LETTERS TO THE EDITOR - UNFAIR TREATMENT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• 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
• Publication Date: January 4, 1987
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

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