LETTERS TO THE EDITOR - UNFAIR TREATMENT

Document Type: 
Collection: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
CIA-RDP90-00965R000403690001-2
Release Decision: 
RIFPUB
Original Classification: 
K
Document Page Count: 
1
Document Creation Date: 
December 22, 2016
Document Release Date: 
January 13, 2012
Sequence Number: 
1
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
January 4, 1987
Content Type: 
OPEN SOURCE
File: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP90-00965R000403690001-2.pdf85.94 KB
Body: 
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/01/13: CIA-RDP90-00965R000403690001-2 5 Joseph Laitin Unfair Treatment LETTERS TO THE EDITOR WASHINGTON POST 4 January 1987 Now that 1986 is out of the way, there is the temptation-almost an obligation-to look at last year's headlines and take stock. What coni=es, to mind are two cases of unfair treat- ment to defenseless individuals in un- related stories. This ombudsman dealt with them at the time in internal memos addressed to editors and staff.. Looking back, they should have been discussed publicly in this column. One of the offended people shaft remain anonymous here to avoid fur- ther embarrassment, but the other case is a matter of public record. On Nov. 4, The Post published an article prominently displayed at the top. of page one. It concerned a career civil. service professional in the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency who, was accused of security violations. The Ombudsman article reported that the employee. Kathleen Strang, was accused of mis- handling sensitive top-secret docu- ments, including some concerning Paki- stan's efforts to build a nuclear weapon. Adjacent to this article was another story, written by the same reporter= Bob Woodward, about Pakistan's "dra- matic progress" toward production of an A-bomb. There was an implied link age between the two stories. The article about Kathleen Strang stated that an agency security panel had recommended that her clearances be permanently revoked. It also re- ported that she had appealed this decision to the director of the agency, Kenneth Adelman. On Nov. 9, The Post carried a letter to the editor from her attorney, David E. McGiffert, stating that the allegations concerned failure fully, to comply with certain internal docu- ment-handling procedures. He de- scribed his client as a woman who had served the agency for 12 years with a spotless security record and whose loyalty had never been questioned. He said she could not respond to The Post's request for information for the original story because of a lawsuit pending against the agency. The next day, director Adelman reversed the ruling of the security panel. He restored her top-secret clearance, with certain restrictions, and suspended her for six months without pay. This was an interesting decision, but this was hardly a John Walker espio. nage case-more likely a knuckle-rap- ping infraction that deserved disciplin ary action inside the agency, it hardy rated the attention given it by -The Post. Worse, nothing appeared in The Post about director Adelman's xevehal of the security panel's decision. There is one unique aspect to this story. Bob Woodward of Watergate fame, who wrote the article about: Kathleen Strang but, of course, was not responsible for the prominent display it was given nor its juxtaposition to the sensational story suggesting Pakistan was about to join the world nuclear club, is a reporter who has achieved unparalleled status in the annals of American journalism. His signature, over an article about an allegation of a misstep in government is to many tan- tamount to a grand jury indictment a reputation that contributed to the grievance of Kathleen Strang. The second injustice involved a routine news item about the retire- ment after 25 years of an executive who is highly respected in his indus- try. This otherwise unremarkable sto- ry ended with the gratuitous observa. tion that the outgoing executive was "known for his incomprehensible pre- sentation of . . . facts and figures," which, to say the least, was totally irrelevant. It should have been blue- penciled out of a gossip column. The ombudsman phoned the victim's deputy to determine whether a public comment in this column would cause new anguish. His advice: forget it. But he offered a fascinating sidelight. His boss was a member of the prestigious Metropolitan Club, stronghold of the white power elite in the capital. A member had torn the item from the page, thumbtacked it to the bulletin board in the lobby and written above it: "Welcome to the Club." As the day wore on, other members added their comments, some, with obvious relish, signing their names. This apparently more than made up for the discomfort caused by the insulting mention in The Post. What stayed with me was that these comments, so gleefully writZett by the club members who repre- sented white power, were not unlike, the criticisms that have been sourQl- recently by the privileged and under privileged of the black community. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/01/13: CIA-RDP90-00965R000403690001-2