Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 22, 2016
Document Release Date: 
June 9, 2010
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
April 1, 1980
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP90-00845R000100190005-2.pdf3.38 MB
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: (202) 265-3904. 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