Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 19, 2016
Document Release Date: 
November 22, 2005
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
March 26, 1977
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP88-01315R000100260001-8.pdf1.95 MB
I'? it7CXst, Approved For Release 209503414dICIfkj,RDP88-01315R000100260001-8 T,LtkriCH 1.977 ON" PAGE / 0 The APSA resolution To ifn, editors: The resolution of the American Political Science Association referred to in Diane Ravitch's article on the Selzer case at Brooklyn College ("Brouhaha in Brooklyn," TNR, Mar. 12) has faults which I hope will be corrected. I can i perhaps put it in a more favorable light by saying that the resolution did recognize. "the importance of the academic community's participation in the Conduct of government and for- . :mulation of government policies" and did not Condemn all participation by political .scientists in CIA -or other government? intelligence ,activities ,but `.asked only that such participation be fully disclosed The resolution failed to define with any precision the kind and degree of involvement that should be avoided and, especially, to be regretted, Said nothing to insure , due process for accused individuals or (in your words) to "warn against a relapse into civil-libertarian myopia." I should also point out, however, that the Council did not regard this resolution as the final word on the question but, at the same meeting, referred it to the Association's Committee on Professional Ethics and Academic Freedom which will, I am sure, in due course bring in a more carefully considered statement. Samuel II. ljeer President American Political Science Association STAT Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP88-01315R000100260001-8 .1. Approved For Release 200i/g211IP: ORDP88-01315 The GA: Time Question: "Under what international law do we have a right to attempt to de- stabilize the constitutionally elected gov- ernment of another country?" Answer: "lam not going to pass judg- ment on whether it is permitted or au- thorized under international law. It is a recognized fact that historically as well as presently, such actions are taken in the best interest of the countries involved." That blunt response .by President Gerald Ford at his press conference last week was either remarkably careless or remarkably candid. It left the troubling impression, which the Administration afterward did nothing to dispel, that the U.S. feels free to subvert another gov- ernment whenever it suits American policy. In an era of atente with the So-?- viet Union and improving relations with China, Ford's words seemed to repre- sent an anachronistic, cold-war view of nationat security reminiscent of the 1950s. Complained Democratic Senator Frank Church of Idaho with consider- able hyperbole: is] tantamount to saying that we respect no law save the law of the jungle." The question on "destabilizing" for- eign governments followed Ford's con- firmation that the Nixon Administra- tion had authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to wage an $S mil- lion campaign in 1970-73 to aid oppo- nents of Chilean President Salvador Allende's Marxist government (see box page 21). Until last week, members of both the Nixon and Ford Administra- tions had flatly denied that the U.S. had been involved in undermining Allende's regime. They continue to insist that the CIA was not responsible for the 1973 coup that left Allende dead and a re- pressive right-wing junta in his place. Congressmen were outraged by the news that they had once again' been mis- led by the Executive Branch. More im- iportant, disclosure of the Chile opera- tion helped foct.: and intensify the debate in Congress and the nation over the CIA: Has the agency gone too far in recent years? Should it be barred from interfering in other countries' domestic affairs? Where it has erred, was the CIA out of control or was the White House at fault for misdirecting, and misusing the agency? Should it be more tightly su- pervised. and if so, 14 whom? In ad- dition. the controversy spotlighted the fundamental dilemma posed by an open, democratic society using covert activity --the "dirty tricks" or "black" side of in- telligence organizations?as an-instru- ment of foreitn to Come in h .eeeig..?1:-.7:-&-:e....s...re-eo-iseelefe`e,..e. - ---- ?T'sgo.s,wic?leirsmegooesPiraire ffes-X-4.-ei-nr-.1 - ---''''irrel";54:.s. er ,fer ? s'' e-,--'?e -.41"----V,--- _... ,z, i..;;__..f.,.. *,e''! ';;*'-7 ' 7-;>'' --"P?, - el.--,.c ?'",", ? r' , -flo.tr,i-ttixt-11-e0,1. 4?11-1:-L.4.4.': -.,?- - e4".?;:f ' l4:::4".:,,t-l'? ?-?;.-47.:,.,...1,,..-Zi-e.S- ,. - - '1,4-:,1".?;-- s-,1. --,,, : ...A.t...k...-...'li!4-4.77 .,.1.7:1----7r"...., . 01.71-,..z.;.-tar, .., - ...?1?,...... ...g, ''''''.7a."AC..., ;--xe:- .....= ... ,0?-?sr? -?;?....,. . .?_.? ?e414?"?-?"' '-';;R.V-,?-?, --***--"e$4. ,?.....' ttil..77,e147410;;?? ...:t.;...-:??479%., ????,..4.,toc-":,,.. :?....t.:.:.,..7?...?4.,,, t,,,,..x.i._%.?w.?,,rcz4?,, , F., ,?... _ ?,....,..,. ..,..,44 x...,,.......?,?.,:.....,,,,..., ,_,.. 7..-.4-4,4....- . .... ....L;S&F.-4?47:71-t,,-%:::,--'kr,-, .4t. -Tc:-.37;.:4,-1::?1%, t.,...c.,2,.... -.F.-",..''-'77",; ---#4Z-; ,.=,?,;:--1-. ? -,..74 -,-..-(2x.--,:r.---4,tri:-,? - ? i, ?? ?f-'?-r -