The Open Gates of Troy

OPENING MONTAGE SCENES

Mark Felt: "What they were doing there was making bombs. They were making anti-personnel bombs. They were taking four or five sticks of dynamite, hundreds of heavy nails, and taping the nails on the outside of the dynamite so that when it exploded, it would send those nails in every direction and, of course, any one like a bullet. So they would have killed hundreds of people had they been successful."

Larry Grathwohl: "But because of my activities and other people's activities, the Weathermen had to spend a lot of time trying to determine who the informants were, who the police agents were, and this distracted them from their goals."

Ladislav Bittman:"The two disinformation departments--­again under the supervision of the Soviets--decided to start a long-term operation against the CIA, making life as hard as possible for CIA, that is to label many American diplomats, politicians, cultural representatives abroad as CIA agents and paralyze their positions."

Philip Agee: "I believe in the naming of the names of CIA people working abroad."

Morton Halperin:"I think anybody who thinks that the Communist Party in the United States is a serious threat to the security of the United States in any way has not studied the political situation in the United States."

Richard Nixon: "I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow. Vice President Ford will be sworn in as President at that hour in this office."

MUSIC TO CLIMAX
Griffin: In the First Century, B.C., it was the Roman poet Virgil who immortalized the story of the Trojan Horse. After 10 years of warfare, the Greeks hadn't been able to breach the impenetrable walls around the Trojan city of Troy. Finally, they devised a scheme for accomplishing through trickery what they could not achieve by military might. They built a large wooden statue of a horse and placed it outside the city gates, supposedly as an offering to the Gods and a tribute to the Trojans who were led to believe that the Greeks at last had abandoned the battlefield. But, when the structure was brought into the city, it carried a small contingent of Greek soldiers hidden within its wooden belly. That night, while the Trojans slept with pleasant dreams of peace the soldiers crept from their hiding place, overpowered the few sentries who remained on guard, and, from the inside, opened the gates of Troy. Legions of warriors waiting on the outside rushed into the defenseless city and, roaming through the streets at will, massacred the population. When they left, it is said that every building had been destroyed, and no living thing remained behind.
        Now there is much in common between the ancient city of Troy and the United States of America. In the past, our walls have been impenetrable against the armies of all hostile foreign powers. But now we are told that there no longer is any danger, because our enemy has "mellowed" and gone. Is it possible that we too have been lulled into pleasant dreams of peace while there are those who, even now, overpower our sentries and pull open our gates from the inside?
        The answer to that question is the subject of this program.

(Voice over) In Part I, entitled Moles in High Places, we posed the proposition that America's retreat from victory since the end of World War II was the result, not of a confusion factor, but of the subversion factor. We reviewed the official Soviet strategy for utilizing subversion as a method of conquest from within. We took a look at the record of early Communist success in penetrating into the highest levels of our government. We saw how these disclosures were met with indifference or hostility from the Executive Branch, the courts, and Congress itself. We saw men who were blatant security risks continue to rise in federal employment. And, finally, we documented the process by which the Soviet underground in the 1960s launched a successful campaign to disrupt and discredit the investigative committees of Congress. By the 1970s, the drive against internal security was ready for the next stage of development.
        In June of 1971, Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo of the Rand Corporation were charged with espionage and theft of government property when they delivered for publication certain highly classified documents which became known as the Pentagon Papers. The publishing of these documents provided the Soviets with an effective anti-American propaganda weapon in Southeast Asia and also gave them the key to our secret diplomatic code, a key they could use to decipher hundreds of older messages recorded and stored for just such a breakthrough. Ellsberg and Russo claimed that freedom of the press gave them the right to obtain and publish these documents.[1]
        A team of National Lawyers Guild attorneys was assembled for their defense, and the head of this team was Leonard Boudin of the law firm Rabinowitz, Boudin and Standard, a registered agent of Cuba.
        Also active in the defense was an organization called the Institute for Policy Studies. Sometimes described as a think-tank for the Left, the Institute for Policy Studies is headquartered in Washington, D.C. It has served as a clearinghouse for disgruntled or disloyal government employees to leak information to the press that will damage our diplomatic or military operations in other countries.[2]
        One of the founders of the Institute for Policy Studies was Richard Barnet.
        In his book, Intervention and Revolution, Barnet describes Communist movements and terrorist campaigns around the world as being merely local struggles for power with no connection to the Soviet Union.[3] It is Barnet's position that the Soviet KGB is not aggressive in these activities and that local Communist leaders are independent of Moscow.
        In his book entitled The Economy of Death, he wrote: "If a country in Asia, Africa, or Latin America ‘goes Communist,’ the Soviet Union or China does not necessarily benefit. ... Revolutionary regimes, even communist ones, do not make the United States any weaker militarily or the communist powers any stronger....”[4]
        One of the goals of the Institute for Policy Studies has been to weaken and neutralize the CIA. This is also a goal of the KGB. In spite of the fact that the CIA already may have been compromised by Communist agents within its ranks, and in spite of the fact that, in many countries, it has supported the worst possible non-Communist leaders among the contenders, still, in some countries, the CIA has done much to slow down Communist progress, and, as long as it remains in operation, there is always a chance that it could do great future damage to Soviet plans.

Agee: "I believe in the naming of the names of CIA people working abroad, or in the United States for that matter, because I think that people around the world ought to know as a matter of principle, with whom they are dealing."
        The name of Philip Agee has become synonymous with the drive against the CIA. Agee had been a CIA Operations Officer in Latin America. He resigned in 1969 and began work on his book entitled Inside The Company: CIA Diary, which became an international best seller in 1975. The theme of this book was simple. The CIA is on the side of evil, engaged in a senseless and cruel campaign against an imaginary threat of Communism. Agee frankly supports the activities of the KGB and even complains that the Soviets are not doing enough in the area of secret operations.
        In the conclusion of his book, Agee revealed his personal ideology. He said: "Reforms of the FBI and the CIA, even removal of the President from office, cannot remove the problem .... The argument is with capitalism, and it is capitalism that must be opposed."[5]
        In the June 1975 issue of Esquire magazine, Agee was even more blunt when he said: "I aspire to be a communist and a revolutionary."[6]
        In 1977 Agee was deported from Britain for his activities on behalf of the KGB. One of the persons who came to his legal defense was Ramsey Clark, former Attorney General of the United States.[7]
        As early as 1974, Philip Agee had become associated with a periodical called Counter-Spy which published the names and addresses of CIA officers stationed in other countries. One of the names published by Counter-Spy was Richard Welch, attached to the U.S. Embassy in Athens, Greece. Shortly after his name was revealed, Welch was ambushed and killed by local terrorists. Similar assassination attempts have been made on U.S. officials in other countries immediately following the public disclosure of their names.[8]
        In July of 1978, Philip Agee traveled to Cuba to participate in the Eleventh Communist World Youth Festival. While there, he announced the formation of a new publication called the Covert Action Information Bulletin. An editorial in the first issue stated: "We will never stop exposing CIA personnel and operations whenever and wherever we find them."[9]
        It's likely that some of the names released by the Covert Action Information Bulletin were CIA officers working under cover of other occupations, but many were not. In fact, one source for acquiring these names was the Soviet Disinformation Departments of East Germany and Czechoslovakia.

LADISLAV BITTMAN INTERVIEW
Griffin: One of the men responsible for compiling this list, before seeking political asylum in the West, was Ladislav Bittman, the officer in charge of the Department of Disinformation in Czechoslovakia.[10]

Bittman: The two disinformation departments--again, under the supervision of the Soviets--decided to start a long-term operation against the CIA, making life as hard as possible for the CIA, that is to label many American diplomats, politicians, cultural representatives abroad as CIA agents and paralyze their positions.
        Specifically, in 1966, the first major operation was to prepare a book which is called Who Is Who in CIA. Shortly after coming to the United States, I found this book in many bookstores. I have it at home. For example, it was quoted by the Covert Action Information Bulletin.

Griffin: Is this Agee's group?

Bittman: Yes, that's right. It's one of the major sources of information about CIA. Man, that's ironic, of course, because it is a Communist disinformation.[11]

Griffin:(Voice over) Another anti-security organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. is called the Center for National Security Studies. It is directed by Morton Halperin, who traveled to England with Ramsey Clark to assist in the legal defense of Philip Agee.[12] Halperin previously had been employed in the National Security Council as the Senior Assistant to Henry Kissinger. Halperin, in fact, was the man who personally prepared the Pentagon Papers for the government before they were illegally transmitted to the press. Later, he spent five months working with Leonard Boudin and other members of the National Lawyers Guild as a special consultant in the defense of Ellsberg and Russo.

MORTON HALPERIN INTERVIEW
Griffin: Mr. Halperin has become another prominent spokesman for the point of view that there is no threat of Communism, that we can best combat the secret operations of the KGB by ourselves doing everything in the open, and that there is no need for us to be concerned over Marxist-Leninist movements in any country.

Halperin: The notion that there is a Marxist-Leninist conspiracy in the world, in light of the very, very substantial differences between various countries who call themselves Marxist-Leninist, is absurd. I think the only people left who take Marxism-Leninism seriously are American right-wingers who have a need for seeing a conspiracy opposed to them.

Griffin:(Voice over) During our interview, Mr. Halperin remained soft-spoken and composed while discussing questions of civil liberties and constitutional rights. But when we asked him about the Communist Party connections of his associate, Leonard Boudin, this was his reply.

Halperin: That's absolute nonsense and you know that's absolute nonsense. Mr. Boudin can speak for himself about his past affiliations, but I think that's, first of all, totally irrelevant to the question of the defense of Daniel Ellsberg, and also absolute nonsense.

JOHN REES INTERVIEW
Rees: Leonard Boudin has been a member of the National Lawyers Guild probably for the last 30 to 35 years. He's been remarkably visible defending people such as Judith Coplin, who was giving Justice Department documents to a KGB agent in New York.

Griffin: (Voice over) Mr. John Rees is editor and publisher of Information Digest, an internationally recognized bi-weekly report specializing in matters of Soviet covert operations against the United States and the free world.

Rees: It's very interesting to note that, in the trial of William Miller and Mark Felt, who were two senior officers of the FBI, harassed in the courts under the Carter Administration for their efforts to stop terrorism, a stipulated document was entered into the court record which said that Leonard Boudin had been a secret member of the Communist Party, U.S.A. Now, I think this is important, Mr. Griffin, that it was a stipulated document and that, in legal terms I understand, is one that was agreed upon by both the attorneys for the defense and for the prosecution.

Griffin: (Voice over) Mr. Halperin denies that the Communist Party is an arm of international conquest. He portrays it as merely another political party interested only in sharing power, not capturing it.

MORTON HALPERIN INTERVIEW
Halperin: I think the Communist Party is like the Republican Party, a political party. I think there may have been people in it, as there may have been people in other political groups, who took orders from foreign powers and who may have violated some laws of the United States. And, if they did, the government has a right to investigate them.

Griffin: Anyone can become a Republican or Democrat. Could anyone join the Communist Party?

Halperin: I did not understand the function of this interview was to discuss the Communist Party, and I don't think I have anything useful to say on the subject.

ROBERT MORRIS INTERVIEW
Morris: Now, these people come up and they advocate something, but they don't advocate it as a Communist. They advocate it as a distinguished professor or a former Foreign Service officer, or somebody who served in the National Security Council, and they're taken at face value at what they're saying. And they are succeeding in making a wrong presentation of the state of the world today. And I say give them all the liberty in the world, but identify them so that, when they do talk, we know who they are and that it is the voice of Moscow speaking and not the voice of our American academe.

MORTON HALPERIN INTERVIEW
Halperin: I think anybody who thinks that the Communist Party in the United States is a serious threat to the security of the United States in any way has not studied the political situation in the United States.

Griffin: (Voice over) In January of 1977, Morton Halperin became Chairman of a new organization called the Campaign for Political Rights. It was launched at a three-day meeting held in Chicago sponsored by the National Lawyers Guild. When we asked Mr. Halperin about the role played by the National Lawyers Guild, again he became upset by the question.

Halperin: I think that when you attempt by asking questions about was the Campaign for Political Rights started by the Lawyers Guild, which will then be followed by a question of did I know that the Lawyers Guild was named by the California Un-American Activities Committee as a Communist front, that the only conceivable purpose of such questions is to attempt to smear organizations and to discredit their work by tenuous and illegitimate connections which are absolutely irrelevant to what they're doing and can serve no other purpose than pure McCarthyism.[13]

Griffin: (On camera) That brings us up to date in terms of the more prominent individuals and organizations which have been working to dismantle our internal security system. The names have changed over the years, but the methods and the rhetoric have not.
        Now, in spite of the fact that this campaign has been going on now for well over 30 years, and in spite of the fact that it enjoys the backing of a major foreign power with almost unlimited funding and full-time professional leadership, still, many Americans are of the opinion that, somehow, we have survived the attack. Surely, someone in government is watching these things. That, of course, is a comforting thought, but, unfortunately, it is not a reflection of reality. We shall take a hard look at that reality in the next part of this program.

(Voice over) We Americans do not like to hear criticism of our presidents, especially if we, personally, have voted for them. It is as though our ballot somehow sanctified these politicians and converted them into sages and saints. But the fact remains that presidents from both political parties have contributed to the undermining of our internal security system, and we cannot sweep these facts under the rug merely because the men involved have been politically popular.
        The role played by FDR in opening up government employment to Communists in the 1930s and '40s previously has been shown. When Roosevelt died in 1945, Harry Truman stepped into the presidency, but made few changes regarding internal security. In fact, Mr. Truman was upset by the exposure of Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White, especially when it was learned that Truman had promoted him after being told by the FBI that White was a Communist. The President also was outspoken against the investigation of Alger Hiss and dismissed the issue as being merely a "Red herring". To prevent a repeat of these exposures, he issued orders forbidding the entire Executive Branch of government from giving to Congressional committees any information contained in employee personnel records.[14] This included the State Department.

Although President Eisenhower had been elected to office partly on his campaign against subversion in government, once in office, he issued a series of executive orders forbidding employees of the Executive Branch to turn over to Congress any information regarding questions of internal security.[15] With this single act, one of the main sources of information about subversion in government suddenly was cut off.
        The Supreme Court also has played an important role in the destruction of our internal security. For example, in 1956 Communist organizer Steve Nelson was sentenced to prison for violating the Pennsylvania Sedition Act. But then the Supreme Court ruled that the Pennsylvania law was unconstitutional because supposedly it had been superseded by the federal Smith Act. This decision struck down the existing internal security laws of 42 states.
[16]
        Then, in a second decision, the Supreme Court declared that provisions of the Smith Act were null and void.[17] In 1964 and 1965, the Court struck down the laws that required American Communists to register as agents of a foreign power. The Justices did not deny that these people really did act as agents of the Soviet Union, but they declared that compelling them to register as such would violate their constitutional rights.[18] These are but a sampling of over 30 decisions of the Supreme Court, mostly under the leadership of Chief Justice Warren, which have made it impossible to prosecute or even to investigate subversion in government. The Warren Court now is gone, but those who followed have not challenged these decisions, and the damage remains un-repaired.
        Another setback to our internal security program was the selection process by which the government employees who administered that program were assured of being of a liberal or pro-Soviet point of view. Those who adhered to a hard line on security were eliminated, such as Otto Otepka, Chief Security Evaluator for the State Department.

OTTO OTEPKA INTERVIEW
Shortly after the election of President Kennedy, Otepka was called to meet with Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Attorney General Robert Kennedy.

Otepka: They asked me about my attitudes and policies and procedures with respect to the administration of personnel in the State Department Security Administration under the new Kennedy Administration. And I was given a specific case and that was on Walt Whitman Rostow. I was asked whether or not it would be possible for Rostow to come into the State Department without the benefit of a background investigation.

Griffin: (Voice over) Otepka replied that he could not issue a clearance for Walt Rostow because he already had been investigated by the CIA and the Air Force, and, on both occasions, was found not to be suitable for employment because of security questions.

Otepka: This made the Secretary, particularly Bobby Kennedy, very unhappy. And Kennedy said, in referring to the decision of the Air Force to turn Rostow down on the prior occasion, he said, those Air Force generals who did this are a bunch of jerks.

Griffin: (Voice over) Shortly after this meeting took place, Walt Rostow, the man who was denied a security clearance by the CIA, the Air Force, and the State Department, was appointed by President Kennedy to be his special assistant in none other than National Security Affairs.[19]
        The Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs under the Kennedy Administration was Harlan Cleveland. Cleveland had ap­proached Otepka to see if there was some way to get Alger Hiss back into the State Department after his release from prison.[20] Cleveland, himself, had been hired only after the Security Evaluations Division had been ordered from above to waive the usual pre-employment security check of his background.[21] Cleveland was responsible for selecting a special committee of 10 experts to rewrite the internal security procedures for Americans employed at the UN.

Otepka: They were all allies and associates of Alger Hiss, the 10 people that I men­tioned earlier who Cleveland wanted on his committee to reform the security procedures. They reformed them all right. They abolished them!

Griffin: (Voice over) In 1963 Otto Otepka was called to testify before the Senate In­ternal Security Subcommittee. One of the disclosures made in that testimony was the case of William Wieland. Wieland had been a State Department of­ficer in charge of Cuban affairs. He played a key role in shaping the U.S. pro-­Castro policy during the critical days of Castro's takeover in Cuba. Otepka had discovered that Wieland, at the time of obtaining employment in the State Department, had concealed information about his past, including an unresolv­ed allegation that he had been connected with the Cuban Communist party. Otepka also discovered that Wieland had concealed evidence that Castro was a Communist.

Otepka: There was just a preponderance of evidence showing that Fidel Castro was a Communist. Yet, William Wieland was advising his superiors, John Foster Dulles and, then when he died, Christian Herter, that there was no evidence that Castro was a Communist, and that we should seek an accommodation with Castro, and get rid of that right-wing dictator, Batista...
        When all of this was brought out in my evaluation report, I found out that Wieland had his supporters upstairs who immediately came to his rescue, who didn't want these facts to come out, who didn't ....

Griffin: (Voice over) The strategy of the State Department was to force Otepka's resignation. His files were removed. He was denied access to department records. His phone was tapped and then disconnected. He was moved to a small office where his only assignment was to index the Congressional Record!
        But Otto Otepka did not yield to these pressures, and his superior, who had ordered the tapping of his telephone, was the one who was forced to resign. In the end, Otepka was vindicated, but conditions in the State Department did not change. William Wieland was promoted and Otepka never served again as Security Evaluator, nor, in fact, did anyone else. The job itself was abolished.[22]
        Part of the responsibility for screening employees of the State Department was transferred to the Civil Service Commission. But the Civil Service Commission had stopped even asking questions about employee loyalty to the United States. According to the Supreme Court, such questions are now unconstitutional.

Nixon: "I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow. Vice President Ford will be sworn in as President at that hour in this office."
        The Watergate scandal that engulfed President Nixon in 1974 proved to be an unexpected source of help to the campaign against internal security. With the public preoccupied with stories of unethical behavior of White House officials, it became easier to sell the idea that the real threat to America was not from Communist subversion, but from our own government.
        In Congress, this attitude was expressed by an increasing support for legislation to abolish the House Committee on Un-American Activities, which, by this time, had been renamed the House Committee on Internal Security. But, even at the height of the Watergate backlash, the pro-abolition forces were easily defeated when the issue came to a vote. In 1974 the final vote was only 86 in favor of abolition, with 247 against.[23]
        But the following January, a change in the procedures of the House of Representatives placed into the hands of the Democratic Caucus the power to appoint committee chairmen and to establish House voting rules. The man elected as Chairman of the Democratic Caucus that year was Congressman Philip Burton, the same man who, 15 years earlier, had helped to lead the disruption of the House Committee hearings in San Francisco. Burton wasted no time in using the power of his new position. With the help of Congressman Robert Drinan, a Catholic priest from Massachusetts, and with other long-time foes of the Committee, he drafted a measure to abolish it. This was not in the form of proposed legislation that, as in the past, could be openly debated, but as one of the new operating rules of the House. As such, it could not be singled out. All the rules had to be accepted or rejected as a single package. A "no" vote would have paralyzed Congress until a new package could be rewritten. Many Congressmen who favored the continuance of the Committee were unwilling to delay the opening of Congress, and others were equally unwilling to vote against their own party caucus. And so, on January 14, 1975, the House Committee on Internal Security ceased to exist. After the vote, Congressman Drinan was recognized on the floor of the House and introduced into the Congressional Record a tribute to Communist Party member Frank Wilkinson for his efforts on behalf of the successful abolition campaign.[24] With the elimination of the House Committee, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee became the only anti-subversion investigative body left in Congress. But it too had powerful foes. The Committee actually was a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. One of the members of the Judiciary Committee was Senator Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts who, for many years, had been an outspoken foe of Congressional investigations of this kind. In March of 1977 Kennedy finally succeeded in gathering enough support to cut off all funding for the Internal Security Subcommittee. Abolished by lack of funding, there have been no hearings and no investigations since that date.
        Once the investigating committees of Congress had been silenced, the FBI became the primary target of attack. One of the first moves in this campaign was to destroy the prestige and morale of FBI agents by publicly charging them with criminal activities. This had long been a tactic of the ACLU and the Na­tional Lawyers Guild, but it wasn't until the Justice Department of the federal government assumed this task that the strategy became effective.
        In April of 1978 Mark Felt, formerly the number two man in the FBI, and Edward Miller, his assistant in charge of the Domestic Intelligence Division, were indicted in federal court on charges brought against them by the Justice Department. Felt and Miller had authorized FBI investigators to surreptitious­ly enter the apartments of members and friends of the Weather Underground Organization. The purpose of these entries was to search for information that would reveal the whereabouts of terrorists who were known to be responsible for bombings in New York and Washington. Another purpose was to discover the planned locations of future bombs so they could be intercepted and destroyed beforehand.
        FBI Associate Director Mark Felt tells the story:

MARK FELT INTERVIEW
Felt: In March of 1970, a luxury townhouse in Greenwich Village, New York, blew up. A tremendous explosion. As an interesting sideline, out of the smok­ing and dust and rubble, ran two females. One was completely naked and the other had on a pair of jeans. That was Kathy Wilkinson and Kathy Boudin. They went to neighbors and got clothes and eventually were spirited out of the country to Cuba. But the interesting thing--and most people don't know this, and they should--what they were doing there was making bombs. They were making anti-personnel bombs. They were taking four or five sticks of dynamite, hundreds of heavy nails, and taping the nails on the outside of the dynamite so that when it exploded, it would send those nails in every direction and, of course, any one like a bullet. So they would have killed hundreds of people had they been successful.
        I was very concerned. And at that time, I authorized FBI agents to enter the apartments of five members and supporters of the Weather Underground, try­ing to search for information that would tell us where the next bomb was going off, or what their plans were, or where the fugitives were; intelligence informa­tion. This is a technique called surreptitious entry--some people call it a black bag job--which had been accepted in the FBI in important national security cases for as long as I was in the bureau.

Griffin: (Voice over) Surreptitious entry is forbidden by law when used to gather evidence to convict a person for a crime already committed, but, when used for the purpose of preventing a crime from being committed, especially in the field of espionage, it is an accepted practice in every civilized country in the world.

Felt: In the espionage field, the worst thing you could do would be to get a war­rant, because a warrant has to be served. And, if you aren't in your apartment when we come to serve a warrant, we have to leave a copy of it attached to your front door. So, if you are a Russian spy, what does that tell you? That tells you "they're on my tail. I better stop what I'm doing. I better pull back." From the counter espionage standpoint, you can't let the enemy know what you're doing or how much you know. So, a warrant is not a good idea.

Griffin: (Voice over) In 1977 the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, under Attorney General Griffin Bell, pressed formal charges against FBI agents in New York, claiming that the use of surreptitious entry into the apart­ments of members and supporters of the Weather Underground had violated their constitutional rights.

Felt: I happened to know that the Civil Rights Division was recommending the in­dictment of from 50 to 60 FBI agents in New York as a result of this investiga­tion. Well that was, at that time, when I felt I had to do something, so I came forward and made a public statement and said that I had authorized those, that if anyone was responsible, I was responsible. Ed Miller, who is another Bureau official, came forward a few days later and said pretty much the same thing. And it was as a result of that, that Miller and I were indicted for violation of the civil rights of these individuals.

Griffin: (Voice over) On April 20, 1978, Mark Felt and Edward Miller arrived at federal court in Washington, D.C., for their arraignment. Twelve hundred FBI agents and former agents awaited their arrival at the steps of the court­house to demonstrate support. It was clear that more was at stake than the future of two men. The FBI itself was on trial by its enemies.
        From the beginning, Federal Judge William Bryant demonstrated hostility to the FBI position. At several points within the trial, he even took over the role of prosecutor when the Justice Department attorneys were too slow in doing so.[25] On the last day of the trial, Judge Bryant told the jury to ignore all issues except one; did or did not the defendants have approval for these entries from the President. This was an incredible instruction, because the defense had never claimed that they had been authorized by the President. That procedure had not been instituted by the Justice Department until five years after the events in question. By injecting this element at the last possible instant before the jury retired, the fate of the defendants was sealed.
        On November 6, 1980, Mark Felt and Edward Miller were found guilty of allegedly violating the constitutional rights of American citizens. Their fines were over $8,000, but their total legal costs for defense--an amount raised by FBI agents and friends--exceeded $1,000,000.[26]
        By 1975 the Justice Department under the Ford Administration had come under the control of the Attorney General, Edward Levi. Since Levi had been a member of the National Lawyers Guild,[27] the legal arm of the Communist party, it was no surprise that a major portion of his time in office would be directed toward the destruction of the internal security function of the FBI.
        Levi inaugurated a series of guidelines for future FBI investigations. Under these guidelines, which were based upon recommendations of the National Lawyers Guild and the American Civil Liberties Union, the FBI could no longer investigate individuals or organizations unless there was already proof that they were planning a criminal act. In a federal law suit brought against the government by the Alliance to End Repression, the Justice Department further stipulated that the FBI could not investigate unless the crime was to be committed in the next 48 hours![28] But, without the power to investigate, there is little chance to obtain such proof before the crime is committed. In the past, many bombings, hijackings and killings have been prevented because the FBI had advance information as a result of prior months and even years of investigation. Now there is almost no way to anticipate these crimes.
        The FBI was also told that it could no longer use informants inside terrorist or subversive groups if those informants participated in illegal acts. This sounds reasonable in theory, but, in practice, an informant who refuses to participate in the illegal acts of other members of the group soon would be dropped from its innermost circles and would cease to be an informant at all.[29]
        The man appointed by President Carter to run the FBI was William Webster. When confronted with the guidelines laid down by Attorney General Levi, Mr. Webster expressed satisfaction with them, claiming that they would clarify and simplify the task of the FBI. And simplify they did. Between 1973 and 1979 the number of continuing internal security investigations at the FBI dropped from over 21,000 to 147. That's a reduction of more than 99 percent! The number of special agents assigned to this work had been reduced to 143,[30] an incredibly small force considering that, during that same period, the number of KGB agents under diplomatic cover and operating as journalists or businessmen, had grown to almost 2,000.[31] In other words, there are about 14 times as many KGB agents in the United States as there are FBI agents to thwart them. And this is counting just foreign personnel. It does not take into consideration the much larger group of agents with American citizenship which also is a part of the Soviet underground.
        The CIA also has been weakened by administrative policies established at the top. Between 1964 and 1975 the intelligence operations staff of the CIA was cut back by 40 percent.[32] Then, in 1977, President Carter appointed Admiral Stansfield Turner as Director of the CIA. After assuming office Turner further emasculated the agency by firing 900 of the most experienced intelligence officers that remained.[33]
        The intelligence agencies of friendly governments abroad are now hesitant to share information with the CIA--or the FBI--because their confidential documents could be given to the very people who are named in them; this as a result of the Freedom of Information Act. The threat of assassination of CIA officers in other countries, triggered by such organizations as Philip Agee's Covert Action Information group, has made it difficult to recruit new foreign agents abroad. The morale of the agency is now at an all-time low. Even if a decision were made today to reverse all the crippling policies, it would take many years to rebuild an experienced, efficient, and high-morale intelligence operation.
        Although protecting the country against its enemies is a function of the federal government, state and local police agencies also have a legitimate interest in subversion, particularly as it may lead to acts of local insurrection or terrorism. And so, these agencies also have come under heavy attack from the ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild. The tactic has been to raise the cry of "police spying" and to institute lawsuits designed to force these agencies to destroy their files and to stop the surveillance of Communist activities. In 1973 for example, the New York City police department was forced to destroy 80 percent of its files relating to internal security, including information on Puerto Rican extremists. Two years later, the Puerto Rican FALN terrorists exploded a bomb in Fraunces Tavern, killing four and injuring more than 50 people. And on New Year's Eve, 1982, they exploded four bombs in lower Manhattan and Brooklyn.
        The FALN has claimed responsibility for more than 100 bombings in the previous eight years that have killed or injured scores of Americans.[34] Had the New York police been able to continue the surveillance of violence-oriented groups, it is possible that this carnage could have been prevented.[35]
        In Chicago, in 1979, during a trial in which radical leftists were suing the police for investigating them, allegedly because that was a violation of their right to privacy, the federal judge ordered the police to turn over their files on the FALN terrorists to the attorney representing the radicals. The attorney, Jonathan Moore, was a member of the National Lawyers Guild, and three of his law partners were members of the aboveground branch of the Weather Underground Organization. These files included police analysis of FALN bombing patterns and predictions of future targets which were to be given extra police protection, everything the terrorists needed to know to counter the police. In April of the following year, copies of these police files were discovered in an FALN hideout in Milwaukee.[36]
        Confidential police files show, among other things, the sources of information, including informants and undercover operatives. Even when the names of these people have been omitted, often it is easy to determine by other data in the files who the informant is. This results in that person being expelled from the group under investigation, or, in some cases, exposed to the danger of physical harm or death.
        In Los Angeles, in 1982, involving a case in which the police were being sued by the ACLU acting in the name of the Coalition Against Police Abuse, the attorneys demanded a complete list of all ranking ex-officers now employed in the nuclear power industry, a blueprint of all organizational units within the police department, showing the detailed function of each, and a list of names of all the officers in each of these units.[37] The intended use of this information can only be imagined, but it clearly would not be for the benefit of law enforcement.
        Because of legal harassments of this kind, state and local police agencies have been forced to curtail or to abandon the surveillance of Communist activities at the local level. There are now cities in the United States which the President has been advised not to visit, because there is insufficient intelligence data to anticipate terrorism or assassination attempts.[38]

Grathwohl: If the Weather Underground Organization had been allowed to run amok in 1969 and 1970, I don't know how many people might have been killed, but, because of my activities and other people's activities, the Weathermen had to spend a lot of time trying to determine who the informants were, who the police agents were, and this distracted them from their goals. And, I have no doubt that there's a good number of people alive in this country today because of what myself and other people did.

JOHN ASHBROOK INTERVIEW
Ashbrook: Well, the American Left fought a battle and they won. The tools that most policemen use, the tools that the FBI uses, all of a sudden became suspect, attacked.

Griffin: (Voice over) During the 1970s, John Ashbrook was one of the few members of Congress who fought for a strong internal defense against Communism. This statement, given before our cameras in Washington, D.C., is taken from his last public interview before his sudden and unexpected death in 1982.

Ashbrook: The government is virtually stripped naked when it comes to this particular aspect. There is no loyalty program. I once, at a hearing, had the opportunity to interrogate the director of the program in the FBI supposedly having loyalty. I said, "Well, if you found a Communist in the government now, what could you do?" He said, "Well, you really can't do anything." You can't ask them questions. They don't keep records. They don't have a loyalty oath. The liberals in the last fifteen or twenty years have virtually made government service open to Communists by the destruction of the loyalty program and by making it impossible for the FBI or even the Civil Service Commission to make any checks. I would challenge anybody to say that the FBI or the Civil Service Commission could even investigate a Communist if you knew one were working for the government. That's how far they've gone. That's how much we've failed.

Sound: (Unruly crowd)

Brown: (Voice over, echo) Get out, you un-Americans. That's what you should do. Pack up and get out!

Sound: (Crowd cheers. Gavel pounds. Echo. Crowd dies down.)

Mandel: (Voice over, echo) If you think that I'll cooperate with you in any way, you are insane!

Sound: (Crowd cheers. Gavel pounds. Echo. Crowd dies down.)

Voice 1: (Voice over, echo) Mr. Chairman, I move to abolish this committee and to seal its records so that no longer do we have to face the spectacle of innocent Americans being harassed and having their lives ruined by reckless, unfounded allegations against their characters ....

Voice 2: (Voice over, echo) ...and, furthermore, I say that no agency of this government has any business inquiring into a person's loyalty to the United States. That is McCarthyism and can only lead to the kind of witch hunt that was a characteristic of the Middle Ages ....

Griffin: (Voice over) The purpose of this program has been to review the record of Soviet penetration into the United States government. The lesson of history is that nations fall to Communism from the inside. The primary strategy for conquest has not been military invasion, but internal subversion. Yet, in spite of this reality, the United States has allowed all the layers that once existed as protection against internal subversion to be stripped away.
        First, the important investigative committees of both the House and the Senate were abolished.

Sound: (Gavel hits twice, echo.)

Griffin: Then the Internal Security Division of the Justice Department was eliminated.

Sound: (Gavel)

Griffin: The Subversive Activities Control Board was terminated by lack of funding.

Sound: (Gavel. Crowd noise begins to be audible and continues to grow hereafter.)

Griffin: The Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations is no longer published or even maintained.

Sound: (Gavel and crowd.)

Griffin: The counterintelligence units of the Armed Forces have been severely limited.

Sound: (Gavel and crowd.)

Griffin: The FBI has been forced to reduce its internal security activities by over 90 percent.

Sound: (Gavel hits twice and begins to hit repeatedly as though calling for order.)

Griffin: State and municipal police agencies have all but abandoned their intelligence units.

Sound: (Add police sirens. Gavel continues but begins to fade into crowd noises.)

Griffin: And the CIA has practically ceased to function as a defender of American interests around the world.

Sound: (Full crowd and siren effects.)

Griffin: Communists in our government? Well, to many Americans, the response is "So what and who cares? What harm can they possibly do to a great and powerful nation as the United States?"

But, recent history has answered that question. It is the history of American paralysis in world conflict.
        Having fought a world war, supposedly to protect Europe from Germany and to save China from Japan, at the end of that war, we gave the Soviets all of Eastern Europe, Manchuria, the Kurile Islands, the Chinese port of Darien, the northern half of Korea, and half of Germany. In Yugoslavia, we guaranteed the success of Communism by throwing our weight behind the Stalinist Tito in his fight against the pro-Western Mikhailovich. After the war, in a project called Operation Keelhaul, we used American troops to round up anti-Communist refugees all over Europe to be shipped back to Russia where they faced execution or slave labor in Siberia. This broke the back of the anti-Communist movement in Europe. We supported the Communist forces of Mao Tse-tung in their war against Chiang Kai-shek and actively worked behind the scenes to bring about the Communization of China. We created the United Nations and staffed the Secretariat with Communists from the State Department. We gave the Soviets three votes in the General Assembly, compared to one for us and agreed further that a Soviet national would always be in charge of U.N. military activities. We pushed Algeria into the Communist orbit by supporting Ben Bella. We helped Castro to power in Cuba and, later, betrayed the anti-Castro invasion force at the Bay of Pigs. In Korea and Vietnam, we denied our military forces the option of victory. We supported the Sandinista Communists in the takeover of Nicaragua. We gave the Panama Canal to a pro-Soviet dictatorship. We have bankrupted ourselves with foreign aid to our most bitter enemies around the world. We have built Soviet industry and have given them high technology for their nuclear strike force. When they could not pay, we cancelled their debts and passed them on to the American taxpayer.
        We condemn anti-Communist regimes in Africa and Latin America allegedly for violations of human rights, but we invite to the White House and publicly embrace every Communist dictator in the world, no matter how bloody his hands. And, while freedom fighters throw themselves against Soviet tanks in Hungary, Afghanistan and Poland, we give solemn assurances that we will not intervene and then send economic aid to the very Communist governments which the people themselves are attempting to topple.[39] The hard reality is that Communism would not be a major force today without the massive help received from the United States government, and that America's retreat from victory since World War II is the result, not of a confusion factor, but of the subversion factor.

(On camera) In a speech before the Roman Senate in the first century B.C., it was Cicero who said: "A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious, but it cannot survive treason from within."
        Now, it's not popular today to use the word treason, because that implies what we all dread, a state of war. But the truth is, whether we like it or not, we are at war, and we do have enemies outside our gates--and inside--who are sworn to our destruction.
        This is a new kind of war we face. We can't pick up our rifles and rush off to a foreign land to engage in open combat. The battle this time is here--in America itself! And the enemy doesn't wear a uniform or speak a strange language. He is from our country's best families and most prestigious universities. He is not found behind barricades, but in business and science, in the media, the pulpit, the classroom, and in government itself. How many of them are there, and exactly where are they, we don't know--and that's the problem. Under present conditions, we have absolutely no way to find out.
        Now, Americans traditionally are jealous of their liberties, and it's proper that we should be vigilant against government encroachment into our private lives. But we have allowed our enemies to take advantage of this legitimate concern and to use the Constitution as a shield for treason. We must realize that there is no such thing as absolute freedom. For every right there is an equal and opposite restraint. To have freedom of assembly, we must deny the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. And to have a system of political freedom for all, we cannot allow totalitarians the freedom to destroy the system itself. The Constitution was never intended to be a national suicide pact.
        And so, the first step back to safety and sanity is to restore as rapidly as possible all the layers of internal protection that have been stripped away. This must begin in Congress with legislation to reverse the offending Supreme Court decisions. Then the Freedom of Information Act must be overhauled to exclude internal security cases. The restrictive FBI guidelines need to be revised in favor of national security.[40] And the Congressional investigative committees need to be reactivated.
        In 1981 the Senate did establish a Subcommittee on Internal Security and Terrorism under the Chairmanship of Senator Jeremiah Denton. That was a good start, but, hampered by lack of funds and a limited staff, the Committee has not been able to extensively investigate any aspect of subversion inside the United States. It needs to be funded and strengthened.
        Now the CIA is a special case and needs someone in charge who will have the courage to bring about major changes in both policy and personnel. The bottom line is that it's a hostile world out there, and we need a CIA to counter the activities of the KGB. But we do not need people running it who think the best way to oppose Communism is to set up a Socialist regime with Communists in it.
        Of one thing we can be certain. Presidents may come and go, and some may say the right things during election campaigns. But after they assume the office, they will become engulfed by a giant bureaucracy which will provide them with advice, select the information they receive, and carry out their orders. Until there is a major clean-out in Washington, we can be sure that presidential intentions, no matter how pro-American, will be subverted. Something, somehow will go wrong with the best of plans. Until the underground is exposed and routed, there isn't the slightest chance that any president or even the Congress can reverse the disastrous trend of the past 40 years. And, if we do not reverse that trend, not only will we push the rest of the world into Communism, but we, ourselves, will become the ultimate prize of Soviet conquest.
        I know these are extremely hard and unpleasant thoughts, but frankly, it's time for us to face the truth no matter how ugly it may be. The truth is that the subversion factor is the single most important reality in current world affairs, and the fact that many Americans have never even heard about it is an indication of how successful it has been.
        If we are to survive in freedom, we must strip the Soviet underground of its Constitutional camouflage and also its advantage of secrecy and deception. We must expose its goals, its tactics, and its agents to public view. Finally, when forced to compete in the open on the basis of the honest merit of its ideas, it then will cease to exist in a society of free men.

NOTES








[1] Broken Seals, op. cit., pp. 7-9.

[2]Ibid., pp. 84-85 on Boudin, pp. 1-25 on I.P.S.

[3]Richard Barnet, Intervention and Revolution (New York: New American Library, 1972), pp.

[4]Richard Barnet, The Economy of Death (New York: Atheneum, 1969), pp. 42-44.

[5]Philip Agee, Inside the Company: C.I.A. Diary (New York: Stonehill Publishing, 1975), p.

[6]Philip Agee, "Why I Split the C.I.A. and Spilled the Beans," Esquire, June, 1975, p. 128.

[7]Broken Seals, op. cit., p. 47.

[8] Ibid., pp. 25, 27.

[9]Covert Action Information Bulletin, July, 1978, p. 3.

[10]Ladislav Bittman, The Deception Game (New York: Ballantine Books, 1981).

[11]This interview was obtained from the excellent documentary film, K.G.B. Connections, produced by Norfolk Communications, Toronto, Canada.

[12]Broken Seals, op. cit., p. 47.

[13]Halperin here refers to the Campaign to Stop Government Spying as the Campaign for Political Rights, a name it later assumed.

[14]Cohn, op. cit., pp. 174-175.

[15]Evans, op. cit., p. 239; Sherman Adams, Firsthand Report (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961), pp. 142-143.

[16]Rosalie M. Gordon, Nine Men Against America, The Supreme Court and Its Attack on American Liberties (Boston: Western Islands, 1965), pp. 90-92, 98-99 on Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956).

[17]Ibid., p. 98. See also Noto v. U.S. 367 U.S. 290 (1961).

[18]U.S. v. Communist Party, U.S.A. 377 U.S. 968 (1964), which case the Court refused to hear, thus upholding a Court of Appeals ruling; and Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 382 U.S. 70 (1965).

[19]"The Otto Otepka Story," Human Events, February 17, 1968 Special Supplement, p. 5a.

[20]"The Otto Otepka Story," Ibid., p. 8a.

[21]Ibid.

[22]William J. Gill, The Ordeal of Otto Otepka (New Rochelle: Arlington House, 1969).

[23]Morris, op. cit., pp. 56-59

[24]"The Demise of the House Internal Security Committee," extension of remarks of Rep. Robert F. Drinan, Congressional Record, February 6, 1975.

[25]Felix McNight, "Conceived in Vengeance," Dallas Times Herald, May 13, 1981, and generally, Mark Felt, The F.B.I. Pyramid From the Inside (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sans, 1979).



[26]Press Release, "The Department of Justice Against Felt and Miller," issued by Felt and Miller, November, 1980, shortly before they were pardoned by President Reagan.

[27]Morris, op. cit., pp. 66-68 on Levi Guidelines. Frank A. Capell, "The Curious Record of Edward H. Levi," Review of the News, February 26, 1975, p. 35.

[28]"Anti-Surveillance Settlement," Western Goals Report, September, 1981, p. 6.

[29]Associated Press, "F.B.I. Issues Rules on Using Informers," Santa Ana Register, January 6, 1977.

[30]Morris, op. cit., p. 67.

[31] United Press International, "Soviet Spies Flood D.C.; U.S. Agents Overworked," Las Vegas Sun, January 6, 1978.

[32]"U.S. Intelligence Capabilities," Review of the News, May 12, 1982, p . 15.

[33]Morris, op. cit., p. 70.

[34]"Terrorist Bombings in New York City," Review of the News, January 12, 1983, p. 12.

[35]Morris, op. cit., p. 69

[36]John Rees, editor, F.A.L.N.: Threat to America (Alexandria: Western Gaols, 1981), pp. 40-42. ($3.50)

[37]Interrogatory, Coalition Against Police Abuse v. Daryl Gates, Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, California, May 13, 1982. U.S. Senate, Committee an the Judiciary, Internal Security Subcommittee, Hearing, The Nationwide Drive Against Law Enforcement Intelligence Operations (Washington: G.P.O., 1973). Joel Sappell, "Seattle's Curb on Police Spies Cited in L.A. Cases," Los Angeles Times, May 9, 1983, noting that the model statute for paralyzing police intelligence operations was prepared by Morton Halperin's Center far National Security Studies.

[38]Morris, op. cit., p. 65.

[39]Representative case studies include: Kubek, op. cit., Martin, op, cit., Weyl, Red Star Over Cuba, op. cit., Felix Wittmer, The Yalta Betrayal (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton, 1961); George N. Crocker, Roosevelt's Road to Russia (Chicago: Henry Refinery, 1959); Arthur Bliss Lane, I Saw Poland Betrayed (Boston: Western Islands, 1965); Alan Stang, The Actor, The True Story of John Foster Dulles (Boston: Western Islands, 1968), pp. 194-223 on Korea; The Tragedy of France (Belmont, Massachusetts: American Opinion Reprint Series, 1962) on Algeria; G. Edward Griffin, The Fearful Master, A Second Look at the United Nations (Boston: Western Islands, 1964); Hilaire de Berrier, Background to Betrayal, The Tragedy of Vietnam (Boston: Western Islands, 1965); John Rees, ed., Ally Betrayed... Nicaragua (Alexandria: Western Goals, 1980), ($5.00).

[40]In April 1983, the Reagan Administration announced a revision of the Levi, Guidelines which might allow the FBI to conduct internal security and terrorism investigations more effectively. However, in the face of pending court challenges, it is presently unclear how much of these revisions will ever be implemented.



The Open Gates of Troy (Subversion Factor Part II)
subfacii