Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Koppel.
We now turn to Mr. Mortimer B. Zuckerman, who has an extraordinary resume—all the resumes will be made a part of the record—an MBA from the Wharton School, a Master of the Law from Harvard, University of Paris Law School, and he is chairman and cofounder of Boston Properties, chairman and editor-in-chief of U.S. News and World Report, and chairman of the Atlantic Monthly, and chairman and co-publisher of the New York Daily News.
With that background, we welcome you here and look forward to your remarks.
Mr. Zuckerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The material referred to follows:]
BIOGRAPHY
MORTIMAR B. ZUCKERMAN
Mortimer B. Zuckerman is Chairman and Co-Founder of Boston Properties, Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of U.S. News & World Report, Chairman of The Atlantic Monthly, Chairman and Co-Publisher of New York's Daily News, Chairman of Fast Company, and Chairman of Applied Graphics Technologies (AGT).
Mortimer Benjamin Zuckerman was born on June 4, 1937 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He is a graduate of McGill University, Montreal, with a First Class Honors Degree in Economics and Political Theory (1957) and a degree in Law (1961). He received an M.B.A. with distinction from the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania (1961) and a Master of Law from Harvard University (1962). He also studied at the University of Paris Law School and the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration.
He currently serves as a trustee for New York University, trustee and member of the Executive Committee of Thirteen/WNET (New York), trustee of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute, trustee of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, member of the Harvard Medical School Board of Visitors, member of the Chase Manhattan Corporation National Advisory Board, and member of the University of Maryland College of Journalism Board of Visitors. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and of the International Institute for Strategic Studies and a member of the Board of Directors of the American Friends of the Rabin Medical Center and the Association for the Wellbeing of Israeli Soldiers.
Mr. Zuckerman is a former Associate Professor of City Planning at the Harvard Graduate School of Design and former lecturer of City and Regional Planning, Yale University. He is a past president of the Board of Trustees, Sidney Farber Cancer Institute, Boston; past trustee, Beth Israel Hospital, Russell Sage Foundation, Ford Hall Forum, and Museum of Science, Boston; and past chairman. Board of Visitors, Boston University School of Medicine.
Mr. Zuckerman belongs to the Harvard Club (New York and Boston) and the Harmonie Club (New York).
The Atlantic Monthly magazine has a circulation of 461,000 and a readership of 1,300,000 opinion leaders. U.S. News has a circulation of 2,400,000 and a readership of 12,400,000. The New York Daily News is New York's largest newspaper, with a daily circulation of 760,000 and a Sunday circulation of 970,000. Applied Graphics Technologies is the largest pre-press company in America. Boston Properties is a national real estate development company.
Mr. Zuckerman is President of the America-Israel Friendship League, Chairman of the Board of the Soviet Jewry Zionist Forum, and a member of the Board of Directors of the American Friends of the Rabin Medical Center.
STATEMENT OF MORTIMER B. ZUCKERMAN, CHAIRMAN AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORTMr. Zuckerman. I would like to refer to the subject by recounting the specific experience which in a sense was brought up by Ken Adelman, namely the Daniloff case approximately 10 years ago. Nick Daniloff, at the end of his tour of duty as the Moscow Bureau Chief of U.S. News was meeting one of his sources, a man by the name of Misha, who asked Nick if he would bring to him Stephen King novels as his farewell present. When they met in some wooded area in Moscow, Misha gave to Nick a package as an exchange gift and immediately disappeared. Nick was immediately surrounded by the KGB, and in this package there were a series of pictures which in fact had previously been sent in to U.S. News a year earlier for publication, and which we found, frankly, uninteresting, to the point that we didn't publish them.
Nevertheless, he was accused of being an intelligence agent for the CIA.
It turned out, however, that there was even more to the story than even this particularly outrageous incident, because on an earlier occasion somebody had deposited a package in Nick Daniloffs mailbox, and asked that he turn this over to the American ambassador, which he did. Within that package there was yet another package to be given over to the CIA Station Chief, and within that package there was some material which was considered to be important for the intelligence interests of the United States.
They asked Nick who might have given him this package. When he mentioned the name of somebody who had the wonderful name of Father Potemkin, a name that apparently did not even raise any hackles or any suspicions. Nonetheless, the CIA then tried to contact Father Potemkin, and used Nick Daniloff's name in the process, so that in one sense his name was now being associated with activity on the part of the intelligence services.
I mention this because I think, if I understand this correctly, this may very well have been inconsistent with the guidelines of the CIA for the use of journalists, and I think it gives an example of the degree to which journalists are exposed in the greater interests of the intelligence interests of the United States.
I do not wish to suggest that these intelligence interests are not serious or substantial or legitimate. But obviously there are another set of interests which are equally serious, substantial and legitimate. So whatever gains may be justified and whatever grounds may be used to justify intelligence work by the press in whatever form this may take, it seems to me that these gains must still be assessed in the context of what they do to the press as an institution of a free society. The central role of journalism is that of a constitutional check on government and not as an instrument of government. I think the notion of trust and confidence in the press and their objectivity as seen by their readership is critical.
Any association, it seems to me, with a government agency, or particularly with intelligence services, undermines the credibility and the greater good done by independent journalists. Untainted journalism today is likely to do more good for America, it seems to me, than anything that the occasional journalist acting as an intelligence agent might accomplish for intelligence purposes. The independence of journalists and journalism is a precious national resource, and it is in its independence from government that journalism renders to government its greatest service.
So I would share in the conclusion that these prohibitions must be, if anything, increased and made more absolute. I do not do this frankly just on the basis of the risks that are associated with journalists serving abroad. In a sense I think there is a widespread understanding that journalists assume certain risks when they do serve abroad. I really do it because I think it undermines the very critical and constitutionally protected role of journalism.
As I said, I think here the greatest service which journalism can do to America is to continue to serve in this constitutionally protected independence from government. It is not enough, in my judgment, to say that if an individual consents, that is, if he is witting, that he therefore should be available as a resource or asset for the intelligence services. Because the effects of this individual's decision go way beyond what this individual may or may not be involved with. I think it affects the role of the press, it affects the security of the press, it affects the integrity of the press, it affects the creditability of the press and all of these, in my judgment, are critical enough so that they should be maintained through a greater prohibition than presently exists today.Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Zuckerman.
The report by the Council on Foreign Relations released earlier this year. Making Intelligence Smarter, the Future of U.S. Intelligence, has brought this issue into public view, and as noted earlier, produced legislation in the House of Representatives by a very lopsided vote, 417 to 6. And it does involve the public discussion of a very sensitive issue.
I would like to start with you, Mr. Anderson, and your comment about your own personal reluctance to talk about the matter publicly. The issue is, what kind of a judgment is to be made here? Is it to be shoveled under the rug? Is there to be a public policy determined by Congress? You have already had the House of Representatives act. The Senate may or may not act. We have the choice on that. But we are looking at some very specific legislation in the House. It is a matter for Intelligence Committee oversight as to what the policy is.
And you, of course, were a major victim of being suspected of being a spy.
How significant a problem do you think this is for journalists on an on-going basis? I think the—there would be considerable interest as to some of the details as to what you went through, what kind of a price you paid, as a suspect journalist.
Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.
I consider it as a very significant danger. I am not the only journalist working in the field to have had his life threatened and put in danger by the suspicion that he or she was a spy.
Chairman Specter. How frequent is the problem, Mr. Anderson?
Mr. Anderson. Depending on who you are dealing with, I think it is fairly frequent. You begin with the presumption on the part of many people, for instance it is true among many of the fundamentalist Muslim groups that were prevalent in Lebanon during their civil war, that all journalists were spies, and particularly American journalists. That was just assumed.
I believe that the only course that would any—would accomplish any great healing for the damage that has already been done would be a restatement of a flat ban without exception. I don't think there is anything else that could help the situation right now. A statement of a formal exception, no matter how hedged, no matter how restricted, would simply be an acknowledgement to those who suspect us of being spies that, yes, on occasion, you are right. And that, I think, is a very dangerous thing.My captors, while they treated us at times very roughly, and there were those in our group who were subjected to torture, did not actually torture me—they interrogated me a number of times and quite roughly, and insisted—to give you an example of the way their minds works, one of the questions that was put to me quite often was, give us the name of the CIA agent within the AP that you report to, the assumption being, of course, that there was one. Of course, there isn't, never has been, and never will be. They asked me many, many questions on the assumption that I had some contact with intelligence. They were not satisfied for a good long time—I am not sure they are entirely satisfied now with my complete denial, or my attempt to explain the role of the press in the United States.
I have had on other occasions, had loaded weapons pointed at my head by screaming militiamen, shouting, spy, spy. I know many of my colleagues have had the same experience.
There is no way to tell how many journalists have actually died because of this suspicion. The CPJ keeps tracks of attacks on the press and we relate some—I believe it was 55 last year—journalists dying in the course of their duty. But their circumstances are generally fairly obscure and they occur in places where it is difficult to pursue an investigation, and where there is generally no recourse to the courts or to the police. So we don't know how many of those more than 50 journalists died because of such suspicions. I think most of us assume that at least some of them did.
Chairman SPECTER. Mr. Koppel, the House had its bill in its initial form was an absolute prohibition, and then an amendment was offered which gives a national security interest exception for the President to make a determination which is fairly frequent on some of our public policies which we attach prohibitions to, but to make a national security exception.
I understand your view being totally opposed to an exception, but why not an exception on extraordinary circumstances—hostage taking, weapon of mass destruction, something that the President would have to make a determination on personally.
Mr. Koppel. Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, as you've heard the Director of the CIA objects even to that kind of a modification where it would have left, as I believe you suggested, in the form of something equivalent to a Presidential Finding. I would have less trouble with that. Indeed, I think you can infer what I said, my assumption is that the CIA is going to do what the CIA has to do under circumstances of extreme emergency. If lives are at stake, if the national interest is genuinely threatened, then I think that regardless of what Congress finds and regardless of what laws are in place, that our Intelligence Community will do what it has to do. I would simply like the reassurance of knowing that there was a legal line in place and that those people who are violating the law recognize that there may be consequences for that. By removing those kinds of consequences, you simply create a circumstance where there is absolutely no prohibition against this kind of thing, and we are left with the good will, the professionalism, the assumption that the motives of the Director and the Deputy Director of the CIA are similar to—they certainly are not parallel to or equivalent to those of a country that believes in a free press.
Chairman Specter. Well, you pose an interesting conclusion to official action even in the face of a prohibition, that they will do what they have to do even if it violates the law.
Mr. Koppel. Well, basically isn't that what a Finding is. Senator? I mean, it gives the President and only the President, as I understand it, the ability to say to the Intelligence Community and to pass on to the Senate and the Congress, his opinion that the national interest of the United States is so in jeopardy that it warrants bending the law, breaking the law. All I am saying is keep the law in place and make it at that rare an occurrence.
I don't like the idea of this being done at the convenience of the Director of the CIA or the Deputy Director of the CIA. Force them to go to the trouble of bothering the President with it. I guarantee you then they are not going to be doing it every day.Chairman Specter. Well, I understand more fully what you mean. I had thought you had said that the law would be violated. But the law is not bent or broken when the President makes a Finding. That is a legal exception under very tight guidelines.
Mr. KOPPEL. That is exactly right, sir.
Chairman Specter. So when that is done, the law is being observed.
Mr. KOPPEL. That is exactly right. But
it would preclude the CIA or any intelligence agency doing this on its own.Chairman Specter. Well, we prize ourself very, very highly of being a nation of laws, and laws that cannot be violated even by the President. We have precedent for that with the Supreme Court having said so. The President himself is another citizen when it comes to this--
Mr. KOPPEL. With all due respect, sir, we also have precedent for the intelligence agencies of the United States routinely violating laws and simply assuming that they won't be held to account. All too frequently, I am afraid, they are quite right.
Chairman Specter. Well, I think that is because they are not detected. It is not because they are not held to account; they are not detected. The hard part is to find out about it. The toughest thing to do is to find the facts. Find the facts, then there is less problem of agreeing on what the appropriate policy is if we can find the facts. But finding the facts is very, very hard, and that is a matter of congressional oversight. And we do too little of it.
We did a job in this room of what happened at Ruby Ridge when we found the facts, and had some very fundamental changes by the FBI itself on the use of force in a constitutional context. This is a matter of great public concern, that we really ought to thrash out and decide what we want to do in a very deliberative way, without just delegating it, lock, stock, and barrel to the CIA Director, however much we may approve of the current one on an informal basis. It's a matter of great public policy.
So the essence of your conclusion, Mr. Koppel, is that that would be a satisfactory conclusion to make it formalistic, the President has to make a Finding, it has got to be in writing, which requires deliberation and then notification to the Oversight Committees for this rare occurrence.
Mr. Koppel. I am reluctant to agree totally with you, Senator, while I can understand that you inferred that from my remarks.
My preference is that the law simply remain in place and if the law currently gives the President the capacity to override with a Finding of some kind, then I am afraid that is going to have to be acceptable under extraordinary circumstances.Chairman SPECTER. Mr. Koppel, we have no statute which governs this matter. It is up to the policy of the CIA Director as to what he will do and what his judgment requires.
Mr. Koppel. I think that would be unacceptable, sir.
Chairman Specter. Well, that is the current status of the law. That is why the House has acted on the matter and that is why we are considering it.
Mr. Zuckerman, you articulate the constitutional check on government on the independence of a free press, and while you do not cite first amendment guarantees as something which would be broad enough to exempt the media, and of course, the most famous statement is Jefferson's, he would prefer a government—he would prefer newspapers without government than government without newspapers.
Do you think that the current state of the law inhibits news coverage? Is it a problem, the coverage of news around the world?
Mr. Zuckerman. Well, I think if, as we have all discussed here, it is now understood that there are circumstances under which the press may be used or involved in intelligence work, and as I tried to cite from the personal experience of U.S. News, we've seen where that has been invoked, it seems to me that you do have a constant inhibition on the ability of the press abroad to serve its function, to bring, as Ted said, without fear of favor, but frankly to make the most probing and aggressive reporting possible. It is too easy for government officials abroad, especially those subject to this kind of probing, to be able to dismiss these people as being, in a sense, intelligence agents.
So I think you have a balancing of interests, and I would argue that the value that is served by having a press that is untainted by any possible association with intelligence, who bring back day after day, week after week, and year after year, as much unvarnished reporting as they possibly can, something that I believe would be inhibited by the possibility that there may be some association with an intelligence service. I think that value, particularly if you put it in the context of the unique role of the press in our society, both legally and publicly, and I think that value justifies the elimination of those circumstances, rare though they may be, of where the press may be involved.
There are two national interests in a sense involved, and I think the on-going, day-to-day, week-to-week, year-to-year role of the press abroad, in terms of what it brings back to this country in the way of knowledge and intelligence made available to its readers, to its viewers, and made available without qualification, without any sense on the part of the public that they may be involved in some way in a government mind set, and particularly as they do their reporting abroad, whatever inhibitions the possibility of their association with intelligence services may present, if those inhibitions could be eliminated by an absolute prohibition, I frankly think it would serve this country's interests better by having this unfettered role of the press to bring back this information than preserving any suspicion and taint, even though it may be unique to very particular circumstances, whether it be approved by the Director or whether it be approved by the Director and by the President. I just think that in this balance, which is what we are, it seems to me, seeking here, that the balance should tilt in favor of the day-to-day, week-to-week, year-to-year reporting role for the press abroad, and bringing that information, knowledge, and news back to this country.
Chairman Specter. So you would argue for no exception at all, not even by a Presidential Finding on a showing of national security interest.
Mr. ZUCKERMAN. That is correct.
Chairman SPECTER. You have seen, in your capacity as the leader of a major news organization, that it is a substantial inhibiting factor on news coverage and informing the American people and the people of the world as to what is going on.
Mr. ZUCKERMAN. Well, I think it, as I try to illustrate with the story of Nick Daniloff, I mean, there was a journalist who was arrested, it clearly had a chilling effect, it seems to me, on the whole journalistic community in the Soviet Union at the time. He was indirectly involved in an association with the CIA through behavior on the part of the CIA that contributed to, although I am sure it wasn't the sole reason why he was, in fact, arrested, because there was, as you know, an arrest of a Soviet spy here, Ganady Zakharov, and this was a really trading bait kind of situation. But the cover, the patina of intelligence association was therefore sort of in place on the part of the Soviet Union, and if you read George Shultz's description of this in his autobiography, you will see how he felt this weakened his ability to negotiate with the Soviets on this. I do think there are certain limits that are in place as a result of the possibility that there may be an association between the press and the intelligence services of the United States.
As I say, yes, there will be individual and specific situations where the press may be uniquely helpful in a particular situation, but I think there is a cost to that. It is not just the cost to the personal security and lives of journalists. Virtually every journalist who has been arrested, every American journalist who has been arrested over the last 50 years, has been arrested on the grounds that somehow or other, he was involved in intelligence for the United States. It just seems to me that there is a much greater value to having the greatest degree of flexibility and freedom on the part of the press as it serves abroad to bring back whatever they can in the way of information and knowledge. If that is going to be affected on a day-to-day, week-to-week, year-to-year basis, which I believe it is, I think there is a value to eliminating that inhibition and that limitation even though I recognize that there are other situations, unique though they may be, when the press would perhaps have a positive role to play in a particular situation involving national security, whether it be the kidnapping of American hostages or even a situation where some terrorist organization hopes to threaten the United States with some kind of weapon of mass destruction.
Chairman SPECTER. Mr. Adelman, you were the defender of a greater access to more sources. You've heard the very strong statements made here. Would you settle for a law which allowed the exception, but only on a Finding with the President's direct judgment?
Mr. Adelman. I have really no opinion. I have no opinion between the DCI's Finding and the President's Finding.
Since I am in the minority, and three gentlemen I respect very much see this issue differently, let me comment on Terry Anderson, who served so nobly and is a personal hero of mine. Nonetheless he is caught in a massive contradiction. For he was apprehended and held because of alleged association with the CIA, although it was not true. There was nothing that he could have done to explain that he was not working with the CIA. Journalism is inherently a dangerous profession. Everybody who goes into journalism knows that very well. There is no way to prevent journalists from seeming to be tainted.
Terry Anderson makes the very good point that his captors have strange minds and see the world in bizarre ways. If that is true, they are not going to know the distinction between the DCI's Finding, the President's Finding. They don't follow the New York Times carefully on a day-to-day basis.
When Ted Koppel—who I really think is wonderful, as does most of America—says the CIA routinely violates the laws and is not held accountable, I think he is in a time warp. That was a problem in the 70's. I do not think it was a problem after that. My experience in government has been that the CIA is, if anything these days, because of the revelations of the 70's, too timid and too cautious, rather than too bold.And, with all due respect, I find Ted's argument quite perplexing, that the CIA will violate the laws. He would like to have a law prohibiting any kind of association, obviously, between journalists and the CIA. Therefore, if you need to act in the kind of scenarios I was talking about, involving hostage whereabouts, or nuclear devices, he would say, "Well, the CIA will break the law."
I don't want a system, and certainly, Mr. Chairman, I know that you don't, where to do a reasonable, rational thing requires breaking a law. There is something wrong with our system if that's the recommended course.Finally, let me say that when Ted says that he worries about his reader's and viewer's respect—and that is indeed something to worry about—
every opinion poll of public respect has journalism among the lowest, and CIA among the top. So I think that—according to the American people, the CIA is a very respected organization, even with its problems, while journalism is not. So maybe Ted Kopple's profession would be helped and not tainted by associating with the CIA.Last, Mort Zuckerman, when he talks about the Daniloff case, it is a perfect illustration again of my point. When he mentions that a journalist has been arrested because of suspicion of his link with the CIA, that suspicion will always exist regardless of what laws or exceptions happen right here. Ted is absolutely right when he says most foreign countries don't have this prohibition. I don't think any country has the prohibition that we are talking about here. So the wide suspicion is that journalists will work for their intelligence agencies and many of them do, including among our European allies.
So that is the way the world works. I think that to create a situation where we have to break the law to protect American lives or to protect cities or stop weapons of mass destruction, would be a terrible conclusion to this debate.
Chairman SPECTER. Mr. Koppel, would you care to reply?
Mr. Koppel. Yes, sure.
First of all, why don't we go all the way, then. Why don't we simply enlist all American foreign correspondents overseas with the CIA and be done with the nonsense of assuming that we had nothing to do with one another. It seems to me that the great paradox that is inherent here is that people overseas, because
we gather so much information, because, in fact, journalists are in the intelligence gathering business, and because we distribute it so widely, because we tell everybody exactly what we know back here in the United States, we share with our consumer, including the CIA, everything we know, sometimes more than we know. Because of that, the assumption is that we are somehow connected with intelligence agencies overseas. It's only back here in the United States that the assumption is made by the intelligence agencies themselves that if only somehow they could get us to work for them, there is more information that we are somehow keeping to ourselves, that we share only—I don't know with whom, you know, perhaps with our managers, perhaps with our wives and sweethearts—that if only they could get us to work for them, they would have more information. I am not all together sure sometimes what it is that my friend Mr. Adelman thinks we are protecting back here, if not those aspects of the United States that are totally different from other countries. Among them the kinds of protections that people are given when they have been arrested; among them the kind of—and I realize it is difficult to use the term purity in connection with anyone engaged with the business of journalism, but the sort of perceived purity that exists at least in terms of what our freedoms are.
Among those freedoms is that we not be connected with the Government. I think it really will have an adverse affect on the way that our consumers, our readers, our viewers, perceive what we say, if the assumption has to be made that some or all of us are working for the Government at any time. That is not my job.
Chairman Specter. Mr. Zuckerman, do you care to reply to what Mr. Adelman said?
Mr. Zuckerman. Yes. I think just to comment on his reference again to Nick Daniloff. I think the reason why Nick Daniloff got involved with the KGB was the fact that they had a previous connection between him and the Central Intelligence Agency in which Mr. Daniloff was, in the narrow sense of the word, unwitting. So I think, in fact, CIA did involve Nick Daniloff in a way that may very well be precluded by the rigorous application, even of the present law.
But again, I would like to just say that, to follow on what Ted Koppel says,
I think journalists who are working abroad as reporters are trying to bring back as much information as they can, and I think that is the role they serve, and it is an important role. I think we see the degree to which this country, in the event of a major crisis, watches the news media or reads the news media to realize how important that is.
I think anything that inhibits that sort of regular flow in the ordinary course of work of a journalist, is a real limitation on its role and its value to this society as a particular source, at least of independent information. I do recognize that there are situations such as the ones you mentioned, where there is, as I say, a hostage situation or even the possibility of a terrorist act of one kind or another, where, if the journalist happens to have a particularly unique knowledge or access, there is some value to having him involved. But if you do that and you do not have the absolute prohibition given what it seem to me has transpired both publicly and given the attitudes that are prevalent around the world, not that all of them are going to be eliminated by anything that is said or done in this country, but I do think it would contribute in many places and in many ways to a greater access of American media abroad to what they have to do, which is to report and to ferret out information and to send that information back, without any sense on the part of the countries where they are serving that in fact they may be involved with the CIA, and obviously back here as well.
So I have to tradeoff two values and I come out in favor of the continuing use of the press as a resource to provide independent information to the American public. That is their role in this society and I think it would—not to be totally compromised, but may very well be compromised in certain ways under those circumstances, and I would rather eliminate that possibility and have them serve that day-to-day, year-to-year function, even though in some other individual situations, they may not be able to be used where they may be useful.
Chairman Specter. Mr. Anderson, I see you seeking an opportunity to reply.
Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.
I would ask Mr. Adelman that because there is widespread suspicion in some areas that journalists are involved in espionage, why do we have to increase that suspicion with a formal provision for circumstances in which it might be true. We should be working to reduce the suspicion, which all journalists do, not increase it. Because there are circumstances which we can all easily conceive of in which it might be necessary to break into someone's house, do we need to formally provide for those circumstances in the law that says burglary is illegal. I don't believe so.
We cannot under—in any way limit the choice of an individual, no matter what his profession or his ethical standards, to provide information in circumstances that seem necessary to him. That's not really an issue here. I don't think any journalist who really and truly believed that lives were at stake or that there was great danger to the country would keep such information to himself. He might choose to make it generally public, or he might choose to pass it on to someone who could act on it, but it would certainly not remain a secret.
What we are concerned with is the acts of the CIA. We are concerned with their understandable but eager search for information in all circumstances and from all people, and for the possibility that they might provide their own agents, professional agents, with cover as professional journalists, which has happened in the past. I believe we are all aware of that. We don't want CIA to do anything to increase the danger to us, and we don't want to allow the CIA to believe that there are any circumstances in which they may legally contemplate that, even though we acknowledge that they probably will.Chairman Specter. Do you want a short sur-rebuttal, Mr. Adelman?
Mr. Adelman. Yes, I will be short.
Of course we have procedures for burglary when it's for law enforcement. That is guaranteed by the Constitution in our search and seizure procedures. That's a perfect illustration of what I'm talking about. There may be an overriding reason, and a court procedure to do that.
When Ted Koppel says he doesn't know of any information that journalists keep, most of the time that is absolutely true. But
there are, in Ben Bradlee's book, cases where a journalist finds something that is very sensitive that would do more damage than contribute and so he holds the information. We would hope that most journalists do that. If they knew the start of the Gulf War, for example, it was better just to hold that information for 12 hours and not go broadcasting that because it would certainly help the enemy.Let me say I am not talking about signing up every journalist.
I am talking about a situation where the CIA gives direction to somebody that could be extremely helpful. I'll give you a clear example. When Terry Anderson was being held hostage, if the CIA knew that he were alive he would most probably be in one of two places. And if a journalist was in good contact with the captors or those close to the captors, and this was a critical piece of information that they really couldn't get elsewhere, whether Terry Anderson was alive, I see nothing wrong with the CIA station chief talking to the journalist.
He'd say, "Listen to my situation, I want to know one simple fact. Is Terry Anderson alive? I don't know how you get that information, maybe ask to interview him, maybe by talking afterwards, whatever it is. But I need that information and I can save his life by knowing that." Do I think that's wrong? No. I think it's absolutely fine, in fact noble.
Chairman Specter. Well, I think it's been a very useful discussion. I have two final questions, which I think lend themselves to a yes or no, but I don't like any imposition of that, which I'll ask Mr. Zuckerman, Mr. Koppel, and Mr. Anderson.
Do you think, if there were an absolute prohibition in American law that the CIA could not use journalists, Peace Corps people, or clergy, that there would be a significant improvement in their safety that would be recognized by people around the world who are currently suspicious? An absolute prohibition. Would it make a big difference, Mr. Zuckerman?
Mr. Zuckerman. Yes. And increasingly over time.
Chairman Specter. Mr. Koppel?
Mr. Koppel. I think it would make some difference, but I think it would make an even greater difference, Mr. Chairman, in terms of our fading credibility, as Mr. Adelman points out, here in the United States.
Chairman Specter. Would it make a big difference, Mr. Anderson?
Mr. Anderson. I believe it would make a difference. I don't know how large. I believe that the institution of a formal exception to the prohibition on using journalists would cause great damage.
Chairman Specter. OK.
That's the final question. That is, would there be a significant difference as to how people around the world would treat journalists, subject them to danger, if the prohibition were absolute or if the prohibition had the limited exception of a Finding by the President?
Mr. Zuckerman.
Mr. Zuckerman. I think there would be some difference. Again, these are things that are very difficult to quantify, but I think people abroad would not be able to see the situations in which there is a specific exception as a result of a Presidential Finding.
Chairman Specter. Mr. Koppel, do you think it would make a big difference if it were absolute, or the very limited exception for the President through a Finding?
Mr. Koppel. No, sir, I really don't. I think in that respect, Mr. Adelman is right. I think that's a distinction that's probably lost on most observers overseas.
Chairman Specter. Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Anderson. I have to agree to that, except I again would suggest that there have been indications in the past where Presidential Findings were not either clear or clearly observed.
Chairman Specter. We thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you very much for coming in.
Mr. Koppel. Thank you.
Chairman Specter. We appreciate your wisdom.
I'd like to call our next panel now. Dr. Don Argue, president of the National Association of Evangelicals; accompanied by Dr. John Orme, executive director of the International Foreign Mission Association; Sister Claudette LaVerdiere, president of the Maryknoll Sisters; Dr. Rodney Page, deputy general secretary of the World Church Services.
[Pause.]
Chairman SPECTER. We start with Dr. Don Argue, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, a group comprised of approximately 42,500 congregations nationwide from 49 member denominations and individual congregations. We welcome you here, Dr. Argue, and look forward to your testimony.