COVERT ACTION INFORMATION BULLETIN: THE CIA VS. PHILIP AGEE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00845R000100190005-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 36
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 9, 2010
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: April 1, 1980
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/09 :CIA-RDP90-008458000100190005-2
Number 8 ? March-April 1980
Special
STAT
ATTACKS AGAINST AGEE ESCALATE
INFORNfATION BULLETIN
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/09 :CIA-RDP90-008458000100190005-2
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/09 :CIA-RDP90-008458000100190005-2
Editorial
International events most notably Iran and Afghani-
stan, but also Nicaragua, Grenada, El Salvador and else-
where--have created a climate of hysteria and McCarthy-
ism unrnatched in nearly three decades. The media have
begun, with considerable justification, to refer to Cold War
II. Critics of United. States foreign policy must swim
against the current, and the current, not to mention the
undertow, is strong.
The cutting edge of such swings to the right is, as it
alwa}~s has been, national defense and national security,
and c ritics of the defense and intelligence apparatus will, in
such rimes, be drawn to the front of the fray.
message he mentioned the "need for a strengthened and
clearly defined role for our intelligence community." "We
will not shortchange," he wrote, "the intelligence capabili-
ties needed to assure our national security." We must "de-
velop new technical means of intelligence collection while
also assuring that the more traditional methods of intelli-
gence work are also given proper stress."
Unfortunately, the victims of"more traditional methods
of intelligence work" have had little say in this national
debate. They are the dead, the tortured, the maimed, in
Vietnam, in Iran, in Uruguay, in Guatemala, around the
globe.
As we learn in school, the U Wiled States government has
three branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judi-
cial; all three branches are fighting to "unleash" the CIA.
The intelligence agencies and their boosters within the
Administration have been quick to take advantage of in-
terna:ional tension. 'The preposterous argument that a
stronger CIA with fewer restrictions would have led to
different results in Iran or Afghanistan is taken off the
shelf, dusted and polished.
In ]iis~ State of the Union Address, President Carter said,
as Atlmiral Turner appeared on the TV screen smiling
broadly, "we need to remove unwarranted restraints on
America's ability to collect intelligence." In his written
In recent months there has been a flurry of legislative
activity centering around the role of the CIA and other
intelligence agencies. Late last year a spate of "Intelligence
Identity Protection" bills were introduced-purportedly
aimed at this Bulle[in, but in fact threatening the entire
journalistic community. Then, under the aegis of Senator
Daniel P. Moynihan, two new elements were added to the
cauldron-a proposed law to exempt the CIA from the
provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and another
to limit, if not eliminate altogether, Congressional over-
sight of covert action. Finally, the Senate version of the
long-awaited Foreign Intelligence Charter was introduced.
The bill was, in some respects, worse than anything the
CONTENTS
Editorial
2
News Notes
23
Philip Agee:
CIA in Zimbabwe/Rhodesia
26
Man Without a Country?
4
CIA Recruiting in Florida
27
Publlications of Interest
7
MI-6 in Northern Ireland
29
Congress Considers
C [A Legislation
8
Naming Names
30
Testimony on
H, R. 5615
11
Sources and Methods:
CIA Assassinations
36
Covert,4ction /nformatron Bu!/elrn, Number 8, March-April 1980, published by Covert Action Publications, Inc., a District of Columbia Nonprofit
Corporation, P.O. Box 502'72, Washington, DC 20004. Telephone: [phone]. All rights reserved; copyright ?1980, by Covert Action Publications,
Inc. Typography by Art for Peop/e, Washington, DC. Washington Staff: Ellen Ray, William Schaap, Louis Wolf. Board of Advisors: Philip Agee, Ken
Lawrence, Karl Van Meter, Elsie Wilcott, Jim Wilcott. The CovertAction /nformation Bu!/etin is available at many bookstores around the world. Write
or call For the store nearest you. Inquiries from distributors and subscription services welcomed.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/09 :CIA-RDP90-008458000100190005-2
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/09 :CIA-RDP90-008458000100190005-2
Administration had been publicly asking for, authorizing,
in some instances, burglaries and mail openings against
U.S. citizens not suspected of crimes, specifically authoriz-
ing the use of journalists, academics and the clergy as
agents, and other clear steps backwards. Senator Walter
Huddleston, the chief sponsor of the bill, noted that the
committee members had been able to overcome "purist
attitudes" about such minor inconveniences as bugging,
tapping and burglarizing innocent people. In all the discus-
sions, of course, it seems to go without saying that the U.S.
can do anything to "foreigners" other peoples in other
lands.
This legislative potpourri is discussed and analyzed in
detail in this issue of the Bulletin.
We have reported previously on the Intelligence Identi-
ties Protection Act, introduced in October 1979, which
would make it a crime for anyone-former CIA employee
or private journalist-to disclose the identity of any intelli-
genceemployee, agent or source, or even information from
which one might ascertain such an identity. After consider-
able discussion among ourselves, the staff of the Bulletin
requested, and were granted, the opportunity to present
our views in testimony before the House Select Committee
on Intelligence. In this issue we present the full text of our
statement, excerpts of the questioning which followed, and
some selections from the presentations of other speakers.
The beginning of the 1980's brought with it a new, so-
phisticated, and well-coordinated campaign against Philip
Agee. A barrage of false newspaper stories, passport revo-
cations, attempted book bannings, and injunctions, and
other legal maneuvers followed one after the other during
the first two months of the year. They are described in full
in another article in this issue. We can only reiterate our
admiration of, and support for, the battle which Agee has
waged for more than five years. As his lawyer, Melvin
Wulf, said, "Anything that increases public knowledge of
the CIA's clandestine activities contributes to world
peace."
The Snepp Decision
We have never been political admirers of Frank Snepp,
but we have supported fully his right to publish whatever
he wished about his former employer. Shortly before we
went to print with this issue, the Supreme Court issued its
opinion in his case-a travesty of legal reasoning, further
proof, if any were needed, that the Court is just another
institution which makes political, not legal, decisions. It
bodes ill for all the present and would-be whistleblowers,
who remain, in some cases, our only hope for exposing
governmental atrocities. The courts, like the other
branches of government, are wrapping themselves in the
flag. They don't realize that to do so is to blindfold oneself.
We continue our regular features, Naming Names and
Sources and Methods. Our reasons for continuing to do so
are explained in our testimony before the House Commit-
tee. The CIA, we are sadly convinced, remains beyond
reform.
Several other items of interest to our readers are present-
ed. We apologize for the bit of delay in the publication of
this issue, but, as we hope is evident, we have been kept
busy by the constant attacks.
To our many charter subscribers who have renewed their
subscriptions, our thanks for your continuing support.
Correction
In Bulletin Number 6 we printed the document
authored, in 1975, by former Director of Central
Intelligence, William E. Colby. Through our over-
sight in layout, a large section of the document was
inadvertently repeated. The section beginning on
page 20, column I, with "Part III" through the first
full paragraph on page 21, ending with "... proprie-
ty" should be eliminated.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/09 :CIA-RDP90-008458000100190005-2
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/09 :CIA-RDP90-008458000100190005-2
ThE~ Man Without a Country:
ATTACKS AGAINST AGEE
ESCALATE
For a number of years the CIA relished its description of
Philip Agee as its "only ideological defector."Although the
writin,;s and speeches of John Stockwell, Victor Marchetti,
Jesse ]~eaf, and others belie this, still the Agency reserves
inordinate hatred and vehemence for Agee. Rumors
spread, after "Inside the Company" was published, that
there were serious offers within the Agency to assassinate
him. Whenever a journalist wants a suitably juicy quote,
any C [A source can be asked about Agee-most recently,
according to UPI: "If I can get him with my bare hands, I'll
kill him, I'll kill him."
Agee has lived with this foolishness with some equanimi-
ty: "If I were constantly looking behind me," he once said,
"I would just trip over my own feet." Still, he has been
forced to pack up and move with his family from his homes
in England, in France, and in Holland, one after the other,
as the local authorities have bowed to petty pressure from
the CIA. Now, the campaign has soared to new heights.
for the New' York Post-the paper that Australian press
baron Rupert Murdoch has turned into ascandal-monger-
ing rag, the current joke in journalistic circles. Rose, des-
cribed in a recent Washington Star article as a disaffected
former member of the U.S. Labor Party of cultist Lyndon
LaRouche, wanted Agee's phone number in Germany right
away, to call him and get his response to the news item
Rose had been "handed" to write up-that the Iranians
wanted Agee to sit on a tribunal which, there were rumors,
might be established to try the prisoners. It was 3 a.m., and
Rose was told that, as far as CAIB knew there was nothing
to such a rumor, and in any event CAIB would try to reach
Agee later that day. However, within a few hours, the early
edition of the Post was on the stands in New York City.
The banner headline, which took up half the front page,
read: "CIA Traitor May Judge Hostages." (This was ap-
parentlytoo much even for the Post, because later editions
changed the word "Traitor" to "Defector.") The article
contained this sentence: "A leading Iranian diplomat in the
U.S. told the Post: `There will be ananti-imperialist, anti-
Zionist American on the tribunal and Philip Agee is at the
top of our list of candidates."'
The Agency has never had any compunctions about
fabric~iting material about Agee whenever it suits their
purpose. (Probably the most persistent lie is that it was
Agee who named Richard Welch in the pages of Counter-
Spv; although it has been documented that that naming
had nothing to do with Welch's subsequent death, it is also
true that Agee had nothing to do with that article in
Count er.Sp v. )
The latest move, however, indicates a high level of sophis-
tication. It began in early December. Agee conceived a
possible solution to the problem of the people held in the
Tehra~i Embassy. On the telephone to some diplomat
friend:., he suggested that the Iranians should offer to
exchange the prisoners for the CIA's files on Iran. He urged
that se meone get that proposal to the Iranians, in hopes of
securing the release of the prisoners. The practicality of the
suggestion has been questioned in some circles. A former
case o~~ficer remarked to CAIB that the Agency would let
500 people die, never mind 50, before they would ever
release any files. But what must be kept in mind is that the
conversations with the friends were originally private.
Then, the night of December 16, the plot unfolded.
:'AIB received a phone call from Gregory Rose, a reporter
What is significant is that the Post never named the
"diplomat,"the Iranian Embassy and U.N. Mission denied
the story, Agee later pointed out that no Iranian had asked
him to sit on any tribunal, and, in fact, no such tribunal
ever took place, with or without Agee. Moreover, the
article, which Rose admitted he was writing, had no
by-line.
The next day, both CRIB and Agee issued statements
explaining that Agee had never been asked to serve on such
a tribunal, and, in fact, would not contemplate traveling to
Iran while there were people held in the Embassy.
Five days later, the Administration made its move,
through the State Department. A consular official, embar-
rassed because it was Christmastime, arrived at Agee's
apartment in Hamburg and served him with a letter from
the State Department informing him that Secretary Vance
had decided that "your activities abroad are causing or are
likely to cause serious damage to the national security or
the foreign policy of the United States." This language is
from State Department regulations outlining the instances
Number 8 (March-April 1980)
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/09 :CIA-RDP90-008458000100190005-2
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/09 :CIA-RDP90-008458000100190005-2
when, it is said, the Secretary has the authority to refuse to
issue someone a passport, or to revoke one already issued.
The letter informed Agee that his passport was revoked.
Agee's lawyers went to court to challenge the authority
of the Secretary of State to revoke someone's passport
simply because the Secretary thinks his activities are not in
keeping with U.S. foreign policy. The government's an-
swering papers filed in Court demonstrate how the fabri-
cated New York Post story grew in stature. The affidavit of
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, David D.
Newsom, said: "It has been reported in the press (New
York Post, December 17, 1979) that Mr. Agee has been
invited to travel to Iran in order of participate in a Tribunal
involving the hostages in Tehran." The original article
never said that Agee had been invited by anyone, an asser-
tion he denied, and on which he was never contradicted.
The article simply said that an unnamed diplomat said that
Agee was on a list of people who might be asked to serve on
such a tribunal.
The degree to which the media are unable to stick with
the truth when it comes to Agee is demonstrated in the
series of articles which followed the news of the passport
revocation, and dealt with the question of Agee's residency
in the Federal Republic of Germany. At no point, it should
be noted, did the German authorities threaten Agee with
deportation. Yet, within two days of the revocation, an AP
story circulated stating that local officials were studying
the question and deciding whether to deport Agee. This, in
fact, was not true, though the headlines said, "W. Germany
May Oust Agee." The New York Times compounded the
error. Its headline read: "West Germany Acts to Bar Agee."
All this time, there was no coverage given to the argu-
ments of Agee's lawyers that the Secretary of State had no
authority to do what he had done-that a citizen's passport
had been revoked even though the citizen was not charged
with any crime, was not under any court order, was not
wanted as a material witness, or any of the other limited
exceptions wherein one's freedom of movement might be
restricted. The concept that a person's passport could be
revoked because he disagreed with U.S. foreign policy is
ludicrous. As one of Agee's lawyers noted, Henry Kissinger
interferes in U.S. foreign policy more in a week than Agee
could in a lifetime.
Although it is apparent that the passport revocation was
part of awell-coordinated plan designed first of all to limit
any influence Agee might have with respect to the situation
in Iran and secondly to force him back to the United States,
official CIA comments were naturally not forthcoming.
UPI was reduced to running a story quoting the unnamed
intelligence officer who wanted to kill Agee with his bare
hands, and a few of Agee's better-known professional ene-
mies, such as former CIA men David Atlee Phillips and
Jack Blake.
Finally, by year end, articles appeared indicating that
Agee denied that he had any plans to travel to Iran. It was
almost two weeks after the original Nex~ York Post article
that this information appeared. In the meantime Agee's
lawyers had commenced the action in U.S. District Court
in Washington, Agee v. Vance. The hearing was put off
until mid-January, primarily because Agee's lawyers as-
serted, without contradiction, that he had no immediate
travel plans, whatever the newspapers said. The Nex~ York
Times, in the interim, printed an editorial suggesting that it
was doubtful that U.S. law permitted lifting Agee's pass-
port. They gave appropriate weight to Rose's Nex~ York
Post article: "The State Department's fear that the former
agent will go to Iran seemed based on a misreading of an
unconfirmed news report. He says he hasn't been invited
and wouldn't accept such an invitation."
At the Court hearing, the Justice Department's perfor-
mance was pathetic. They now insisted that the passport
was not revoked because of any plans for travel to Iran-
apparently because there was simply no confirmation that
that had ever been in the works. They indicated that the
revocation was because Agee spoke out against the CIA all
over the world. But, as the Judge pointed out, revoking
someone's passport doesn't stop him from speaking. The
Justice Department replied that at least it made it more
difficult for him to travel around. Several days later the
Court ruled that the Department of State had no authority
to revoke a passport in the manner they had. The regula-
tions, the Court said, were invalid.
However, the Justice Department immediately went to
the next highest court, the Circuit Court of Appeals, and
asked for a stay of the District Judge's order directing the
return of Agee's passport. To the surprise of many ob-
servers, the Circuit Court granted the stay, leaving Agee
without a valid passport, despite the victory in the lower
court. The case was scheduled for expedited consideration,
and will be argued in mid-March.
Number 8 (March-April 1980)
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/09 :CIA-RDP90-008458000100190005-2
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/09 :CIA-RDP90-008458000100190005-2
Grel;ory Rose had a parting shot. On February 6, he
by-lined a brief article with the headline, "CIA turncoat
marking U.S. diplomats for death." This rather provoca-
tive he~~dline accompanied an article which had no context.
It merely quoted "U.S. officials" for seven paragraphs,
withot.t saying who was being quoted, what had occurred,
or why they were being quoted. All this, ironically, from
the same reporter who., when the Embassy was first occu-
pied, called CAB to find out if we had the names of any
CIA people in the Embassy.
The full extent of the government's campaign against
Agee I~ecame abundac~tly clear the same day the Circuit
Court issued the stay order. Several months earlier, after
years of frustrating delays and denials, Agee had filed a
Freedom. of Information Act suit in federal court against
the CIA, the FBI, the Justice Department, the NSA and the
State Department, because of their refusal to turn over
their files on him. Some agencies, like the State Depart-
ment, lead, in fact, turned over a substantial percentage of
their files on him, but others, like the CIA, had given up
virtually nothing. The case was, it was thought, a simple
FOIA personal file suit.
To the wonderment of Agee's attorneys, the Justice De-
partment finally filed a request on behalf of the United
States government to intervene in the case, and to counter-
claim against Agee, requesting an injunction against him
preventing him from writing or speaking without first
clearing the text with the CIA. This is the same type of
injunction which the government had obtained against
John Marks and Victor Marchetti several years before.
The papers also asked for an injunction against the "immi-
nent" publication of Dirti~ Work 2: The CIA in Africa.
When it was found that the book was already published,
this request was withdrawn (see sidebar).
What was so surprising in this case was that Agee had
never set foot in the United States; his lawyers had merely
filed suit for his personal files under the FOIA. This case,
too, and the entire question of jurisdiction is now pending
in the courts.
The Book That Couldn't Be Stopped
Either the Justice Department is guilty of even
greater disingenuousness than usual, or the CIA
doesn't let its own lawyers know what is going on.
Nice days after filing an emergency motion in federal
court to prevent the "imminent" publication of Dirt t~
Work, 2: The CIA im Africa, Justice Department law-
yers were forced to withdraw the request when they
"learned" that the book had already been published.
2, or for that matter from DirYC~ Work 1, either.
Lyle Stuart issued a press release charitably des-
cribingthe Justice Department officials as "ignorant"
and "inefficient." Time Magazine said the lawyers
were "astonished" to learn that the book had already
been published. The Washington Post said the law-
yers were "unaware" the book "has already been on
sale in at least one Washington bookstore."
l n August 1979 the publisher, Lyle Stuart, and two
co-editors, Ellen Ray and William Schaap, attended
the. Sixth Summit of Heads of State or Government
of the Nonaligned Nations, in Havana. They brought
wit h them copies of a special paperback edition of the
bo ~k which was presented to dozens of heads of state,
foreign ministers and other government officials
from around the world.
~~opies were also presented to a number of journal-
ist:; and generally made available. Then, in January
1950 the regular hardcover edition was shipped by
Lyle Stuart, Inc. to bookstores around the country.
Wlien the Justice Department filed the emergency
motion, Dirt v Work 2 had already been available in a
number of Washington bookstores for weeks.
'What was even more peculiar was that the Justice
Department was asking the court to restrain Philip
Agee from publishing a book which was not his. The
book., which contains two articles by Agee, was re-
se~.rched and edited by four other persons, and is
owned by a corporation with which Agee has no
connection. Moreover, Agee never asked for, nor
received, a penny from the publication of Dirty Work
In the court papers withdrawing the request, how-
ever, as the Associated Press accurately pointed out,
"the department stopped short of admitting its
gaffe." In fact, it was worse than that. The papers
said: "Before the Court could act upon the United
States' motion for intervention or joinder, however,
the book was published and available in at least one
bookstore in the District of Columbia." This state-
ment is at best misleading, and at worst a deliberate
falsehood. It implies that the book was rushed into
the bookstores after the motion was filed and before
the Court could do anything about it. Aside from
ignoring the rather significant fact that Agee does not
own the book, and therefore could hardly be ordered
to stop its publication in any event, the implication is
untrue. It strains credulity to believe that the CIA did
not know the book was distributed at the Sixth
Summit in August and that it was in bookstores in
January.
In the vicious, hysterical campaign against Philip
Agee, the U.S. government is unable to stick to the
truth. They lie about his intentions; they lie about his
travels; they won't even keep it straight who writes
what books.
Number 8 (March-April 1980)
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/09 :CIA-RDP90-008458000100190005-2
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/09 :CIA-RDP90-008458000100190005-2
It is hard not to draw the conclusion that the government
has set in motion a massive campaign to hound Philip Agee
back home, and to gag him. It is only this threat of an
injunction which has kept him from returning long ago to
the U.S. Agee, who has never been charged with a crime,
who has simply spoken out forcefully against the abuses of
the U.S. intelligence complex, who has become synony-
mouswith criticism of the CIA, has, at the insistence of the
CIA, been forced to move from country to country and
been wrongfully accused of assorted heinous acts. It is a
measure of the strength of his struggle that he continues to
speak out and to fight back.
And the Writer That Could
The Supreme Court's decision in Snepp v. United
States has shocked most observers and many editor-
ialwriters. The Court decided the case without benef-
it of oral argument from the opposing lawyers, and
gave the government more than they had asked for
two extremely unusual actions.
The case appears to have been decided more as a
question of contract law than of the delicate balances
of freedom of speech and press and national security.
The Court held that Snepp's secrecy agreement was a
binding contract, and he breached it by publishing his
book, regardless of the fact that, as the CIA admitted,
there was no classified information in the book. The
remedy the Court approved was to apply what is
called a "constructive trust" to all of his profits from
the book that is, to require him to turn over to the
government every cent he received for the book.
The worst language in the case appears in the foot-
notes, one of which says: "This Court's cases make
clear that even in the absence of an express agree-
ment-the CIA could have acted to protect substan-
tial government interests by imposing reasonable
restrictions on employee activities that in other con-
texts might be protected by the First Amendment... .
The Government has a compelling interest in protect-
ing both the secrecy of information important to our
national security and the appearance of confidential-
ity so essential to the effective operation of our for-
eign intelligence service."
The threat to whistleblowing is clear. The Court is
openly limiting the First Amendment rights of gov-
ernment employees. The case also includes much un-
abashed praise for intelligence services in general,
and emphasizes the irrelevance of the argument that
the material in question was not classified. Indeed
some commentators have suggested that the vehem-
ence of the opinion is related to the breaches of
confidence by former and present clerks of the Court
which led to much of the scandalous gossip in the
recently published book about the Supreme Court,
The Brethren.
PUBLICATIONS OF
INTEREST
Asia Monitor, $3/issue, from Asia/North America
Communications Center, 2 Man Wan Road, 17-C, Kow-
loon, Hongkong. (A quarterly magazine focusing on U.S.
economic involvement in Asia. Very detailed, with a wealth
of research information and materials for persons working
in this area. Also published by A/ NACC: A~nerica in
Asia: Research Guide on U. S. Economic? Actii~it t' in Pacific
Asia, $10/surface; $19/air; and A Surve~? orEduc?atron/
Action Resources on Multinational Corporations, $2.50.)
Third World, l0 issues, airj $22; five issues; air $12,
from Periodistas des Tercer Mundo, Apartado 20-572,
Mexico 20, D.F., Mexico. (Approximately monthly, an
excellent review of the entire Third World, with perceptive
articles from many of the best researchers around the
world. The same group also publishes a Spanish edition,
Tercer Mundo, as well as a Portuguese edition, Terc?eiro
Mundo. Write for rates.)
Itah? and US, $6/year, $10 overseas, from Committee
for a Democratic Policy Towards Italy, P. O. Box 32351,
Washington, DC 20007. (The bimonthly newsletter of a
recently established group working against U.S. interven-
tion in the Italian political process.)
IDAF Puhlications, on request from International
Defense and Aid Fund, Publications Department, 104
Newgate Street, London ECIA 7AP, United Kingdom;
overseas requesters should include an IRC. (This is the
catalog of the well known publications of Defense and Aid,
the group which has, for many years, done some of the best
research on Southern Africa. In addition to their own
research papers, they publish works by Nelson Mandela,
Barbara Rogers, Gillian and Suzanne Cronje, and others.
Also available is Focus, their bi-monthly news bulletin;
subscriptions ?3, surface; ?5, air.)
Graymail Legislation, Hearings of Legislation Sub-
committee of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, August 7, September 20, 1979. From the
Committee. (This House Committee pamphlet includes the
text of the various pending graymail bills and the testimony
of a number of witnesses, including Morton Halperin and
Michael Tigar.)
Impact of the Freedom or Inrormation Ac?t and the
Privact~ Act on /ntelligenee Activities, Hearing of Legisla-
tion Subcommittee of the House Permanent Select Com-
mittee on Intelligence, April S, 1979. From the Committee.
(This House Committee pamphlet does not purport to
present a "balanced view," but instead presents the views of
the FBI and the CIA, their arguments and proposals for
limiting the FOIA.)
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/09 :CIA-RDP90-008458000100190005-2
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/09 :CIA-RDP90-008458000100190005-2
Intelligence Legislation
Makes the Rounds
By William Schaap
As we; have noted in our Editorial, international develop-
ments-especially Iran and Afghanistan-have been used
by the CIA and other friends and boosters of the intelli-
gence complex to support and justify a wide range of
efforts to "unleash" the CIA. The major battlefield is Con-
gress. and in both Houses numerous proposals are under
consideration. What is ironic is that these discussions first
began in a very different context.
Originally people were worried about an unrestrained
CIA. It was felt that some kind of charter was needed to
define the limits beyond which the Agency could not step.
Ther~? was a fear that existing legislation was too vague and
left too many loose ends. Now, although the existing laws
have not changed a bit, although there has been as little
control of the CIA as ever, the move is on to "unhandcuff"
them. Somehow the C'IA has created the impression that if
it hacl had a freer hand, things would not have gone as they
did i ~ [ran or in Afghanistan. This incredible argument
prevails even though the CIA probably had the freest hand
in Irvin it has ever ha.d-even though it worked hand-in-
glove with the Shah and SAVAK for thirty years.
The Major Legislation Pending
There are a number of different bills under discussion,
several of which have already been introduced, and some of
which have already gone to hearings. This article is an
attempt to catalog them for our readers, to give some idea
of their scope, and to show what different dangers they
pose. We say that because nothing that is seriously under
consideration right now is aimed at controlling the CIA or
the other intelligence agencies; they are all designed to
"unleash" them to one degree or another.
This is the proposal-ostensibly designed to criminalize
our claming Names column-about which we testified be-
fore :he House Permanent Select Committee on Intelli-
gence. Since our testimony is reprinted in full in this issue,
alon?; with much of the other testimony and the question-
ing, t ~i> bill need only be summarized here. It contains two
provisions; the first makes it a crime for any former gov-
ernment employee with authorized access to classified in-
form;~tion identifying intelligence officers, agents or
sources to disclose those identities, or information from
which those identities could be ascertained. The second
provision makes it a crime for anyone else to disclose such
information, "with the intent to impair or impede United
State~~ intelligence activities."
As we and several others testified, the bill has a number
of serious defects. Although the first provision might not
be unconstitutional per se-particularly given the outcome
of the Snepp case (see sidebar this issue)-it severely limits
whistleblowing in the entire intelligence field. Also, it is not
limited to information which is in fact secret and it is not
limited to identities alone. (And, as one witness noted, it
even prevents a former CIA officer from saying that he or
she used to work for the CIA.)
The second provision, however, is, in our opinion, clear-
ly unconstitutional-a view apparently shared by the Jus-
tice Department. Their remedy for this defect, however, is
not a very liberal one. They proposed a substitute bill to
make it a crime for anyone to release classified informa-
tion, identifying an officer, agent or source, "with the
Number 8 (March-April 1980)
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/09 :CIA-RDP90-008458000100190005-2
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/09 :CIA-RDP90-008458000100190005-2
knowledge that such disclosure is based on classified in-
formation." They do not define what is meant by being
"based on" classified information. This provision would
presumably affect a newspaper editor who received a sup-
posedly classified document in the mail anonymously, a
frequent occurrence.
stantial or partial assistance of the FOIA, published some
of the most significant public discussion of intelligence
issues in recent years. John Marks' book, The Search for
the Manchurian Candidate, William Shawcross's book,
SideshoH~, and Dan Morgan's book, Merchants cif Grain,
among others, fall in this category.
The Justice Department bill also makes the first provi-
sionworse. They propose criminalizing the disclosure of an
identity by a former employee with "access to information
revealing the identities of covert agents,"even if the person
identified was not one to whose identity the employee had
access, and even, for that matter, if the information identi-
fying the person disclosed did not come from classified
sources. It proposes a perpetual, broad ban on all former
employees.
Also in January, the Senate took its first steps in this
area. Senator Moynihan introduced athree-part bill, S.
2216, which contained the verbatim text of the Boland
House bill and two other parts. One was to exempt from
the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act all re-
quests about the CIA except for requests by citizens and
permanent resident aliens for files about themselves. The
other was to repeal the Hughes-Ryan Amendment requir-
ing advance notice of covert actions to the Congressional
Foreign Affairs and Intelligence Committees, and substi-
tuting aprovision which required notice "as soon as possi-
ble" or notification of a finding by the National Security
Agency that the action "does not involve substantial re-
sources or risks."
The first provision, the inclusion of the Boland bill, led
to an embarrassed admission from Moynihan on the Se-
nate floor soon after its introduction that he had not stu-
died the bill carefully and that he was going to move to
strike from his bill the second provision of the Boland bill,
relating to persons other than former government em-
ployees. He conceded the provision "might have a chilling
effect" on the press.
Moynihan and his co-sponsors, however, have staunchly
defended the other parts of his bill. The Freedom of Infor-
mation Act specifically exempts records which are "proper-
lyclassified ... in the interest of national defense or foreign
policy,"an exemption which in the past Agency spokesper-
sons always defended as adequate. But the CIA, and the
Senator, have now taken the position that the appearance
of additional protection is as important to present and
prospective agents as an already sufficient law.
The argument is bizarre, but not as much so as the
justifications given for restricting the FOIA to citizens'
requests for personal files. It is "absurd," Senator Moyni-
han said, to allow "an agent of the KGB" to seek intelli-
gence under the Act. But, if classified national defense and
foreign policy matters are already exempt from the Act,
what is the point? Moreover, the new proposal limiting
requests to personal files is a direct attack at the academi-
cians, historians and researchers who have, with the sub-
The line on the Hughes-Ryan Amendment repeal is
equally inconsistent. Even as the bill was introduced, Sena-
tor Walter Huddleston, one of its sponsors, admitted that
"he knew of no leaks that could definitely be blamed on
Hughes-Ryan, but he said that there have been some covert
operations the CIA has decided not to undertake because
of fear of disclosure." (Washington Po.ct, January 24,
1980.) What makes the repeal movement even more foolish
is the poorly guarded secret that the C1A has ignored
Hughes-Ryan whenever it wished. Finally it came out into
the open on February 21, 1980, when Admiral Turner was
testifying before Congress in opposition to the Charter
introduced a few days earlier (see below).
Under persistent questioning he admitted that he had
not always kept Congress informed in advance of antici-
pated activities. When it was suggested that this contra-
dicted his testimony before Congress at his confirmation
hearings that he would have "no difficulty"complying with
the advance notice provisions, he waffled. He noted that he
had only said he would have no difficulty trying to keep
Congress informed, not that he would. A few days later,
Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd said he would insist
on prior notice of covert action.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/09 :CIA-RDP90-008458000100190005-2
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/09 :CIA-RDP90-008458000100190005-2
The icing on the cake was presented on February 8, when
the Tfational Intelligence Act of 1980 was introduced. This
171-Rage bill, some three years in the making, was submit-
ted N ith aspecial letter of support from President Carter,
an Administration synopsis, and lengthy statements from
bi-partisan sponsors. As noted above, certain differences
betty?en Congress and the CIA were expected, most nota-
bly the prior notice provision. Another area of expected
disagreement is the express approval of use by the CIA of
journalists, clergymen and academics as agents. The Agen-
cy w~ints this provision removed, for obvious reasons. (As
with the Hughes-Ryan Amendment, though, there is no
reason to believe that the CIA has not ignored present
minimal restrictions whenever it has suited their purposes.)
But, most shocking to civil libertarians were the provi-
sions of the Charter which permit considerable burglariz-
ing, bugging, wiretapping and mail opening, much of it
without even the need for a court order-not that the
judgf~s, selected to sit on a special court for such purposes,
are t~~ be expected to rally around the protection of indi-
vidu~il rights. The bill would, for example, allow a burglary
"No Charter Is Better
Than This Charter"
overseas of anyone, 1J.S. citizen or not, suspected of pos-
sessi~ig information "that is essential to the national securi-
ty of the United Status." This means that anyone with any
contacts overseas which might lead the Administration to
believe the person has such information-even though law-
fully obtained and lawfully possessed-could find his
home or office ransacked, because the CIA wanted what-
ever he or she had.
The Charter also exempts the CIA from the Freedom of
Information Act, regardless of the unclassified nature of
the information sought, and also includes another version
of the Boland bill.
Because of the complexity of the Charter, and because it
appears likely that most subsequent debate on these issues
will take place within the framework of the Charter, a
detailed analysis of the Charter is in order. CA IB expects,
in its next issue, to present such an analysis and a report on
the current status of the various pending bills.
In part because the CIA continues to ask for more than
almost anyone is willing to offer, it is unlikely that any of
the more serious proposals will be rushed through Con-
gress. It is certainly hoped that there will be increased
public awareness of the inherent evils in these bills. Like the
fight to prevent the most serious violations of individual
rights in the Criminal Code Revision Act (the old S. I ),the
struggle will not be easy. Current events are being manipu-
lated by the CIA with a vengeance. For now, however, it is
clear that despite the high sentiments voiced some time ago
to restrain the CIA, the tide has turned. At this time, no
charter is better than the one which has been proposed.
C:hostwriting, CIA Style:
"It is imperative that the 96th Congress clearly and com-
pellingly declare that the unauthorized disclosure of the
identities of our intelligence officers and those allied in
our efforts will no longer be tolerated."
From the statement of Frank C. Carlucci to the House Per-
manent Select Committee on Intelligence, January 31, 1980
"It is urgent that the 96th Congress clearly and compel-
lingly demonstrate that the unauthorized revelation of the
identities of our intelligence officers and those allied in
our efforts will no longer be tolerated."
From the statement of Representative Charles E. Bennett
to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
February 1, 1980
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/09 :CIA-RDP90-008458000100190005-2
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/09 :CIA-RDP90-008458000100190005-2
STATEMENT OF CRIB BEFORE
HOUSE COMMITTEE, JAN. 31,1980
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, the Covert-
Action Information Bulletin is pleased to have this oppor-
tunity to present its views to you. The three of us comprise
the complete staff of the Bulletin.
Let us mention one point before we continue with the
prepared statement. We were somewhat concerned yester-
day with the references to "so-called journalists" and to
persons "purporting" to be journalists. We want to note
that Mr. Wolf has been an accredited journalist for four-
tcenyears; M s. Ray has been a documentary film maker for
twelve years, and a writer for the past several years; and
Mr. Schaap has been afull-time professional writer for
more than four years. Philip Agee, incidentally, who left
the CIA ten years ago, has also been a professional journal-
ist since then.
On that subject, let us also clear up some other obvious
misconceptions before we proceed. Mr. Agee is neither a
director, an officer nor an editor of the CovertAcNon /n-
formation Bu//etin. He does contribute articles to it, al-
though as one could ascertain from reading them, those
articles do not name any names. You might all be interested
to know that Mr. Agee has not, to our knowledge, named
any names in at least three years, and that applies to both
"Dirty Work I"and "Dirty Work 2."
Because so much of the discussion which has led to the
introduction of H. R. 5615 suggests that it is aimed express-
ly at us,~ we would like to touch briefly on our philosophy,
and on what, in fact, we do. Although there may be a
profound difference between our view of appropriate intel-
ligencework and that which has led to the introduction of a
bill such as this, we suggest that our position has been
misrepresented.
Our publication, as you are undoubtedly aware, is de-
voted toexposing what we view as the abuses of the western
intelligence agencies, primarily, though not exclusively, the
CIA; and to exposing the people responsible for those
abuses. We believe that our nation's intelligence activities
should be restricted to the gathering of intelligence, in the
strictest sense. We believe it is wrong, and in the long run
extremely detrimental to our democracy, for this country
to interfere covertly in the affairs of other countries. We
believe that other countries should choose the governments
and systems which the people of those countries want for
themselves. We also believe that when our government
1. See, for example, the remarks of Senator Bentsen in the Congressional
Record, May I5, 1979, at 55959-60, and the letter from Admiral
Turner to Senator Bentsen, reprinted at 55960. See also the remarks of
Representative Boland in the Congress/ona/ Record, October 17,
1979, at H9324, and the remarks of Representative McClory at H9325.
See also the letter to the Editor of the New York Times from
Representative Boland, published January I5, 1980.
chooses to support another government and to give it aid, it
should do so openly and publicly.
In this connection, we believe that the CIA, as it is at
present, is probably beyond reform; we believe that it
should be completely revamped, or abolished altogether,
and another new agency created, strictly limited to the
gathering of intelligence. In sum we believe that the covert
manipulation for which the CIA has become notorious
undercover officers and agents corrupting and bribing offi-
cials, buying elections, secretly controlling various media,
employing economic and political sabotage, all the way to
bombings and assassinations--that this manipulation does
not strengthen democracy here in the United States, but in
fact weakens it. Indeed, over the past 30 years or so, the
C[A has generated more hatred of the United States gov-
ernment around the world than any other single institu-
tion. The situation today in Iran, for example, is in large
part he cause of the CI A, not in spite of it. If it is a reasona-
ble goal for a nation to try to live in harmony with the rest
of the world, the CIA is constantly frustrating that goal for
this country.
Before commenting on the specifics of the bill, we would
like to try to dispel two myths which affect not so much our
actual work as other people's perceptions of it, myths
which have clearly affected the deliberations of this
Committee.
First of all, there is the myth that exposure subjects a
CIA officer to a serious threat of physical harm, even
death. This is objectively false. Of the more than a thou-
sand CIA people who have been named over the past five
or six years by many people and many publications in
many countries, not one has been physically harmed on
account of it. Indeed they are rarely transferred ahead of
schedule. We won't belabor the point here, but you should
be aware, as we know the CIA is, that Richard Welch, the
CIA Station Chief in Athens, was murdered by people who
were originally stalking his predecessor, and that his death
had nothing to do with having been named, many times, in
various countries over the years, as a CIA officer.!
2. The American public- and their representatives in Congress -had no
voice, for example, in the now well-documented massive aid to the
Christian Democratic Party in Italy, or to the Front for the National
Liberation of Angola, or to the anti-Allende parties in Chile, to give
just a few examples.
3. See "Communique," by The November 17 Revolutionary Organiza-
tion, reprinted in "Dirty Work: The CIA in Western Europe," for
confirmation that the group was (first watching Welch's predecessor.
See, for the manipulation of the murder by the CIA, "CIA News
Management," by Morton Halperin, Washington Post, January 23,
1977, and Mr. Halperin's Statement to this Committee, January 4,
1978. Mr. Welch was first publicly exposed as a CIA officer in /968, in
"Who's Who in CIA," by Julius Mader. He was also named in
newspapers and magazines in both South America and Europe.
Number 8 (March-April 1980)
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/09 :CIA-RDP90-008458000100190005-2
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/09 :CIA-RDP90-008458000100190005-2
In thc: one instance where physical harm might have been
an issues, the taking of hostages in Iran, we have consistent-
ly, and against considerable pressure from the media, re-
fused to comment on the identification of anyone involved.
Th. second myth is that we and others doing similar
work h