Page images
PDF
EPUB

The subcommittee does not for one moment approve of the use of an Executive order to conceal misstatements of fact by State Department witnesses. We do not believe that this Executive order was issued for that purpose.

It was also charged that Mr. Otepka furnished questions to the subcommittee to be asked of his own superior, of which Senator McClellan asked:2

What would be wrong in that? Here I am called up here. I work for the State Department. I am called up here before a congressional committee which asks me questions. I state a given state of facts. And the counsel or the committee raises some question about it, "Well, now, how do you know that?" and so forth.

I say, "Well, you can get the truth, possibly, if you will ask so and so certain questions."

Now, tell me what is wrong with it? I mean have I stated the premise correctly? The State Department apparently misunderstood another function of the subcommittee staff. At one point in his statement, the Secretary said that "during the week of August 5, Mr. Sourwine informally scheduled the appearance of 19 Department witnesses." Later on in the hearing, at which all subcommittee members were present, Mr. Sourwine had this to say about calling witnesses:3

Mr. SOURWINE. I do so only as a channel. I have never called a witness without authorization and direction to that effect from the committee, the chairman, or the vice chairman of the committee.

Mr. Sourwine's statement is supported by a memorandum, later ordered into the record, of the intended schedule of hearings for August 1963, as listed by Senator Dodd, subcommittee vice chairman."

It is obvious that the subcommittee staff operated within its delegated authority. Members of the subcommittee have long been on record as believing that Mr. Otepka was correct in furnishing the documents in question. Considerable material which had been supplied to Mr. Sourwine by Mr. Otepka later was ordered by the subcommittee to be printed despite protests by the State Department. It follows that Mr. Sourwine acted properly in receiving them. "

2 Ibid., pt. 5, p. 279.

Ibid., pt. 5, p. 287.
Ibid., pt. 18, p. 1500.
Ibid., pt. 20, p. vi.

INVESTIGATIONS BY FLAKE AND FRENCH

Two veterans of State Department and Army service were called into duty after the Internal Security Subcommittee, by hand-delivered letter to Secretary Rusk, had protested action against Otto Otepka in the nature of reprisal for his action in revealing conflicts (lying) in testimony by other Department witnesses.

The two were retired Ambassador Wilson C. Flake1 and retired Col. George W. French, Jr., a Reserve Army officer with long experience in intelligence and security work. They were teamed up to do a job of investigation and review.

There was, at least at first, some confusion as to the exact objectives of the Flake-French assignments as related to the Otepka case. So far as these assignments were permitted to be outlined to the subcommittee, it appears a narrow distinction was drawn between investigating "the Otepka case", and investigating Mr. Otepka's so-called "charges" against the Department-meaning his testimony about many kinds of shortcuts, waivers, reorganizations, policy shifts and other maneuvers by some Department officials which weakened the security system.2

The subcommittee was skeptical about the declared separation of "the Otepka case" from the work of the Flake-French team, as that work was officially described by the Department, since Mr. Otepka's testimony regarding the faults of the system was linked with his assertions that his immediate superior, John F. Reilly, had lied to the subcommittee. Was the work of the Flake-French team intended to buttress the position of the Department against Otepka criticisms? There is no showing on the Internal Security Subcommittee record that the team of Flake and French, or either of them, was so instructed. But doubts linger because of what appears to the committee to be the impossibility of separating the question of "the Otepka case" from Mr. Otepka's revelation of State Department faults. Because of a State Department gag on any publication of reports or findings made by Ambassador Flake or Colonel French, exact details of what findings and recommendations they submitted to Secretary Rusk or his immediate aides was not revealed to the subcommittee though Colonel French and Ambassador Flake both testified on our record.

BROAD AUTHORITY GRANTED TO TEAM

The broad scope of the work and authority assigned to Ambassador Flake and Colonel French is indicated in the language of their "terms of reference" statement dated December 19, 1963, as follows: 4

1 Ambassador Flake's major assignment was a review of the situation in the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs. State Department Security hearings, pt. 19, pp. 1618-1619.

Mr. Otepka, in his comments regarding testimony by John F. Reilly on May 21, 22, and 23, 1963, gives an extensive outline of his criticisms in testimony taken Aug. 12, 1963, State Department Security hearings, pt. 20, pp. 1699 et seq.

Ibid, pt. 19, p. 1620. "Ibid, pt. 19, p. 1637-1638.

DECEMBER 19, 1963.

Memorandum for: Wilson C. Flake, George W. French.

From: William J. Crockett.

Subject: Terms of reference for an investigation of certain actions in the Office of Security.

I am transmitting to you copies of terms of reference with a request that you begin work on this project immediately.

In the conduct of your investigation you are authorized to take sworn statements. Should your request for such a statement be refused I want this matter brought to my attention immediately.

I have requested all personnel of the Office of Security to cooperate with you fully. Although I do not wish to set a deadline for the completion of this assignment I am sure you recognize that we are interested in having as thorough a job done as possible.

Attachments: as stated.

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE DEPARTMENT'S
INVESTIGATION OF CERTAIN ACTIONS IN THE OFFICE OF SECURITY

During the last 2 months the Department has been trying to assemble all facts relating to any efforts made in the Office of Security to intercept conversations in the office and on the telephone of Mr. Otto F. Otepka. This investigation needs to be concluded at the earliest possible moment and a report must be prepared for the Secretary of State setting forth all the information obtained.

In the conduct of the final stages of this investigation particular attention should be devoted to the following:

(a) A thorough reexamination of all the testimony given to the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee by any present or former member of the Office of Security. (b) A further review of all written material that has been provided by present or former members of the Office of Security.

(c) Based on information available under (a) and (b) above, oral interviews should be conducted with any individual who may have participated in, or have knowledge of, activities mentioned by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. Specifically, particular attention should be given to the allegation of other cases of "bugging" or "tapping." This includes also any charges of "tapping" or "bugging" in places other than Mr. Otepka's office. As conclusive an analysis as possible of this allegation should be made.

(d) Any organizational or procedural difficulties which may be brought to light by the Department's investigation.

(e) Any relevant matters that have been raised either during the Department's inquiry or the investigation of the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee and which have not yet been completely investigated.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION,
August 26, 1964.

Memorandum for: The personnel panel.

Subject: Terms of reference for the executive secretary to the personnel panel.

I. GENERAL DUTIES

It is the responsibility of the personnel panel to review all unfavorable information received or developed on employees or applicants for employment, to determine the validity of such information, and to insure proper adjudication of each case. The panel will review all applications for marriage to foreign nationals. The executive secretary of the panel will perform the necessary tasks of coordination, dissemination, and followup to insure the proper functioning of the panel and to insure that the decisions of the panel are competently carried out.

II. SPECIFIC DUTIES

More specifically (but not exclusively) the executive secretary will:

1. Establish channels with SY, PEŘ, MED, and the regional bureaus so that he will be given promptly adverse information on employees received or developed by these offices and bureaus.

2. Will prepare agenda for each meeting.

3. Review the files and memoranda on all cases presented to the panel to insure that all pertinent data is included.

4. Insure that decisions and requests for additional information by the panel are carried out or submitted properly and promptly.

5. Will prepare minutes of all meetings.

WILLIAM J. CROCKETT.

The first job of the Flake-French team was to check on allegations in the Judiciary Subcommittee letter to the Secretary of State, dated October 31, 1963.5

Mr. FRENCH. We were first given the mission of checking on various points that had been contained in a letter, I believe from Senator Dodd, to the Secretary listing various points.

Mr. SOURWINE. Are you referring to the letter from the Committee on the Judiciary which Senator Dodd delivered to the Secretary in New York?

Mr. FRENCH. Yes, sir.

The subcommittee position in the issue of action against Mr. Otepka was stated in a press release of March 11, 1965, which included the letter to Secretary Rusk under the date of October 31, 1963, as follows:

SUBCOMMITTEE LETTER RELEASED

For Immediate Release March 11, 1965, from the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee

In response to a number of inquiries regarding its stand with respect to the Otepka case, the Internal Security Subcommittee today made public the text of a letter to the Secretary of State signed by all Subcommittee members in October 1963. In releasing the letter, Senator James O. Eastland (D-Miss.) declared: "We all still feel the same way and I see no prospect at all that the Committee will change its position with respect to this matter.”

The letter is as follows:

The Honorable DEAN RUSK,
The Secretary of State,
Department of State,
Washington, D.C.

OCTOBER 31, 1963.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Mr. Otto Otepka, Chief of the Division of Evaluations, Office of Security, Department of State, today faces grave charges apparently growing out of his appearance as a witness before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee and his honesty in responding to the Subcommittee's questions.

Without attempting to pass upon these charges, we want to express our confidence in Mr. Otepka's integrity, capability, and professional skill.

A committee of the Senate has a right to the testimony of any official or employee of our Government respecting any question of security or possible wrongdoing in any department or agency, if the subject matter of the committee's inquiry falls within its jurisdiction. A Government employee who comes before a Senate committee and testifies truthfully should not thereafter be penalized or disciplined in any way for doing so.

Mr. Otepka's testimony has been a valuable contribution to the Internal Security Subcommittee's current investigation of security in the State Department, and we feel he has performed a substantial service for his country. We would consider it a great tragedy if the services of this exceptionally able and experienced security officer were lost to the United States Government on the See subcommittee letter below.

[blocks in formation]

basis of alleged technical violations growing out of his cooperation with the
Senate Internal Security Subcommittee.
Kindest personal regards.
Sincerely,

JAMES O. EASTLAND,

OLIN D. JOHNSTON

THOMAS J. DODD, Vice Chairman

JOHN L. MCCLELLAN

SAM J. ERVIN, JR.

Chairman, Internal Security Subcommittee.
ROMAN L. HRUSKA

EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN
KENNETH B. KEATING
HUGH SCOTT

PROBE FOCUS IS OFFICE OF SECURITY

The task of Mssrs. Flake and French soon grew more specific. Note the following during testimony by William J. Crockett, Deputy Under Secretary of State for Administration, on May 4, 1965:

6

Can you state if it was true that Flake and French were told to investigate allegations of telephone tapping and other electronic eavesdropping in the Office of Security?

Mr. CROCKETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. Were they told to reexamine testimony given before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee? For what purpose? Were they told to review certain State Department records?

Mr. CROCKETT. Yes, they were told to review testimony that had been given by employees of the State Department. The purpose was to get any comments they could of alleged security deficiencies in the Department of State for which they also were told to review pertinent records and files that would help them evaluate the security operation, and assist them in making an investigation and recommending corrective action.

Mr. SOURWINE. What records?

Mr. CROCKETT. Testimony, Senate Internal Security Subcommittee reports, intraoffice memorandums, all written material that had been provided by past and present members of the Office of Security, studies of various kinds, inspection reports, etc.

Mr. SOURWINE. Were they told to conduct interviews?

Mr. CROCKETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. Of whom?

Mr. CROCKETT. Of any and all officers of the Office of Security that might have knowledge of deficiencies in security practices and procedures that could be corrected to improve our entire security operation.

Mr. SOURWINE. In what area?

Mr. CROCKETT. In any and all areas of the Department of State.

Mr. SOURWINE. For what purpose?

Mr. CROCKETT. For the purpose of ascertaining whether or not there were deficiencies in security practices, in security operations, in policies, in security inspections within the Department that could be corrected in order to provide the State Department with a sounder security operation.

Mr. SOURWINE. When were Flake and French first told to make a general review of security procedures and operations. If in fact they ever did receive such instructions?

Mr. CROCKETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. How were these instructions given?

Mr. CROCKETT. In writing.
Mr. SOURWINE. By whom?

Mr. CROCKETT. By me.

The general review, it later developed, was centered on the Office of Security."

Mr. SOURWINE. Did your project with Ambassador Flake, the project you helped him on, concern security procedures generally?

State Department Security hearings, pt. 19, p. 1634.

Ibid., pt. 19, p. 1619.

« PreviousContinue »