Gerald W. Lynch President, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY 66 .the will of Congress....is served." WOMEN FOR RACIAL AND ECONOMIC EQUALITY "We Raise Our Voice In Protest" I would like to express my deep concern with the recent actions of Attorney General Smith in imposing new impediments to public access to governmental informa tion under The Freedom of Information Act. The Act, and the subsequent guidelines enunciated by former Attorney General Bell in 1977 for federal agencies, was clearly intended to restore the confidence of the American people in the conduct of their government's business. It has had that effect to the extent that much serious research has been made possible through it in recent years and, perhaps most importantly, the agents of government must be ever-mindful of the potential difficulties inherent in cover-up. I believe that the will of Congress is this matter is not being served. I will urge that members of the New York Congressional delegation to oppose this action of the Executive Branch and support amendments being offered in the House this week toward the strengthening of the Freedom of Information Act. JUAN JOSE PENA, NATIONAL CHAIR, PARTIDO LA RAZA UNITA The La Raza Unida Party opposes the action by the Attorney General William French Smith to close off essential portions of the files and records on organizations and individuals who have been active in constructive social change. La Raza Unita Party has been a victim of illegal surveillance, infiltration and disruption by the FBI and the CIA in legitimate and proper activities which in no way have violated any law or statute of the United States. Closing off access to these files would be a license to, in effect, disrupt lawful and proper activities and would, in effect, stifle the constitutional rights of freedom of assembly, press and association, not to mention other freedoms which could be infringed upon concerning the 1st, 5th and 14th amendments. If the information were to be enjoined from us, we would have no access to this information to defend our constitutional rights. Women, and particularly minority women, are among the first people to be victimized by the Reagan administration's attempt to debase the quality of life and deny the human services upon which we depend. In order to turn the wealth of this nation over to the corporations and the war industry, the administration must maintain the status quo, must prevent people from organizing their collective strength to demand their share of the wealth they have created. The strongest threat to the status quo is the demand for change by that part of the population which is most denied, most exploited, most oppressed: Black and minority people, women. As racism is used to prevent us from working together to confront those who would impoverish us, so the apparatus of fear and intimidation is used to weaken and paralyse our organizations and work. The attempt to withdraw and deny our right to freedom of information is part of that repressive climate. We know we cannot wait for the attck to fall directly on us before we raise our voices in protest. We have learned from the past that we must defend our sisters and brothers if we are to defend ourselves. Edith Tiger, Director, National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee: The government has granted the citizenry their natural constitutional right to know and now by rescinding the FOIA guidelines for the right to know they are acting unconstitutionally. The FOIA strengthened the First Ammendment right to know. Edward Brown, Commentary, WNEW-FM May 11th, 1981 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION In a democracy, knowledge is power. That's why people in power don't share their knowledge. The truth of many things reaches the people because information is stolen or extracted, but rarely because it is volunteered. In the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate Tapes, for example, public officials rather unwittingly gathered the evidence of their own stealth and duplicity and wrong judgements. It was not by design that Americans saw the evidence while the issues and personalities involved were still warm and when it was early enough to act on what was learn. This has not been lost on the Reagan Administration which is putting renewed emphasis on punishing "whistle blowers" and in finding new excuses for concealment. Most recently, it rescinded the Carter Administration's policy that required federal agencies, under the Freedom of Information Act, to release information unless they could prove that disclosure would cause demonstrable harm. Mr. Carter's policy put the burden of proof where it belonged-on the government. The Reagan Administration is shifting that burden of proof to the public. Attorney General William French Smith claims allegiance to the Information Act, by saying government shouldn't abuse it to cover up waste, fraud and wrong-doing. It will, of course, because it always has. That's politics and human nature. But uncovering mistakes and venality is not the end-all. More important—that is, if we have any belief at all in the notions of an informed electorate and government by consent of the governed-is knowing when actual conduct by government is contradicted by stated policy. That's where the great deceptions have occurred. That's what distorts public opinion and the votes and acts based on it. And yet, Mr. Smith has invited the Intelligence Agencies to re-write the Information Act as they would like to see it. As the issue develops in this session of Congress, we will see how many people have forgotten the lies about South East Asia and the intervention in Chile, and the bribing of foreign officials, and the vendetta against Dr. Martin Luther King, the covert actions of Intelligence agencies abroad and their crimes at home. We will see how many people have forgotten that important truths were revealed in recent years quite by accident and not because we were thought to have a right to those truths or because we actively pursued them. THE NATION "A Penchant for Secrecy and Silence Last week, Attorney General William French Smith issued new guidelines that will restrict the release of documents under the Freedom of Information Act. The Carter Justice Department's policy was to defend agency decisions to withhold documents "only when disclosure is demonstrably harmful." The Reagan Administration's new policy is "to defend all suits," unless there is no legal basis or the defense would adversely affect another agency. This ruling alone may have little immediate impact-the old guidelines were honored more in the breach than the observance-but it is nevertheless a revealing symbol of the Administration's attitude toward open government. The Administration claims, for example, that it wants to repeal the Clark Amendment-which prohibits covert action in Angola without Congressional approval-"as a matter of principle" and not because it intends to aid rebel leader Jonas Savimbi. But the only principle at stake is public debate and accountability. The same penchant for secrecy and silence can be seen in the effort to pass "names of agents" bill that would criminalize the disclosure, by those with "the intent to impair or impede" intelligence activities, of some material derived from public sources by journalists. Similarly, Senator Jeremiah Denton's Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism (which is holding hearings on the bill) has heard testimony that domestic political groups and elements in the press are purveyors of Soviet "disinformation." Such charges, that have been echoed by the Secretary of State and the President are intended to impugn criticism from the left. Candidate Reagan promised to get government off our backs. President Reagan seems bent on getting government's dirty work out of sight. Fred Wertheimer, president, Common Cause strongly objects to your actions today easing standards for agency compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). An Administration elected to return government to the people should not be undermining one of the fundamental methods by which the people have access to government decisions. Past studies have strongly suggested a need for more, not less, oversight of agency FOIA functions; to take a step in the opposite direction without reasonable reflection and analysis is unwarranted and not responsible. On the 16th instant May 19, Librarian for General is now engaged in collecting all possible data comerning the various women's organizations throughout the United States, particularly those which are interested in disarmament. From information which she has already received, it would appear that these various organizations have taken up the disarmament movement at the instigation of such modern intellectuals as SARA BARD FIELD, EMMA WOLD, HARRIET C,BROWN, JANE ADDAMS, etc. who can be reached at Branch 1086, War Department, was extremely i WOMEN'S INT 18 desirous communicati on which Women's International League for Peace and Freedom frightened by and appalled at the recent statement of the WILPF has frequently been the target of illegal The United States government has compiled reams of paper on our work toward putting an end to war and to wasteful military economy. Peace groups have had their offices broken into and files stolen or destroyed. Individual members of WILPF have suffered financially and psychologically as the result of witch hunts and dirty tricks played on law-abiding citizens exercising their rights to question government policy. We must know what kind of information has been gathered against us and how it is used. This right is vital to our ability to function as an organization and as individuals. The proposed restrictions on our essential right to know inhibit the democratic process in this country as well as intimidate its citizens. One rationale for resisting our access to government files is that it will "save money." Indeed, it is a huge and expensive job to process and distribute this illegally gathered information. WILPF says that one effective and efficient way to save our tax dollar and, at the same time, protest rescinding rights of our citizens is to call an immediate halt to all illegal surveillance activities. ral as suggested of the Bureau, when the ral embarrassing tions and COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE "Why We Need the FOIA" I am Nancy Kramer, executive director of the Committee for Public Justice, a national civil liberties organization. The Committee was formed in 1970 by Lillian Hellman, Ramsey Clark, Robert Silvers, Jerome Wiesner and a group of other prominent Americans concerned about government threats to the Bill of Rights. They held a press conference in November to announce the establishment of the Committee, describing it as an early warning system against the erosion of basic freedoms. Several areas of concern were mentioned, including school desegregation in the South and the wasting of resources by the FBI. One of the first issues the organization focused on was the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It was then still headed by its first director, J. Edgar Hoover, and virtually the only information available about the Bureau was what it made public. The agency had never been thoroughly reviewed by any goverment or private group. The Committee for Public Justice decided to hold a conference on the FBI, designed to examine its role, structure and power in American society. It was to be co-sponsored by Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School and was scheduled for October 1971. Papers were to be presented and discussed by civil libertarians, journalists, law enforcement experts, and historians. A variety of viewpoints were sought, and one of the first people invited to attend was Mr. Hoover. He declined, refusing to even send a representative or participate in any way. We went ahead with the conference, nonetheless, and it was a success. It was chaired by professors from Princeton, Yale, and New York University; was wellattended; and received substantial press attention. Eventually the papers presented were published as a book, Investigating the FBI (Doubleday & Co., 1974). So much for that project? Not quite. The Committee had apparently piqued the interest of J. Edgar Hoover. He ordered the Crime Records division of the FBI to prepare profiles first on various members of the Committee and then on the conference participants. None of these people were criminals or suspected of having committed any crime. Profiles were prepared by the FBI on several dozen people. They are uneven in their length and scope, but most contain only a few paragraphs of "information." Some of the statements are factually accurate, some are not. They cover both career and personal data: employment and publication records; who the subjects associated with (one memorable notation on a leading scientist was that "several of his associates at M.I.T. had been publicly identified as having been affiliated with the Communist Party"); what organizations or causes they contributed to or were suspected of being in sympathy with; what clients they represented, if lawyers; and even what publications they received. This information and some other data about the in Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to insure that the people's right to know what their Government is doing will be protected and that their access to legitimate information will be unimpeded. The Freedom of Information Act was intended to help make the democratic process work by assuring that the conduct of Government in our republic would remain open for all to view, except where genuine national security and foreign policy concerns would be jeopardized. The intent was, and is. to assure that our people will remain an informed and enlightened citizenry. -Rep. Spark M. Matsonaga House Debate, May 14, 1974. fant Committee was widely disseminated. It was communicated to dozens of people within the Bureau, to key "friendly" members of Congress (who were also given short speeches prepared by the Bureau to use), and to selected members of the press. The FBI's interest in the Committee and our conference went further. We had invited a former Justice Department attorney to the conference, and he was asked by the Bureau and agreed to attend it in order to report back. In other words, the FBI sent a spy to this public conference. Furthermore, the FBI collected the papers presented at the conference. Each was then carefully dissected and discussed by FBI analysts. The FBI's investigation of the Committee resulted in the compilation of this massive file which I am holding. I have 941 pages in my hands and know that there are a few others which have been withheld from us. I have read the whole file. It is repetitive in its statement of data and it includes copies of newspaper articles, as well as the conference papers. So I estimate that perhaps only 350 pages of it represent original work by the FBI. Think about that for a moment. If each of those 350 pages represented five hours of work by the Bureau, it would have spent 1,750 hours investigating a group which was simply exercising its right of free speech. A striking example of curtailing First Amendment rights, while squandering goverment law enforcement resources. I tell you this not to rehash the FBI's past misdeeds, serious as they were. I believe that that agency has changed for the better, partly as a result of disclosures such as this. The point of my story is that we know about this rambling, stupid and destructive investigation of a political group only because of the Freedom of Information Act. The Committee never knew of the Bureau's compilation of files; never knew that a spy had been sent to its conference; and never knew that stories had been planted in the press, until it received a copy of this file, pursuant to an FOIA request and appeal. That is why we are so troubled by attempts to weaken the Freedom of Information Act. Neither we nor the press will know if government agencies run amok in this and other ways in the future, unless we preserve the FOIA. Copy of an FBI memorandum on Paul Robeson. Notice the large blotted out area, apparently a reference to Robeson's health since what follows refers to his "passing." Said Paul Robeson Jr., "What's top secret about Paul Robeson's status of health?" We will continue to follow Robeson's activities closely, it being apparent that the communists would exploit the passing of Robeson, as they have exploited his day-to-day activities, to propagandize, on behalf of the international communist movement. The Department, State and Central Intelligence Agency have been kept currently advised. ACTIONA |