(Sanitized) DOCUMENTS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP62-00631R000400050012-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 9
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 29, 2004
• Sequence Number: 12
• Publication Date: June 5, 1958
• Content Type: MF

4proved For Release 2004/45/12-'. CIA-RDP62-00631R000400050012-1
OGC 8-O98Oa
5Alfte 1.958
KOWA t 7W: Smart Cog, Pore eign Intelligence
SUW=
Mex arsis ate
Returned herevith is the plVed letter to the Deparhae+nt Of
Mice together Frith the att nts affi Archives files isheed
this Office. As we discussed with you can 3 , the headIx Of
the letter and the signer are the only cheeses in substance. You
win note that the original armed letter aid attachaent$ roar
forwarding to Jbatice are enclosed for your transmittal.
Assistant
OGC:JGO:j
Orig & 1 - Addressee
t-"1 - Subject
1 - Signer
1 - Chrono
25X1
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP62-00631 R000400050012-1
 Approved For Release 2004/05/12 CIA-RDP62-00631 R0004000 pI2-1
21 May 1958
MEMORANDUM FOR: Office of General Counsel
ATTENTION:
SUBJECT:
Amerasia Documents
1. Per my telephone conversation, the attached letter
from the Assistant Attorney General and our reply relative
to the 16 additional documents are attached. We have had
the Archives search the OSS and SSU records and they
produced two files which have a bearing on the matter.
FE, has looked these over and also Mr. Houston's
letter of 12 December 1955, copy attached.
2. It is believed that the General Counsel should
coordinate in the reply. Copies of all available correspondence
on this subject are also attached for your information.
3. We would appreciate the return of the complete file.
We wish to retain a complete record, as it is possible that
the Department of Justice may make further requests for
review of more documents in the future.
uppor roup
Foreign Intelligence
Approved For Release 2004/05/12: CIA-RDP62-00631 R000400050012-1
25X1
 .':A555TANY ATTORNEY Groved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP62-00631 R000400050012-1
yntu of Juzfte
a0WF&'.11231958
Lawrence R. Houston, Esquire
General Counsel
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington 25, D. C.
Reference is made to my letter of March 7, 1958, acknow-
ledging receipt of your letter of February 28, 1948, in which you
submitted for our consideration several suggestions for legislation
concerning the protection of classified information. You requested
our views as to the feasibility of obtaining such legislation and
our forecast of its effectiveness if enacted.
This Division has long felt the need for legislation
embracing one of your proposals, namely, legislation that would
remove any doubt that the espionage laws have application abroad.
We have proposed several amendments in this regard, the most recent
of which is presently under consideration in the Office of the
Deputy Attorney General. The only problems that have arisen con-
cerning our amendment have been questions of form rather than those
of substance. I purposely refrained from answering your letter
sooner in the hope of being able to inform you that this Department
had submitted its amendment of Section 791 of Title 18, United States
Code, to Congress. However, it is anticipated that this will be
accomplished in the not too distant future.
You pointed out in your letter that it was extremely
difficult to prosecute effectively under Sections 793 and 794 of
Title 18, United States Code, without compromising classified
information. You also stated that Section 798 of Title 18 and Section
2277 of Title 42 attempt to overcome at least a part of this evi-
dentiary problem in that they do not require any showing of intent
to injure the United States or aid a foreign power. Accordingly,
you felt it might be feasible to develop similar legislation with
respect to employees and former employees of Government who disclose
classified information relating to intelligence sources and methods.
It is not entirely clear whether your proposal encompasses
a statute which would make possible the bringing of prosecution with-
out the necessity of introducing the compromised documents in evidence,
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP62-00631 R000400050012-1
 Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP62-00631 R000400050012-1
such as, only requiring testimony of its general nature and that it
did in fact relate to the national defense. If this proves to be
the case, you will be interested in knowing that it has been our view
in examining similar legislation in the past that a statute of this
kind raises serious constitutional questions under the First and
Sixth Amendments. We have found that certain of these proposals, if
enacted into law, would result in an unconstitutional deprivation of
the rights of the defendant to be fully informed of the nature of the
charges against him and to conduct a detailed cross-examination. In
addition, inasmuch as the question of whether or not the information
does in fact relate to the national defense is a question to be deter-
mined by the jury, such legislation might unconstitutionally invade
the province of the jury. See Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19.
Furthermore, proposals of this kind are also open to widespread
criticism as constituting censorship.
On the other hand, your proposal may be addressed solely
to the proposition that a statute punishing the willful communication
of classified information relating to intelligence sources and
methods, without requiring a showing of intent to injure the United
States or to gain an advantage for a foreign nation, would be an
added step toward the protection of certain official information
from unlawful disclosure. Generally speaking, the espionage statutes
include within their coverage classified information relating to
intelligence sources and methods. Accordingly, if we could establish
that an individual disclosing such information knew it to be classified
and the person receiving it to be unauthorized, such an offense would
also be covered by the espionage statutes. Of course, it is recognized
that in certain matters where there is no evidence of subversive
intent, e.g., "leakage" cases, the chances of successful prosecution
would be enhanced in a proceeding under a statute similar to the one
you have proposed.
In the circumstances, then, while we believe that legisla-
tion of the type which you suggest might well prove helpful, it is
extremely difficult to offer any constructive comment with respect to
the feasibility or effectiveness of legislation in this field without
the benefit of a specific draft thereof.
You further stated in your letter that an injunction
provision, similar to Section 2280 of Title 42, United States Code,
directed against anyone who has violated or is about to.violate any
provisions relating to the protection of confidential information,
would, under certain circumstances, be useful against individuals
who threaten or otherwise give advance warning that they might
disclose such information. You pointed out that it would be extremely
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP62-00631 R000400050012-1
 Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP62-00631 R000400050012-1
-3-
important to provide that the injunction could be obtained without
publicly divulging the information sought to be protected.
It appears that a statute incorporating the latter element
might also be subject to widespread criticism as constituting cen-
sorship. The argument against such a statute could be that it permits
the Government to obtain an injunction regardless of whether the
information to be disclosed does, in fact, have any security signi-
ficance. However, as I have previously indicated, it is difficult
to draw any definite conclusions with respect to this type of statute
without studying the exact language to be used therein. We would,
of course, be pleased to examine any future drafts embodying your
proposals.
You may be interested in knowing that Section 2280 of
Title 42 was recently invoked, for the first time, to restrain a
group of pacifists from sailing their ketch, "The Golden Rule",
into the Eniwetok nuclear testing grounds. On May 1, 1958, they
defied the order by attempting to leave Honolulu for the restricted
area and were convicted on charges of criminal contempt of court.
Sincerely,
J. WALTER YAKG
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP62-00631 R000400050012-1
 Approved For Release 2004/05/12: CIA-RDP62-00631 RO
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Ranch'?,
Address Reply to the
Division Indicated
and Refer to Initials and Number
lawrence R. Houston, Esquire
General Counsel
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington 25, D. C.
Dear Mr. Houston:
I have examined with considerable interest the
suggestions for legislation set forth in your letter of
February 28, 1958.
After we have completed our study of your pro-
posals, some of which are similar to those we have had
under consideration in this Division, we will communicate
with you further with respect thereto. If, at that time,
it is felt that further discussion is desirable we would
be pleased to have representatives of this Division confer
with members of your staff.
Sincerely,
C.
)J. WALTE
First Assistant
Internal Security Division
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP62-00631 R000400050012-1
 Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP62-00631 R000400050012-1
OGC 8-0406
M r. J. Walter Tnagley
First Assistant
Internal Security Division
Department of Justice
Washington 15, 0. C.
Dear Mr. Yes1tey:
The Central Intelligea+tt Agency has a basic interest is
the protection of properly classified information In the hands
of the Government. Of special concern is the protection, at
intelligence sewrees and methods which pr?seats a specialised
problem of security over and above that of i>sfersuatioct which
is itself confidential.
Studying the existing legislation designed to preteet
confidential information, from erar particular point of view
we believe there are certain arms where new or w=ended
legislation would increase th* possibility of effective aches.
We believe the primary target should be employees and ex-
employees of the t overneersatwho dieelese information entrusted
to them in the coarse or as a result of their employment and which
they have reason to believe is classified.
Under sections 999 and 794 of Title I) of the Merited States
Code onperiencte has shows that in most cases it Is Impossible to
prosecute effectively without compromising classified I fesma-
tion. Even if they Ciovernmeent's case can be mad. without
compromise, the defense may demand production of information
deemed pertinent by the cotirt. which the Government cannot
publicly relesse; therefore, the prosecatiea tails. There are
two enactments directed towards specialised fields which
attempt to overcome at least a part of this evidentiary problem.
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP62-00631 R000400050012-1
 Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP62-00631 R000400050012-1
?t e i in the Atomic ~:ne ;: n;-_t in Chapter 18 of which set`
+sr.y r7Y33:0 cJ r `.t "knowingly communiCa ti-S
..:.
'rRe 5t-fG sv has o F;'.i1 wis'
Section 7
tions defined in thw and does not require any
showing of _; ~t in ure the in the case of Classified
~tt4 i7encet i-s ou f -in that it might be
f e to develop Ws:11~ __' .% l s i n conc rfing Classified infor-
tl it in the ease of employees and ex-employees the disclosure be
made wilfully and with knowledge or reason to believe that it was
classified information without re ring a showing of intent to
injure the United states or aid & foreign power.
A second area involves the problem of persons who threaten
or otherwise give advance warning that they may disclose coad
dential information. We have faced such situations from time to
time and find no satisfactory ready in say criminal statutes.
We have noted with interest section 230 of the tic Znsrgy Act
of 1954, as amended, which provides for an injunction is enforce
compliance with the provisions of that act by anyone who has
engaged or is about to engage in a violation
of fto anyone, act.
who hA
as
similar injunctive provision directed against
to the protection
violated or is about to violate any acts relating
of confidential information would be a useful provision under
certain circumstances. Obviously. it would be important to
provide that the injunction could be obtained without publicly
divulging the information sought to be protected. We are exception
+~
aware of any such provision at present with the possible
of section 3043 of Title 18 of the United States odee,, which might
be a basis for a remedy in the nature of a peace
s as
we know this provision has never been used for this purpose.
Another aspect of interest to this Agency has to do mob
the present possible limitations an jurisdiction in the espionage
acts of Title 18 arising out of the wording of section 791. We
believe it should be clearly provided that the espionage laws
apply to United states nationals and to aliens for acts of espioss$s
against the United States wherever committed. We are avows
that there is doubt resulting from certain judicial interpretations
that section 791 would prevent extraterritorial application of the
espionage provisions, but we feel any such doubt shwabi be rosslved
to provide clearly for pros*cudAs for acts committed abroad.
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP62-00631 R000400050012-1
 Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP62-00631 R000400050012-1
We would greatly appreciate the consideration of your
technicians and experts en the forsgnmg suggestions and your
gents as to feasibility of obtaining such legislation and
year forecast of its effacti ress if obtained. If you wish as
to Tarnish more information is co nection with our experience
in the problem of protecting confidential. please
call an us and we will be glad to work with your staff in drams
legislation. particularly as it might relate to intelligence sources
and methods.
Sincerely yours,
Lawrence A. Houston
General Counsel
OGC: LRH: j eb
Executive to DCI
Director of Security
Legislative Counsel
General Counsel h r ono
cc: Mr. Robert Dechert
General Counsel
Department of Defense
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP62-00631 R000400050012-1