REAGAN'S NECESSARY AND REASONABLE DIRECTIVE 84

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP91-00561R000100030001-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 9, 2012
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: December 22, 1983
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

STAT
1 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/09: CIA-RDP91-00561 R000100030001-7
?RT1CLE FN'PRED 1
Letters
NEW YORK TIMES
22 December 1983
Reagan's Necessary and Reasonable Directive 84
To the Editor:
Townsend Hoopes's exhortation to
"Block Reagan's Crude Attempt at
Censorship" (Op-Ed Dec. 8) was it-
self little more than a crude attempt
to frighten the American public into
opposing the only reasonable solution
to the problem of unauthorized disclo-
sure of classified information. .
Mr. Hoopes begins his piece by ig-
noring the existence of any problem.
President Reagan's Directive 84 to
safeguard national security is, be as-
serts, simply the product of "right-
wing zealotry." He goes on to de-
scribe how the directive would "re-
press or gravely distort First Amend-
ment freedoms."
Specifically, Mr. Hoopes writes
that a "nit-picking" pre-publication
review procedure will lead to "para-
lyzing delays in the publishing pro-
cess" that will wither the incentive to
write and publish political works,"
"blatantly kill a book," or lead to the
forced publication of views "sani-
tiied" by the Government.
Worst of all, Mr. Hoopes states, the
directive would impose "a lifetime
sentence" of censorship on Govern-
ment employees and would"create a
comprehensive system of prior re-
straint without precedent ... [and]
without ... justification ... [thereby]
mark[ing] the beginning of an expan-
sion of the Government's power to
censor, which could be unlimited."
Fortunately, Mr. Hoopes's sinister
characterization of the Administra-
tion's motives, together with his Or-
wellian reading of Directive 84, do not
comport with either reality or with
the directive's actual provisions. .
At least since 1940, Presidents have
regularly issued a variety of executive
orders to safeguard national security
information. In more recent times,
Congress has also addressed the prob-
lem. For example, during the Carter
Administration, the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence concluded
that "there has been a major failure
Juan Cnuptwn
on the part of the Government to take
action in leak cases ... even where
a leak clearly violated an existing stat-
ute and caused serious harm to
national security."
Rather than being the product of
"right-wing zealotry," therefore, the
President's directive is in line with
historical precedent as well as his con-
stitutional -responsibility to protect
military and diplomatic security.
As for the pre-publication review
procedure that Directive 84 would
...establish, the following facts need
to be noted:
? The Supreme Court has already
upheld the constitutionality of pre-pub-
lication review for C.I.A. employees,
in Snepp v. United States (1980).
? Contrary to Mr. Hoopes's allega-
tion, employees covered by this agree-
ment will not have to submitfor re-
view everything they write for the rest
of their lives. Only .materials that in-
clude sensitive information relating to
specific intelligence matters will have
to be submitted.
? Only classified information can be
deleted under this program. Judicial
review is provided, and the Govern-
ment must be able to prove in court,
before a neutral and disinterested
judge, that every word it wants to
delete is properly classified.
? The procedure will not cause
undue publishing delays. The agree
ment employees will have to sign re-
quires review to be conducted in 30
days as a maximum. Last year, ac-
cording to a Government spokesman,
the C.I.A. conducted 213 such reviews
and completed them in an average of
13 days. For authors working on
shorter deadlines, reviews have been
conducted n a matter of hours.
? This program will not prevent
former officials from giving speeches
and press interviews or from appear-
ing on talk shows. Pre-publication re-
view does not apply to extemporane
ous oral comments. Only if oral state-
ments are given from a.prepared text
is there a requirement to submit for
review. Thus, it is difficult to under-
stand how Directive 84 can diminish
the quality of public debate.
Mr. Hoopes's claim to the contrary
notwithstanding, Presidential Direc-
tive 84 is in the public interest. The
American people have little to fear
and much to gain through its adop-
tion. MICHAEL P. MCDONALD
Washington, Dec. 13,1983
The-writer is general counsel for the
American Legal Foundation.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/09: CIA-RDP91-00561 R000100030001-7