RE NAVY PROPOSAL FOR AN APEX SECRECY AGREEMENT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82M00591R000200090027-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 26, 2004
• Sequence Number: 27
• Publication Date: March 5, 1980
• Content Type: NOTES

Approved For ReWpse 2004/12/22: CIA-RDP82M00591 R 200090027-3
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
Security committee
25X1A
STATINTL
NOTE FOR:
SUBJECT: Re Navy Proposal for an APEX Secrecy Agreement
FROM:
1. Some general comments:
a.. Do our decisions at our. Tuesday 4 March
meeting negate the need to review, entertain
or propose adoption by the APEX Steering Group
of secrecy agreements drafted by participants, a
la Na.vy's (attached)?
b. 1 was of the opinion that the conclusion
reached at that meeting was for APEX participants
to use the unmodified version of the current
SCI agreement until General Counsels reached
agreement on a desirable format for a single
APEX agreement.
STATINTL
c. A 5 March discussion withi
resulted in the following information about e
tack that he, working with Bruce Clarke, is taking:
STATINTL
1. has a copy of the 4 page
"baby talk" agreement and has been tasked
by Silver to review it.
2. All beneficial aspects of the
recent Supreme Court decision in the
case are being reviewed for inclusion in
such an agreement.
Approved For Release 2004/12/22 : CIA-RDP82M00591 R000200090027-3
STATINTL
 Approved For ReIjse 2004/12/22 : CIA-RDP82M00591 RQQ0200090027-3
is sanguine about early
completion of this review. fie hopes to
end up with an agreement that incorporates
the best of features and that will be
accepted by the Steering Group as the common
set of terms. Those departments such as
CIA and NSA that want to use the agreement
as an EOD document will be free to add on.
If the military wants to say that the agree-
ment should include an order not to reveal
APEX under threat of court martial, they can
add that language. If NSA wants to incorporate
travel prohibitions for its employees, they
can add on as desired.
4, is in contact with NSA and
DIA/DoD general counsels and the final
product will be one reflecting coordination
in the legal. elements.
2. Some specific comments on Navy's agreement
(recognizing that I am not a lawyer and the following
are personal observations as a Security Advisor).
a. Re para 2 - it is doubtful that any
"Employee" could acknowledge with reliability and
honest conviction that "he/she has been made fully
knowledgeable as to how APEX information is to be
handled, stored and transmitted and to whom such
information may be given." Ce all he's/she's
will not be told how to handle I APEX and will
not have readily available to them an exhaustive
list of all people "to whom such information
may be given." Thus they couldn't be held responsible
for such terms.
b. Re paragraph 3 - the last sentence seems
to be a nonsequitur. I know what is meant but I
don't believe the wording contained here expresses
it. Maybe the addition of a sentence: The release
by the Government of such information does not
relieve me of my responsibility not to discuss
APEX material.
25X1
Approved For Release 2004/12/22 : CIA-RDP82M00591 R000200090027-3
 Approved For Relaase 2004/12/22 : CIA-RDP82M00591 ROQp&200090027-3
c. Re paragraph 4 - I believe that we had
better change the first sentence, dropping the
phase "...at the demand of the Government," and
adding, "...when access is no longer required in
performance of official employment." I am sure there
will be many "administrative debriefings that would
preclude opportunity for a "demand" to return. material.
d. Re paragraph 5 - suggest we drop the second
sentence. No need to tell anyone why the review
will be made, no reason to limit the review to APEX.
3. A suggestion - thank Navy and tell them their STATINTL
proposed agreement is going to the APEX Legal Advisor for
appropriate consideration. Then send it to Fl to
saying it is a gratuitous submission from Navy and t Fat
it has no endorsement of the APEX Steering Group as a
recommended, preferred or even desirable agreement.
STATINTL
Approved For Release 2004/12/22 : CIA-RDP82M00591 R000200090027-3
 25X1 Approved For Release 2004/12/22 : CIA-RDP82M00591 R000200090027-3
Next 1 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2004/12/22 : CIA-RDP82M00591 R000200090027-3