WHEN SPIES GO TO COURT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00965R000100140069-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 13, 2012
• Sequence Number: 69
• Publication Date: June 12, 1983
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

S
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/13 :CIA-RDP90-009658000100140069-4
AR T I CLIa
ON PAGE
Jack Anderson
when
?
S les
p
GO t0
-Court. .
The Central Intelligence Agency has
always played by its own rules. No-
where has this been. more evident than
in the spy agency's guerrilla war with.
those who write about CIA deeds and
misdeeds.
Now a federal judge has given the
CIA and its agents a veritable nuclear
bomb to drop on anyone who has the-;;
temerity to criticize them. Here's the
appalling story:
David Atlee Phillips is a litigious for-'`
mer spook who was accused by author"?
Donald Freed of truing to cover up-the ~.:
CIA's alleged advance knowledg~,~'-.
Plans to assassinate Chilean exile~,-
leader Orlando Letelier. The distip-: ,
guished former ambassador was killed :''
by a bomb in 1976 as he was driving"
along Embassy Row in Washingtori.~Ay
young American -.co-worker, Rormf=~'
Moffitt, was also killed in the bomb:.
blast. ,
Phillips filed amultimillion-dollet;..
libel suit against Freed for the accusa:_
tions contained in his book, "Death Sri
Washington." But Phillips has refused
to follow the standard -rules of 1
discovery and answer questions a ~~':
by the defendant's lawyer about CiA~,;
activities-which .are obviously a vjta] ;
ingredient of Freed's defense against
the libel charge. ?
The CIA has backed Phillips all _tlie ',
way. The agency even sent a lawyer''
and a ?classification expert to Phillips?'~?
deposition to make sure he didn't an=.~
saver any questions that would ember=;,
rass the agency. They hauled out ,the;
Watergate-tarnished shield of "pa.~
tional security"-and ~U.S. Districts
Judge Thomas Jackson bought their
arguments. He ruled that Phillipl~
didn't have to answer questions about
his CIA work, even though that's what:
the libel suit is all about. : ~ ,
u~ASHINGTOT PCT
12 Tune 1983
The decision in the Phillips case }iasi
given civil liberties experts the chills.
They point out that Judge Jackson's
decision, if allowed to stand, would of="
festively muzzle anyone who write's`,
.something the CIA or its former ag%~ts=.
don't like. The threat of a libel suit, in :.
which the defense is shackled,-..pis,
enough to scare off all but the nuast~
reckless writers and publishers. ,?, .,,,
'Phillips ,was the logical choice to'
carry the CIA's banner in this distur~-
ing case. After leaving the CIA in 1975,
Phillips- founded the AssDci~tion of
Former Intelligence Officers and later
a "legal .action" .group called CHAL-
"LENGE.. According _.to Phillips, Lhe
purpose of CHALLENGE was "to as-
sist former intelligence persons .who
have been libeled or slandered."
In afund-raising letter, Phillips?~ex-~'.
plained his plans this way. "It's time td
,challenge .this malicious Lreatment din
public print and public forums. A test
case should be mounted against writers ;
who defame ex-intelligence officers.'"
According to court testimony, Phil-~
lips raised more than $30,000 for such 4
a test-,and the first one .he brought,
was his own. He sued Washingtonian,
Magazine over a story that linked fii
to presidential assassin Lee HarveyOs-
wald. The libel suit-was thrown outhy;
a Montgomery County judge. Phillips-
then used his CHALLENGE funds to
goafter Freed. '
Freed -had charged in his book tha?v~
Phillips was head of Latin American,
operations until his retirement in 19,5,
and thus was closely tied to DINA,.the.
Chilean secret police, whose chief ~wa's`
later indicted for the Letelier-Mo?fltt'
.murders. '
But when asked about his CIA back-, '
ground by Freed's lawyers, Phillips, ,
refused to answer, saying that to `de=~:.
scribe his work for the agency would ''
violate his secrecy agreement. The CIA.
gladly backed him in his refusal. ~ ?,.;;
Freed's lawyers asked for a dism~-??
al. One judge did, in fact, order Phillips `
to answer on details of his CIA wo3k:''
But then the case was ~assigned~~tb
Judge Jackson, who reversed the ~ar-
lier order and let Phillips keep mum; - ;~ .
Phillips' deposition was taken in
'March. Two CIA officials and a deputy
assistant U.S. attorney were on hand to
screen .the questions Freed's lawyers
asked. Phillips refused to answer any
questions on his CIA work or his con-
nection with Chile.
In short, he refused to discuss the
details of the alleged events that
formed the entire basis of his lawsuit.
And the judge went along with it. Sa
what we have is a plaintiff who canau~'
with impunity and with no fear of'em-
beri'assment. He's eating his. cake gird ~~
having it too. ,
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/13 :CIA-RDP90-009658000100140069-4