon. ? near the weekend. KISSINGER: The Presi- KISSINGER: We need a dent is in favor of this as WSAG in the morning. We soon as we have some con- need to think about our firmation of this large treaty obligations. I remem- scale new action. If the bee a letter or memo inter- U.N. can't operate in this preting our existing treaty kind of situation effectively, with a special India tilt. W its utility has come to an When I visited Pakistan in end and it is Useless to Jannary 1962, I was briefed think of U.N. guarantees in on a secret document or oral the Middle East. understanding about contin- SISCO: We will have a gencies arising in other than recommendation for you the SEATO context. Perhaps this afternoon, after the it was a Presidential letter. meeting with the Ambassa- This was a special interpre- tation of the ? March 1959 dor. In order to give the bilateral agreement. Ambassador time to ?wire Prepared by: home, we could tentatively is/initials plan to Convene the Secu- James H. Noyes rity Council tomorrow. Deputy Assistant Secretary KISSINGER: We have to for Near Eastern, African and South Asian Affairs Approved: Illegible signature for G. Warren Nutter Assistant Secretary of fense for International curity affairs D'e- Se- WASHINGTON LOSI Approved For Release OIS/C111/1V319/11A-RDP80-01601 ecret ? By Sanford J. Ungar ? Washington Post Staff Writer -.Syndicated columnist Jack Anderson, in a major chalienge to the secrecy surrounding ;U.S. policy in the Indo-Pakistani war, last night 'gave The Washington Post the full texts of 'three secret documents describing meetings :i..t. ,,, i ? ? --?_.?': -1 of :.i .of the National Security Council's Washington - - - ? ? is .Special Action Group (WSAG). want to honor. ihose requests: dors to.hidia and Pakistan, ast The documents indicate that Henry A. Kis- The matter has not been well as numerous other docu- 'singer, President Nixon's national security ad- brought to Presidential alien- ments bearing on American viser, instructed government agencies to take tion but it is quite obvious that policy. a hard line with India in public statements and the President is not inclined to He showed this reporter a :private actions during last month's war on the let the Paks be defeated." briefcase' with about 20 file Indian subcontinent, . After getting the documents folders, each containing some . 1 Anderson released the documents after Kis-' froni Anderson, ?The Post de- of the documents. singer told reporters Monday during an air- cided to print the full texts in Anderson declined to name borne conversation en route to the Westerntoday's editions, his sources, but suggested that White House in San Clemente that the cot- ' Anderson said he would they occupy high positions in pmnist, in stories based on the materials, had make the documents avail. the Nixon administration. taken "out cf context" remarks indicating .that able to other members of the "If the sources were identi- the administration was against India. press today, and he invited fled," he said "it would em- Among the significant statements bearing' Sen. J. W. _Fulbright, chair- barrass the administration i man of the Senate ' Foreign more than it would me, It j :on U.S, polity in the documents were the Relations Committee, to - use ' would make a very funny _following: them as the basis for an in- story." - ? "KISSINGER: I am getting hell every half vestigation of U.S policy in Since the controversy last 'hour from the President that we are not being south Asia, year over release of the Yenta- lough enough on India. He has just called me Fulbright, out of Washing- gon Papers, a top-secret his- again. He does not believe we are cauying out ton during the congressional tory of U.S. policy in Vietnam, his wishes. He wants to tilt in favor of Pakis- recess, could not be .teached Anderson said, his sources had ? tan. He feels everything we do comes out f or comment, become more, rather than less, 'otherwise." The columnist also suggested willing to disclose classified t .? "Dr. Kissinger said that whoever was put. that other members of Con- material. ling out background information relative to the gress might wish to investi- The texts obtained by The current situation is provoking presidential gate government security etas- Post provide substantial de- wrath. The President is under the 'illusion' sification policy, tails of the back-and-forth that he is giving instructions; not that he is Most of the significant state- at Special Action Group meet- Merely being kept apprised of affairs as they ments in the three documents ings among representatives progress. Dr. Kissinger asked that this be kept released last - night had al- of the White House, State Jim mind." ready appeared in Anderson's and Defense departments, Coll- - ? column, which is distributed to tral Intelligence Agency, Na- ? "Dr. Kissinger also directed that hence- 700 newspapers, including The. tional Security Council, Joint forth we show a certain coolness to the In- Washington Post. . Chiefs of Staff and the Agency -dians; the Indian Ambassador is not. to be The Justice Department ac- for - International Development. treated at too high a level." knowledged yesterday that the The throe texts are: 7 ? "Dr. Kissinger . . . asked .whether we FBI Is investigating the nature ? A "memorandum for rec- have the right to authorize Jordan or Saudi of the security leak that, led ord" about a WSAG meeting in Arabia .to transfer military equipment to Pak. to the disclosures. the Situation Room of the istan. Mr. (Christopher) Van Itollen (deputy But Anderson, who said he White House on Dec. 3, by ,assistant secretary of state for South Asian will write several more col- James H. Noyes, deputy as- affairs) stated the United States cannot permit umns based on the documents, sistant secretary of defense for a third country to transfer arms which we pointed out that no govern- ?Near Eastern. African and have provided them when we, ourselves, do ment agent had visited him South Asian affairs. it was al)- not authorize sale direct to the ultimate re- and that he had received no proved by G. Warren Nutter, as- cipient, such as Pakistan." request to halt publication. ' sistant secretary of defense for. L. ? "Mr. (Joseph) Sisco (assistant secretary of The Post has not received any international security affairs, such request either, and was printed on his station- -:state for Near Eastern and South Asian affairs) Pentagon sources said an- ery. suggested that what we are really interested in other investigation is under- are what supplies and equipment could be way ? A memorandum for the by ? military security . Joint Chiefs of Staff, on their made available, and the modes of delivery of agents. They said the scope of ; stationery: concerning a meet- this equipment. lie stated from a political their investigation would be ing on Dec. 4, by Navy Capt. point of view our efforts would have to be narrow because "very few peo- 1 Howard N. Kay, a JCS staffer. directed at keeping the Indians from 'extin- pie" have access to minutes of ? Another memorandum by guishing' West Pakistan." the meetings. I 'Kay on JCS stationery about ? "Mr. Sisco went Paks increasingly fee PIMP VrwtblOSRLiV6M11101.,: NIMPhcil Mt* fgc104#A9 irjet- l' ? getting emergency requests from them . . . had copies of cables to Wash.' ings was held on the opening pr. .Kissinger said that the President may. ington. from the U.S. ambassa-J day of full-scale hostilities be-1 n * WASHINGTON STAR Approved For Release 2005/QJIAV 19A-RDP80-01601R000 .7. ).37-ystf ? I arson ecret -, By ORR KELLY Star Staff Writer -Syndicated columnist Jack / Anderson has made public v "SECRET SENSITIVE" min- utes of three White House meetings dealing with the In- dia-Pakistan War. The documents show the government was secretly fa- voring Pakistan in the war while saying publicly that it was not taking sides. Anderson used extensive quotations from the docu- ments in recent columns and then released the dull text as a deliberate challenge to the government's system of classi- fying information. After the Anderson columns appeared, the White House be- gan coordinating a broad-scale investigation to learn who leaked the documents to him. Material Confirmed The White House today re- fused to say whether the pub- lished material is authentic. / But a State Department offi- cial who asked not to be identi- fied said there is no question of the authenticity of the docu- ments. Anderson released the docu- ments after Henry A. Kissin- ger, , presidential adviser for 'national security affairs, told mewsmen yesterday he was 'quoted out of context in ex- cerpts from the documents :printed earlier by Anderson. Anderson gave the docu- ments to the Washington Post last night, and the paper print- ed them today. The Star ob- tained its own copies of the ilocuments. Anderson said in an inter- yiew last night that his column prepared for release tomorrow would carry excerpts from se- cret documents dealing with relations between the United States and Japan. The column will appear on the same day President Nixon meets with Japanese Prime Minister Ei- saku Sato in San Clemente, Calif. i 11 Am ....Getting Hell" I , One of the documents re- . elease's 5. P?llicy, ,,??,.... - "I am getting hell every half hour from the President that we are not being tough enough on India. He has just called me again. He does not believe we are carrying out his wish- es. He wants to tilt in favor of Pakistan. He feels everything we do comes out other wise," Eastern, African and South The documentsprovide Asian Affairs, and approved more detail on the meetings by his boss, G. Warren Nutter, than had been made public assistant defense secretary for previously, but many of the international security affairs. essential details had already The minutes of the Dec. 4 a been used by Anderson in his and 6 meetings were prepared syndicated column. by Navy Captain H.N. Kay, He did not release what he who works in the office of the said were "dozens" of other Joint Chiefs of Staff at the . documents giving what he Pentagon. called a complete picture of Government sources said an the government's de c is io n- invetigation of the source of making process during the In- the apparent leak to Andetson dia - Pakistan War. was being coordinated from the White House and , in- Meetings of WSAG ' volved security agencies at the The -papers released by An- State and Defense Depart- ' mcnts as well as the Secret derson covered meetings o:. the Washington Special Action Service. Contrary to earllier Group at the White House oon reports, the Federal Bureau of Dec. 3, 4 and 6. The WSAG is a Investigation has not been top advisory committee to the callied into the case so far. National Security Council. Officials at the State and All the documents are Defense Departments seemed marked "SECRET SENSI- to be most concerned about TIVE" and one paper, cover- two aspects of the case. ing the Dec. 4 meeting, says: "In view of the sensitivity of The Concern The papers published by An- derson, on the other hand, cov- er a current international cri- sis. The minutes of the meeting of Dec. 3 were made by James H. Noyes, deputy assistant secretary of defense for Near information in the NSC (Na- Several officials called at- tional Security Council) sys- tention to a column published tern and the detailed nature of by Anderson on Dec. 28 de. this memorandum, it is re- scribing a secret intelligence quested that access to it be report in which Emory Swank, limited to a strict need-to- U.S. ambassador to Cambodia, know basis." gave an unflattering assess- The documents appeared to ment of top Cambodian offi- have come from two different dais. Publication of the re- offices in the Pentagon? port, the U.S. officials said, although it is quite possible will greatly complicate that copies of the minutes also Swank's task in dealing with would be available in the other the Cambodian government. areas of the government. Anderson acknowledged that Anderson says he has even an argument could be made more such documents. The disclosures amount to a major leak of 'sensitive government papers?in some way even more disturbing to high gov- ernment officials than the re- lease of the Pentagon Papers earlier this year. In that case, the documents leased by Anderson qvtkilffitc594Wht Kissinger as telling a White oYfire fl story en louse meeting on Dec. 3 that:. that the cables of an ambassa- dor to his government should be classified. "But I think I had a duty to report his warning that the country (Cambodia) is about to collapse," he said. Two Key Disciepancies 1/h dackl-RIERN4101111 about the :Anders9n, papers is that a pattern of leaks now may make government offi- cials reluctant, in the future, to offer proposals that might be embarrassing if they were published, or to be candid in their comments on policies un- der consideration. The Anderson documents re- veal what ?appear to be two major discrepancies between what the administration was doing ? or thinking about doing ? at the height of the India - Pakistan crisis and what it was telling the public. Anderson suggested a com- parison be made between the minutes of the sessions ? par- ticularly Kissinger's comment that he was getting hell from the President for not being tough enough on India ? and a Kissinger "background" brief- ing for the press on Dec. 7. Anderson said the comparison would show the government "lied" to the public. In that backgrounder, Kis- singer . denied the administra- tion was "anti-Indian." Arms Transfer Suggested The other major discrepan- cy noted. by Anderson arises from the minutes of the Dec. 6 meeting in which Kissinger is said to have asked whether the United States could authorize Jordan or Saudi Arabia to transfer American military equipment to Pakistan. Two State Department offi- cials responded that such a transfer would be illegal and that the Jordanians would probably be grateful if the United States "could get them off the hook" by denying au- thority for such a transfer. The government said public- ly at that time that it was not providing aid to either coun- try. Assistant Secretary of State Joseph Sisco said that "as the Paks increasingly feel the heat we will ?be getting emergency requests from them." "Dr. Kissinger said that the President may want to honor emwovottig7 minutes matter has not terra-Um nil