TOUGHER PENALTIES FOR SELLING SECRETS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00552R000302610001-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 22, 2010
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: August 21, 1985
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

STAT Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/22 : CIA-RDP90-00552R000302610001-0 STAT
ARTICLE AP EARED
ON PAGE
WASHINGTON TIMES
21 August 1985
Tougher for slli~jth~t
penal&s
s
J t was a bitter irony that during
the same week we paid tribute
to the members of our armed
forces who 40 years ago,
through great personal sacrifice,
effected the surrender of Japan and
preserved American freedom and
security, we were prosecuting three
former members and one member
of our armed forces for undermining
those principles by selling national
defense secrets to the Soviet Union.
On Aug. 9, the first of what will be
several trials in the Walker spy ring
case came to an end as retired Lt.
Cmdr. Arthur J. Walker was found
guilty of espionage on all seven
counts with which he had been
charged. Trials will commence in
the near future for other members
of the alleged ring, including retired
Senior Chief Radioman Jerry A.
Whitworth, retired Chief Warrant
Officer John A. Walker Jr. - the
alleged ringleader- and John Walk-
er's son, Seaman Michael L. Walker,
who was on active duty at the time
of his alleged espionage activities.
Since the arrest of John Walker on
May 20 and the subsequent arrests
of his alleged co-conspirators, var-
ious measures have been proposed
to curb such espionage activity in
the future. Some measures, such as
the Department of Defense decision
to reduce the number of authorized
clearances, seek to focus on the
problem by reducing the size of the
population that has actual access to
classified material. Other measures,
such as congressional support of the
death penalty for those convicted of
peacetime espionage by military
courts, seek to focus on penalties.
(Under existing laws at the time of
the alleged Walker espionage activ-
ity, the most severe penalty that can
be imposed on any of the alleged
conspirators is life imprisonment.)
While there is almost unanimous
agreement that the former mea-
sures represent an important first
step in dealing with the problem,
there has been much discussion and
disagreement about the latter mea-
sures. The familiar argument is
made once again - just as it has
been in recent years in connection
with efforts to reinstitute capital
punishment - that the death pen-
alty does not serve as a deterrent to
objectionable behavior.
There are three main reasons why
one engages in espionage: (1) loyalty
to another country or ideal, (2)
revenge against the victim state, and
(3) financial gain. Interestingly, citi-
zens of Communist bloc nations who
spy against their country appear, for
the most part, to be motivated by a
commitment to ideals different from
those of their own country, while
their Free World counterparts
appear to be motivated more by
greed.
But it is clear that our society's
tolerance of a specific act of espi-
onage varies directly with the rea-
son why the act in question was
originally undertaken. For example,
more seem willing to accept the spy
who acts out of loyalty to his country
or out of a sense of commitment to
other ideals. A smaller number
seem willing to accept the spy whose
better judgment is, perhaps, tempo-
rarily impaired by blind emotion,
such as revenge.
But our society contains very
few who are willing to tolerate
the spy whose motivation .
stems primarily from financial gain.
The majority of the people we have.
interviewed believe it is the spy who
puts his personal gain above the
security of his country that should
be held most accountable for his
actions.
In response to this majority posi-
tion, legislation is before Congress
that seeks the public execution, by
firing squad, of anyone convicted of
espionage for financial gain. We
fully support such a?measure. The
spy motivated by financial gain fully
understands the nature of his act
and why he has undertaken to per-
form it; he has weighed both the
risks and the rewards, and has opted
in favor of self-gratification over the
welfare and security of his country-
men.
The claim that imposing the death
penalty for such an act of espionage
will not serve as a deterrent, we feel,
lacks merit. When espionage is com-
mitted for financial gain, it is com-
mitted by a rational individual who
knows he has chosen between right
and wrong. In opting to violate the
espionage laws, he has perceived
that the risks of getting caught are
low, the rewards are high, and the
retribution society will exact should
the act be discovered is not great.
This perception has been fostered
by a country which, ever since the
execution of Julius and Ethel
Rosenberg in June 1953, has been
suprisingly tolerant toward those
who have sold its defense secrets.
That tolerance has continued -
inexcusably, we believe - despite
the fact that American lives, in some
instances, have subsequently been
lost due to the disclosure of clas-
sified information. (Such was the
case of Joseph G. Helmich, who was
convicted in 1980 of supplying code
secrets to the Soviets in the 1960s,
enabling them to monitor U.S. mill.
tary operations in Vietnam and con-
tributing to the loss of many
American lives there.)
The sale of U.S. defense secrets
for financial gain - like most
other kinds of behavior - can
be controlled only when the percep-
tion of retribution is high and the
nature of that promised retribution
is severe. Such an approach has been
effective in holding down the num-
ber of capital crimes committed in
many Middle East countries, where
the penalty imposed for those
crimes includes death or mutilation.
For more than two centuries
Americans have died on battlefields
the-world over to preserve our free-
dom and security. In battles yet to be
fought, it is probable that many
American lives may be lost due to
classified information that someone
has sold to our enemies.
Is it unfair to demand, in
exchange, the life of one who has
endangered our freedom and secu-
rity or has increased the risk to our
fighting men on the battlefield by
selling this country's defense
secrets to an unfriendly nation? We
believe not.
Elmo Zumwalt and Worth Bagley,
retired Navy admirals, are nation-
ally syndicated columnists.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/22 : CIA-RDP90-00552R000302610001-0
ELMO ZUMWALT/WORTH BAGLEY