WAS THIS INTELLIGENCE SOURCE SILENCED BY MEDIA EXPOSURE?

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00965R000403060013-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 9, 2012
• Sequence Number: 13
• Publication Date: February 5, 1985
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/02/09: CIA-RDP90-00965R000403060013-8
ARTTLE APPEARED
ON Pas=
WASHINGTON TIMES
5 February 1985
Was this intelligence source
silenced by media exposure?
~ REED IRVEVE
small story on Page 19 of
The Washington Post of
Jan. 23, reported that the
rench government had,
recalled one of its diplomats from
India after he was implicated in a
spy scandal in that country. Two pri-
vate French citizens who also were
reportedly involved already had fled
the country.
The Indian government had
arrested several high officials in the
prime minister's office on charges of
providing information to an uniden-
tified foreign power. The home min-
ister told Parliament that it had not
yet been determined what foreign
intelligence agency was involved.
The story went on to say that the
Indian government had been alerted
to the espionage operation by stories
that had appeared in The Washington
Post and The New York Times last
Sept. 15. The stories concerned a CIA
briefire of the Senate Intelligence
( otnmittee. They discussed a top-
secret recommendation to the prime
minister of India by some of her
advisers suggesting a pre-emptive.
strike against a nuclear reactor in.
Pakistan. The Indian government
deduced that there must have been
a leak from the prime minister's
office. Surveillance of aides working
in the office was begun, with the
result that several aides were
accused of divulging information to
unauthorized foreigners.
The first report of the CIA
briefing of the Senate Intelligence
Committee appeared on ABC's
"World News Tonight" on Sept. 13.
Anchorman Peter ennuis read this
statement: "There is concern on
Capitol Hill tonight -LW t a possible
confrontation between India and
Pakistan. ABC's John ca as
learned that some senators became
alarmed after they learned of a pos-
sible Indian attack on a Pakistani
nuclear facility. U.Sintelligence
authorities insist that no specia
warning was given to the senators
that any attack on the facility was
imminent, that this was just one of
severs trouble soots worth
watching closely. There has long
been concern in India that Pakistan
might be constructing a nuclear
device. Pakistan has said it was not:'
Two days later, on Sept. 15, Philip!
Taubman had a long story in The
New York Times reporting that,
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had!
received recommendations from
some of her senior advisers that
India carry out an air strike against
the nuclear reactor at Kahuta. Paki-
stan. The purpose would be to pre-
vent the development of nuclear
weapons by the Pakistanis. Mr. Taub-
man said that both Sens. Barry Gold-
water and Daniel Patrick Moynihan
had expressed concern about the
possibility of an Indian air strike
against the Kahuta installation. .L
Taubman said: "The CIA told the
Senate committee, according to two
members, that it had learned from a
sensitive intelligence source that
Mrs. Gandhi received recommenda-
tions s year from some senior
aides that India attac a uta
plant to make sure that the enrich-
ment Process was not used for the
development of weapons.-
The Washington Post story by Don
Oberdorfer reported that govern-
ment officials in Washington had dis-
counted as "alarmist" the ABC News
report that Prime Minister Gandhi
had been urged by her advisers to
attack the Pakistani nuclear installa-
tion. Mr. Oberdorfer said some offi-
cials noted that the report appeared
to come from a CIA brieftn2 of the
Senate Intelligence Committee.
It would a ear t at t o IA had
arnuire its information
ei intelligence a ency that had
developed valuable assets within the
Indian government. a government
with close ties to the Soviet Union.
T e s are that information
wit senators and some of them
promptly blabbed to the med. The
intelligence operation was
destroyed, and we can assume t at
the foreign source will ess wi -
in to share its secrets with e
in the future.
Apparently neither the senators
nor the journalists worried about
what would happen to the sensitive'
source if the information were made';
public. The people who run The New
York Times and The Washington Post
claim that they are qualified to
decide what should be kept secret.
Question: Did they blow this
operation on purpose or did they
goof?
Reed Irvine is chairman of Accu-
racy in Media.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/02/09: CIA-RDP90-00965R000403060013-8