'NECESSARY SECRETS' VS. THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOW

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP91-00561R000100030031-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 17, 2012
• Sequence Number: 31
• Publication Date: October 25, 1983
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Q. Experts say that using poly-
graph tests to screen large numbers
of people may falsely brand innocent
h
people
ars more often
.
en aux..
as ??
SPM- t0Thehew YWk Times A. Examples of this are classified
an approach catches guilty people.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 24-The Rea- themselves. But, for example, if it Would you dispute this, or, if not, how
gan Administration's campaign to comes-out that we-have a particular would you justify it?
stop unauthorized disclosures of na- intelligence operation under way that i A. Certainly the polygraph is not
tional security secrets has come vas intended to remain secret,iben it perfectly reliable. For that reason no.
under attack from members of Con. i becomes much easier for our .adver- action will be taken solely on the basis
gress, former officials, journalists !series to take countermeasures. of polygraph examination results.
and others who say -that the means _ '~ - ? Even so, there is some room for error
chosen do violence to the national r 'Q- Does Your censorship system that could be harmful to the employ_
traditions of free speech and open de- s portat- element of ee. Bun for this very small number-of _sacriftce an
tree
ARTICLE APPEARED
ON PAGE ,e 3 0
NEW YORK TIMES
25 October 1983
01.&A.: Richard K. Willard of the Justice Departme~
`NecessarySecrets'vs. the Public's
Right to Know
Much criticism has been focused on
a national security decision directive
issued by President Reagan March
11. One provision, which the Senate
voted last week to block until April,
requires more than 100,000 officials
who handle especially sensitive intel-
ligence secrets to sign agreements
submitting to Government censor-
ship for the rest of their lives. Another
provision calls for vastly expanded
use of polygraph tests to ferret out
leakers and spies. -
Richard K Willard, a 35-year-old
Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
is the chief architect of these initia-
tives. Mr. Willard, a graduate of Har-
vard Law School who was a clerk for
Associate Justice Harry A. Blackmun
of the Supreme Court, discussed the
issues in a recent interview. Here are
excerpts.
?
Q. So some people this system of
censorship and polygraph testing con-
jures visions of George Orwell's
"1984. " Whats the justification?
A. The purpose of the Administra-
tion's program is to protect classified
information from unauthorized dis-
closure. There are certain kinds of in-
formation that would cause serious
damage to our country if that infor-
mation became known publicly.
There's obviously a need to strike a
balance between protecting neces-
sary secrets and the public's right to
know. In our view, though, over the
last decade, the balance has swung
too far in the direction of letting infor.
mation become public, including.
some very sensitive information
about intelligence activities. Our abil.
ity to conduct necessary intelligence
activities has been severely compro.
mised.
?
Q. Can you give one or two exam- -
pies of harm that has been done
through unauthorized leaks of classi-
fred information?
i -A. The. agreement we've proposed
would only require officials to submit
things that they write about intent
gence matters. Officials are free to
write about anything else that they
wish without prepublication review.
In addition, the only officials who are
covered are officials who have access
to the most sensitive kinds of intelli-
gence. We think the importance of
protecting this very sensitive infor-
mation outweighs the disadvantages
that it may have for the employees.
Q. Would not the prepublication re-
view system allow the officials of one
-administration to censor the writings
of their predecessors?
A. There's a safeguard here-judi-
cial review. If material is submitted
for review and we try to take some-
thing out, we have to prove in court
that every word we want to delete is
classified, and properly classified.
?
Q. How do:you answer critics who
have suggested that each step further
in this direction of censorship ob-
scures the differences between the
free society that we have and Soviet
society, forexarnple?
A. That sort of claim is absolutely
ridiculous. Our proposal is a very
moderate safeguard. Many free soci-
eties have much more severe restric-
tions. For example, Great Britain has
the Official Secrets Act, which is
much more rigorous than anything
we have ever proposed. I think that
critics who make that kind of accusa-
tion have absolutely no sense of pro-'
portion in viewing these issues.
The First Amendment is very im-
portant but there are other national
interests as well, and the Supreme
Court has recognized that First
Amendment rights are not absolute.
There is no First Amendment right
for Government employees to dis-
close classified information without
authorization.
Q, Is it a crime to publish or dis-
close classified information?
A. In most cases it is certainly a
potential criminal violation.
..,c --mu aeGw-uy interest oat.
weighs the risk of harm to the individ-
ual employee and justifies the pro-
gram. Our policy is to limit use of the
polygraph to a very small number. of
very sensitive jobs. We oppose the use
of the polygraph on a general basis;in
the Government. -
I think we would all prefer to live in
a world where we did not have to have
intelligence agencies or be concerned
about potential foreign adversaries,
but that is not the case. Our goal is.to
protect as best we can that informa-
tion without causing any unnecessary
harm to the values of openness that
we all share. ?
Q. Are you concerned about the pos-
sibility that some highly qualified
people who object in principle ;to
being censored or to polygraph test.
ing might hesitate to join the Govern-
ment?
A. These security requirements
have been in place at the C.I.A. and
other intelligence agencies for many
years. We have proposed to extend
some of these requirements to other
people in the Government who have
access to the same kind of sensitive
classified information. We think that
people who want to go to work for the
Government in the area of natiotal
security and wOo have access to our
country's most sensitive secrets must
appreciate the need to take careful
securityprecautions.
Q. Is there anything you'd like.to
add? 11; ?
A. We have no desire to cut dovvha on
the flow of unclassified information to
the press and public. We think'that
our Policy represents a reasonable
balance of the competing interests,
but we do consider the protection of
Properly classified information to be
a basic responsibility of the Govern.
ment, and one that we intend to live
Stuart,Taylor Jr.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/17: CIA-RDP91-00561 R000100030031-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/17: CIA-RDP91-00561 R000100030031-4