100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

December 03, 1978 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1978-12-03

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Page 4-Sunday, December 3, 1978-The Michigan Daily

420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Eighty-Nine Years of Editorial Freedom

Letters to the

Daily

Vol. LXXXIX, No. 72 News Phone: 764-0552
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
Victory for conservationists

Turner: the CIA is not out of control

A PAIR OF EVENTS this past week
should give renewed hope to
environmentalists, both locally and
across the nation, and may indicate a
reversal in anti-environmental trends
of the last few years.
On Friday, President Carter used
the Antiquities Act of 1906 to order 56
million acres of Alaskan wilderness set
aside as new national parks, forests
and wildlife refuges. The area is now
locked away from oil and mineral
development unless Congress votes
specifically to open it. The protected
lands comprise little more than half of
110 million acres of Federal lands set
aside two weeks ago by Secretary of
the Interior Cecil D. Andrus; however,
Andrus used at that time a statute
which preserved the acreage for only
three years.
Through these actions, the Carter
administration has protected-for the
time being-an area larger than the
state of California from uncontrolled
commercial exploitation. The lands
contain some of the most scenic rivers,
forests and mountains in the United
States.
On the state level, there is additional
good news for environmentalists.
Reform Democrats in the State Senate
brought to power in the November
elections, are seeking to oust Sen.
Joseph Mack (D-Ironwood) from his
chairmanship of the important Con-
servation Committee. It appears the
reformers have the clout to succeed,
thus throwing out of power a man who

successfully bottled-up in committee
many important environmental bills.
Mr. Mack has become notorious-and
deservedly so-for the part he has
played in bringing about virtually un-
controlled commercial expolitation of
state lands in parts of the Upper
Peninsula.
The Carter administration's action
was bitterly criticized by Sen. Mike
Gravel of Alaska. Carter was forced to
make his move on Friday because Sen.
Gravel had successfully opposed a bill
in the Senate which would have set
aside the Alaskan territory, a bill
which had already been passed by the
House. Sen. Gravel threatened a
filibuster on the bill in the closing days
of the Congressional session, and the
Senate, in one of its not infrequent
displays of warped priorities, allowed
the bill to die rather than face a
filibuster and hence a delay in taking
its vacation.
Sen. Gravel and Mr. Mack are
products of a 19th century school of
thought which creates an inability to
perceive that undeveloped lands and
wilderness areas have become an ex-
tremely limited commodity in the
1970s. We find it encouraging that on
both the state and national level there
are some public officials who can
balance and even outweigh the in-
fluence of such men. Time is short, and
now more than ever before we need to
see, all-out efforts to preserve the un-
touched land left in this country, both
for outselves and future generations.

To the Daily:
In your 24 October 1978
editorial, "The CIA on Campus,",
you contend that "no one seems
to have authority over the CIA,"
that the CIA has "too long been
permitted to continue their
surreptitious activities outside
the sphere of civilian control"
and "that the agency has gotten
out of control is apparent." This
assertion is incorrect both
historically and as regards CIA
activities today.
The Senate Select Committee
chaired by Senator Church stated
in Book I of its final report, "The
CIA has come to be viewed as an
unfettered monolith, defining and
determing its activities indepen-
dent of other elements of gover-
nment and of the direction of
American foreign policy. This is
a distortion. During its twenty-
nine year history, the Agency has
been shaped by the course of in-
ternational events, by pressures
from other government agencies,
and by its own internal norms. An
exhaustive history of the CIA
would demapd an equally
exhaustive history of American.
foreign policy, the role of
Congress and the Executive, the
other components on the In-
telligence Community, and an
examination of the interaction
among all these forces."
Although never released to the
public, the report of the House
Committee on Intelligence (Pike
Committee) was reported in
Village Voice to have arrived at
even more categoric conclusion
concerning the control of the
CIA: "All evidence in hand
suggests that the CIA, far from
being out of control, has been ut-
terly responsive to the instruc-
tions of the President and the
Assistant to the President for
Security Affairs."
After the first.session of the
95th Congress came to a close,

Senator Daniel K. Inouye,
Chairman of the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence,
reported to the Senate that,
"There is no question that a
number of abuses of power,
mistakes in judgment, and
failures by the intelligence agen-
cies have harmed the United
States. In almost every instance,
the abuses that have been
revealed weret aresult of direc-
tion from above, including
Presidents and Secretaries of
State. Further, in almost every
instance, some members of both
Houses of Congress assigned the
duty of oversight were
knowledgeable about these ac-
tivities."
Today, the President's
Executive Order 12036, signed
January 24, 1978 (copy enclosed)
lays out specific directions for
carrying out intelligence ac-
tivities, restrictions on those ac-
tivities, and creates several new
mechanisms for oversight.
In the ExecutiveBranch, the
new Intelligence Oversight
Board, composed of three
distinguished civilians from out-
side the government, are direc-
ted to investigate all allegations
of illegal or improper intelligence
activity. Anyone may com-
municate directly with that
Board. Their findings go directly
to the President.
In the Legislative Branch, a
select committee on intelligence
exists in both the Senate and the
House. They are kept fully infor-
med of intelligence activities
and, in turn, exercise genuine
control over all such activities.
There is no question in my mind
or in the mind of anyone in the In-
telligence Community that we
are held accountable for what we
do.
There two Congressional com-
mittees are now in the process of
drafting charters which will

codify in federal law the various
restrictions and limitations as
well as the missions of the In-
telligence Community. I fully and
actively support that endeavor.
Consequently, rather than
being out of control as you allege,
the United States Intelligence
Community, and specifically the
CIA, are under the tightest inter-
nal and external controls of their
history.
Further, you find my refusal to
comply with Harvard's faculty
guidelines peremptory and
outrageous. In fact, it is neither.
The CIA and Harvard have been
engaged in a productive dialogue
for over a year. During that time
the majority of our differences
have been reconciled. There
remain but three points of dif-
ferences:
1. The Harvard guidelines
requre that relationships bet-
ween Harvard faculty members
and the CIA be reported to the
Harvard administration.
CIAhas no objection to this
requirement but believes it is the
prerogative of the faculty mem-
ber to reveal those relationships
which are external to his faculty
responsibilities, not the CIA. CIA
considers all such relationships
private and personal. The faculty
member may deal with them in
any way he chooses.
2. That only relationships with
intelligence agencies are
required to be so revealed.
While the guidelines you
propose in your subsequent
editorial, "The University
Guidelines" on 29 October 1978,
recognizes the diverse oppor-
tunities for conflict of interest
which are present on all cam-
puses, e.g., consulting
arrangements with businesses,
private publication opportunities,
parttime jobs, etc., Harvard's
guidelines do not. It seems naive
to me to assume- that only a

relationship with an intelligence
agency has the potential for con-
flict or for infringing on
academic or personal freedom.
Additionally, this requirement in-
fers that all other relationships
are preferable to one with the
U.S. Government. This is neither
sound logic nor realistic. "If this
guideline were extended to cover
all business, or professional
relationships external to the
faculty member's university
responsibilities, CIA would have
no objection.
3. The CIA should not establish
any confidential relationship with
faculty members for the possible
purpose of assessing or contac-
ting foreign students.
Again, in light of the thousands
of confidential recommendations
prepared annually by faculty
members for students applying to
businesses, graduate schools,
and other government agencies,
a guideline prohibiting the same
kind of recommendation to the
Intelligence Community is incon-
sistent with recognized and ac-
cepted faculty practice. No,
student at a university is totally
free of confidential appraisal in
one form or another; none of us is
either in school or at work. If a
particular student's
qualifications result in a specific
work or study proposal by a
business, another university, or a
government agency, and the
student is not interested, the
student is free to decline the
proposal. It is difficult to see how
this abridges anyone's freedom.
I am enclosing a copy of the
CIA's internal regulation gover-
ning our relationship with
academic institutions and a
statement I made at the Univer-
sity of Kentucky which describes
those relationships and the over-
sight process in greater detail.
-Stansfield Turner
Director of Central
Intelligence

and defeat

HE BATTLE for effective
conservation legislation,
however, is far from won. And in
Michigan, -the beverage industry is
making the going rough. The beverage
.industry fought hard in November 1976
to defeat a law requiring deposits on
beer and soft drink containers.
Fortunately, residents of this state
rmade folly of the industry's fantastic
campaign to squash the proposal - it
was passed and takes effect today. It
was a tremendous victory for the
conservationists and for those who just
don't like to see the countryside
cluttered with empty throw-away
beverage containers. But the beverage
industry didn't just sit back and take
its defeat lightly. It found a new cause;
a way to profit from the returnable
container program. 4
A bill in the state legislature, whic, if
passed, would have allowed the state to
use the unclaimed beverage container
deposit money, failed to get out of
committee last week. As a result, it
looks dead for the rest of the year.
The bill was introduced by Rep.
Thomas Anderson (D-Southgate),
chairman of the House Committee on
Conservation, Environment, and
Recreation. Rep. Anderson's proposal
would have allowed the state to use the

unclaimed deposit money for an anti-
litter and conservation purposes. The
bill failed by one vote.
Thomas Washington, executive
director of Michigan United
Conservation clubs, said that the
beverage industry would receive
millions of dollars in windfall profits
from the unclaimed bottle and can
deposits.
There is not one good reason the.
beverage industry should receive the
unclaimed deposits. The industry
could argue that it must be
compensated for the loss of the bottles
or cans. But clearly, that was never a
factor in preventing the beverage
industry from having tremendous
financial success with throwaways.
On the other hand, the reasons for
allowing the state to use that money for
environmental protection and
conservation are sound and numerous.
Most obvious is the fact that if a
container is not returned, it has most
likely become litter. The state then has
to pay someone to pick it up, thereby
cancelling the good effects of the law.
We hope that when this bill is
resurrected next year, the state
legislature will have enough common
sense to pass it forthwith for the
benefit of all residents of Michigan.

t
by
,Am'
re<
Of
I
a

14 Nove brrj , 1978A '
The Editor
nMichigan ai )fir e ,re Jarteent9ovej,
the atUniversity Of Michigan
s e t m ec,
t 420 Maynard Street
N s & tthe
0n Arbor, Michigan 48107
sub stat
sDear Sir:
b"tpn Your 24onctobert1978 editorial, "T e Ory C mpu,' yo
C on tstn n sest ae ort teCA, ha h
"The IA onCampu " yo
CIA has "too long been Permitted to continue their surreptitious
activities Outside the spher fciiinco)th'" A" thatth
19 has gotten out of control irs fcvlIn~oad a h ec
Isappar.l" 5\Thisisorc)assertionas icorect
bthitrclY and as regards CIA activitie sstoday.isncrety
The Senate Select Coiinitte hie ySntrCuc ttdi
Book I of its final report, chieh
unfettered monolith, defini "The CIA hasbCoSenatorbeCviereh saen
o f t h r e e m n t s o ng a n d d e t e r mi in i n g it s a c t i v i t ie s a nd e e n
foreign policy. This is agdisori.Dring itandtof ty ianndearth
history, the Agency has been shaped by thDursi eonernAiona
events, b 9i wnynn ertcus fy pressures from other government agencies, n nentoa
internal norms. A xasiehsoyo h I ol eada
equallyehasA exhaustive history an y its own
Congress and the Ecy, theofAmrolen oof
Coimmunity adaEectvthe other componentsoofcy the Intllience
forces., andan xamrinion 0~of the interaction ao h ng all es
Although never released to thepulcthreotfteHus
Committee on t ellige nice (p ike C m it e) was reported in Vi l e
Voice to have arrived at an Cven m orieitte orc Vlu i ll
hontrol ft ve lr ctgrccoctsoncrning
eCIA "All evidence in hadrgetsta h
CIfar fromiibeing out of control hanbend utrlgesosiet
the instructions ofte reiassistant rto t thPesdn
for Security Affairs." itntehnrsdn
After the first session of the9thCgrscaieoacle
Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Cara fteSnt eetCaiite
on Intelligence, reported toatheaSenattee that, ea"There is oqeto
that a number of abuses of power, mistakes in judgmentsndfaureso

LOOKING BACK. THE WEEK
* IN RE VIEW

Ken worthy for mayor?
Maybe.
Will Jamie run? The question is on
the minds of many local Democrats and
back hall gossipers in city hall. After an
embarassing defeat in last April's
,general city election, in which
Republicans gained the mayor's seat
and six out of ten seats on the council,

student maintains that a long "feeling
out" process will be necessary before
he can make his candidacy official.
Kenworthy served four years on
Council between 1974 and 1978. In 1974
he pulled off one of the major upsets in
the city's recent political history when
he defeated William Colburn, a man
who had been touted as a possible
Republican candidate for mayor or
Congress, to gain the council seat.

same five dollar fine for those cought
purchasing liquor for 18 to 20 year olds.
The PIRGIM sponsored proposals
would do what city council failed to do
several weeks ago when it tabled a
proposal submitted by Earl Green (D-
Second Ward) that would have
established a- five dollar fine for
violators of the law created by Proposal
D, passed in the November election.

LSA-SG elections
This week members of the United
Student Party, who participated in the
recent Literary College Student Gover-
nment (LSA-SG) election initiated and
summarily dropped a law suit which
contended procedural and
mathematical errors were committed
by election officials in counting ballots.
According to Carl Parisi, the acting co-

terests of the party to "get busy with
other things."
Elections Director Harriet Strasberg
said that United Student Party mem-
bers dropped the suit after an LSA
Academic Judiciary committee
meeting made the elections process,
especially the preferential voting
system, clearer to the party.
"After the Judiciary meeting, their
members understood the system a little

directors, however, has refused to
recognize the employees' union af-
filiation pending a National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) review and a
union certification election.
"The Board of Directors thought it
should go through proper government
agencies," said Tudor Bradley, the
manager of the Cellar. "But I don't
think there will be much of a delay."

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan