WATERMAN DENIES BEING A SOURCE OF CIA LEAKS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00552R000707040002-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 13, 2010
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: December 23, 1985
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/08/13: CIA-RDP90-00552R000707040002-3
ARTICLE NUAW
C"MLA
Letters
WASHINGTON TIMES
23 December 1985
Waterman denies being a source of CIA leaks
Readers of The Washington Times
have recently seen a number of arti-
cles concerning the role of CIA Gen-
eral Counsel Stanley Sporkin during
a Justice Department investigation
into allegations that I leaked infor-
mation while serving as an official
of the CIA.
The articles reflected efforts by
Mr. Sporkin's opponents to block his
nomination to a federal judgeship on
the U.S. District Court for the Dis-
trict of Columbia and included sen-
sitive information which should not
have been released publicly.
The articles assert that the FBI
identified me as the source of leaks
made to a Washington research cen-
ter and newsletter on a wide variety
of subjects, including the Iran-Iraq
war and Libya and Iraqi political de-
velopments. They also claim that I
admitted doing so and later recanted
this admission.
Now that Mr. Sporkin has been
cleared by the Judiciary Committee,
I wish to respond specifically to
these gross falsehoods concerning
my activities.
I have never leaked classified in-
formation to anyone and specifically
not the alleged recipient mentioned
in your articles. I personally abhor
the practice of leaking for any pur-
pose whatsoever and have made this
sentiment known on innumerable
occasions.
I never "acknowledged providing
classified information," nor "re-
canted" such an acknowledgement,
as alleged in a Nov 4 article. Nor did
I consciously confirm information
obtained elsewhere. Consistent with
my mandate at the time, I did dis-
cuss unclassified political issues
with a range of people, including the
alleged recipient. The labeling of
any of these conversations by the
FBI or Justice Department as "clas-
sified" is utterly inaccurate and un-
professional at best.
The case against me is based en-
tirely on erroneous interpretations
of polygraph test reactions and sub-
sequent distortions of my own
statements as described above. I ap-
parently reacted emotionally on
these polygraphs - but not in a de-
ceptive nor manipulative manner.
One other nuance seems to have
crept into your Dec. 12 article: an
implication that some have claimed
that the leaks being .investigated
were authorized by the CIA. This is
ludicrous. Divulging classified in-
formation to unauthorized recipi-
ents is wrong, period.
Only two individuals participated
in the discussions at issue - the al-
leged recipent and myself. Both in-
sist no leaks were made by me, and
no evidence to the contrary exists.
Punishment without valid evi-
dence, gross distortion of
statements, blind reliance on fallible
polygraphs, and calculated smear
campaigns for political purposes are
not worthy of this country's inves-
tigative apparatus, nor its congres-
sional supporters.
May I suggest an old-fashioned
American remedy? Find those who
really did leak the information -
and who are still doing so now.
CHARLES E. WATERMAN
Reston, Va.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/08/13: CIA-RDP90-00552R000707040002-3