APSA RESOLUTION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP88-01315R000100260001-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 18
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 22, 2005
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: March 26, 1977
• Content Type: NSPR

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 -