Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

draw from these relatively isolated examples the conclusion that we are reaching an age of social control similar to that depicted by George Orwell in his novel, 1984. Neither in the United States nor, I suspect, in this country, is 1984 nor anything like it upon us. The legitimate concern over privacy is not advanced by those who mount an unselective attack on the government in terms of a highly fictitious "dossier dictatorship", or by those who speak in terms of the government's "pervasive" wiretapping. The statistics I cited earlier should put to rest such exaggerations. Intelligent discussion of this subject cannot but lead to the conclusion that neither government surveillance nor individual privacy can be treated as an absolute or paramount value at the expense of the other. We cannot allow our zeal for effective law enforcement to erode the rights essential to a free citizenry, but we must be equally certain that in our concern to preserve the right of privacy to the law abiding, we do not unwittingly assure anonymity for the criminal. One of the great virtues of the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition shared by Great Britain and the United States has been its ability by rational accommodation to preserve surprisingly large elements of each of two competing values. I do not doubt that it will prove capable of resolving the conflict of the seventies between law enforcement and privacy.

EXCERPTS FROM PRESS CONFERENCE OF JOHN N. MITCHELL, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Question. Mr. Attorney General, it's getting to the point where I wonder if the Justice Department can do something about the individual who thinks his line is tapped and doesn't known how to check this.

If the individual checks with the telephone company, he gets nowhere, and Senator Yarborough said the other day he felt sure his line was tapped and probably the lines of all the Senators.

Is there any place where an individual can go now in Government to have his rights protected and checked out?

Mr. MITCHELL. Certainly. He can go to the Justice Department. As far as Senator Yarborough's statement that you repeat, I am not aware of it. I can tell you flatly, from the Justice Department's standpoint, and all the other agencies in the Government that are obligated to comply with Justice Department regulations, that it would be inconceivable for even a consideration of placing a telephone tap on any Members of Congress or anybody else in Government.

With respect to the individual citizen, unless they are involved in organized crime or in the process, or have committed a crime, they have no concerns whatsoever. We have used the powers that we have with respect to wire tapping very, very sparingly, and we expect to continue to do so. So that any citizen in this United States who is not involved in some illegal activity has no concern whatsoever.

Question. How many taps are now in, Mr. Attorney General? And bugging? Mr. MITCHELL. There are fewer taps and bugging presently on than when I came into office.

Question. Can you give us a number? ·

Mr. MITCHELL. No, sir, I cannot.

Question. Can you tell us how many you have approved?

Mr. MITCHELL. No, sir, I cannot.

Question. Can you tell us how many did you take off?

Mr. MITCHELL. Quite a number.

Question. Why did you take them off?

Mr. MITCHELL. After reexamination of the situation that existed, it was determined by various agencies involved in the Department of Justice that they were not productive.

Question. What about the latest edict that the Department has the right to tap the phone-to go into the telephones of anybody whom the Department considers dangerous to the security of the United States?

Mr. MITCHELL. Let me put it in this context: I presume you are referring to the papers that were filed in the Chicago case.

As you can well imagine, those electronic surveillances were placed on long before my coming into office. The purpose of those electronic surveillances was to protect the National security, both internal and foreign.

And it has been the position of this Department in that proceeding out there, which we will maintain so long as the Courts support us, that this is a power vested in the President of the United States to protect the foreign and internal security of this country, and we will try and sustain, and expect to sustain, the power of the President and this Government to act accordingly.

*

*

*

*

*

Question. Mr. Attorney General, your predecessor Ramsey Clark said that wire tapping was not productive. The Nixon Administration promised to make greater use of wire tapping. You say now you have reduced the number of wire taps.

Have you come around to Mr. Clark's way of thinking?

Mr. MITCHELL. Quite to the contrary. You see, this Administration has taken advantage of the provisions of the Safe Streets Act with respect to the use of wire tapping in the area of organized and other types of crime.

We have used it in that field and we find it very productive. In fact, the first wire tap that I used in connection with organized crime broke one of the largest narcotics cases we have had in this country in some time.

So it's a distinction between reducing its use in the foreign field, national security, and its implementation under the Safe Streets Act with respect to the crime area.

Question. When you say that you have reduced the number of taps, you are referring specifically to taps authorized by the Department of Justice regarding the foreign intelligence? That doesn't mean that overall wire tapping has been reduced?

Mr. MITCHELL. No, I said that the total number of taps had been reduced, including both areas.

[blocks in formation]

Question. Are there currently any wire taps or bugging devices being used against any civil rights leaders in the country at this time?

Mr. MITCHELL. I don't know what you describe as civil rights leaders, but I would say in the normal connotation of the term, the answer would be no. Question. Do you have any requests from the Director of the FBI to do so at this time?

Mr. MITCHELL. Do I have a request from him to bug the lines of civil rights leaders? No.

Question. There is an important distinction between tapping and bugging, and you made it once in your preliminary remarks, but not in some other references.

When you said there was no wire tapping of Congressmen and Government officials, did you also mean bugging and related electronic surveillance devices? And when you spoke of a reduction in the number of taps, does that also apply to other electronic surveillance devices?

Mr. MITCHELL. I used electron surveillance throughout, or intended to. Obviously there is there is no electronic surveillance of any Congressman or people in Government, and of course there is no investigation of them, or anything else.

This would be completely foreign to the activities of this Department.

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT NIXON AT THE ANNUAL CONVENTION OF THE
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEWSPAPER EDITORS, APRIL 16, 1971

SURVEILLANCE BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr. RISHER. Mr. President, I would like to get back to Mr. Hoover and the FBI. Is there any credence to the complaints by some Congressmen, as far as you know, that they are under surveillance by the FBI?

The PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Risher, let me answer that question in terms of what I know, because I checked this personally. I was in the House, I was in the Senate, and I am very jealous of the right of Senators and Congressmen, and every citizen actually, not to have surveillance when he is engaged in public activities. Particularly, I can assure you, that there is no question in

my mind that Mr. Hoover's statement that no telephone in the Capitol has ever been tapped by the FBI is correct. That is correct.

The case you referred to, the Dowdy case, did not involve the tapping of a Congressman's telephone.

The second point that I should make is this: Let's get this whole business of surveillance and the rest into some perspective. First, when we talk about police states, there are 205 million people in this country.

Did you know, even the Nation's editors, sophisticated as you are, that over the past 2 years there were only 300 taps by the FBI through court orders? Do you know what was accomplished from those taps? There were 900 arrests and 100 convictions, and particularly convictions in the important area of narcotics where millions and millions of dollars worth of narcotics that otherwise would have gone to the young people of America were picked up? That was why those taps were carried on.

Now let's talk about the other area which I think Mr. Risher and the people are more concerned about. They say what about the taps that are not made by court order but that are made for the national security? I checked that, too. The high, insofar as those taps are concerned, were in the years 1961, 1962, and 1963. In those years, the number of taps was between 90 and 100. Now, in the 2 years that we have been in office-now get this number-the total number of taps for national security purposes by the FBI, and I know because I look not at the information but at the decisions that are made-the total number of taps is less, has been less, than 50 a year, a cut of 50 percent from what it was in 1961, '62, and '63. As far as Army surveillance is concerned, once we saw what had happened to the Democratic National Convention, that had even been carried to the surveillance of Adlai Stevenson, who later became a Senator, we stopped them.

I simply want to put this all in perspective by saying this: I believe the Nation's press has a responsibility to watch Government, to see that Big Brother isn't watching.

I don't want to see a police state. I argued the right of privacy case in the Supreme Court and I feel strongly about the right of privacy. But let's also remember that the President of the United States has a responsibility for the security of this country and a responsibility to protect the innocent from those who might engage in crime or who would be dangerous to the people of this country.

In carrying out that responsibility, I defend the FBI in this very limited exercise of tapping.

One final point: You talk about police state. Let me tell you what happens when you go to what is really a police state.

You can't talk in your bedroom. You can't talk in your sitting room. You don't talk on the telephone. You don't talk in the bathroom. As a matter of fact, you hear about going out and talking in the garden? Yes, I have walked many times through gardens in various places where I had to talk about something confidential, and you can't even talk in front of a shrub. That is the way it works.

What I am simply saying is this, my friends: There are police states. We don't want that to happen to America. But America is not a police state, and as long as I am in this office, we are going to be sure that not the FBI or any other organization engages in any activity except where the national interests or the protection of innocent people requires it, and then it will be as limited as it possibly can be. That is what we are going to do.

Mr. DICKINSON. Thank you very much, Mr. President, thank you.

NOTE: The President spoke at 9 p.m. in the Regency Ballroom at the Shoreham Hotel. His remarks were broadcast on radio.

EXCERPT FROM PRESIDENT NIXON'S PRESS CONFERENCE, MAY 1, 1971

WIRETAPS

Q. Mr. President, regarding the use of wiretaps in domestic security matters

The PRESIDENT. The kind that you don't have with subpoenas, in other words? Q. Right, without court orders. The Attorney General has stated the policy

on that and he has been criticized by Congressman Emanuel Celler of New York, who says that this could lead to a police state. Would you comment on the threat of a police state in the use of this type of activity?

The PRESIDENT. Well, I have great respect for Congressman Celler as a lawyer and as, of course, the dean-as you know, he is the dean of all the Congressmen in the House, a very distinguished Congressman. However, in this respect I would only say, where was he in 1961? Where was he in 1962 ? Where was he in 1963?

Today, right today, at this moment, there are one-half as many taps as there were in 1961, '62, and '63, and 10 times as many news stories about them. Now, there wasn't a police state in 1961 and '62 and '63, in my opinion, because even then there were less than 100 taps and there are less than 50 today, and there is none, now, at the present time.

All of this hysteria-and it is hysteria, and much of it, of course, is political demagoguery to the effect that the FBI is tapping my telephone and the rest— simply doesn't serve the public purpose. In my view, the taps, which are always approved by the Attorney General, in a very limited area, dealing with those who would use violence or other means to overthrow the Government, and limited, as they are at the present time, to less than 50 at any one time, I think they are justified, and I think that the 200 million people in this country do not need to be concerned that the FBI, which has been, with all the criticism of it-which has a fine record of being nonpolitical, nonpartisan, and which is recognized throughout the world as probably the best police force in the world, the people of this country should be thankful that we have an FBI that is so greatly restricted in this respect.

This is not a police state. I have been to police states. I know what they are. I think that the best thing that could happen to some of the Congressmen and Senators and others who talk about police states is to take a trip-I mean a trip abroad, of course [Laughter]—and when they go abroad, try a few police states.

This isn't a police state and isn't going to become one.

I should also point this out: Where were some of the critics in 1968 when there was Army surveillance of the Democratic National Committee-at the convention, I mean? We have stopped that.

This administration is against any kind of repression, any kind of action that infringes on the right of privacy. However, we are for, and I will always be for, that kind of action that is necessary to protect this country from those who would imperil the peace that all people are entitled to enjoy.

STATEMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

In response to erroneous and misleading allegations made by Senator Kennedy in a letter to other senators concerning electronic surveillance, the Department of Justice issued the following statement today:

In the interest of protecting the security of the United States, it is necessary to use electronic surveillance devices for intelligence gathering purposes. In seeking to balance the Government's obligation to protect the nation with the legitimate right of citizens to maintain their privacy, the number of surveillance devices have been decreased substantially in the past ten years, both in terms of devices in place at any given time and also the total number in use during a given year.

For instance, in 1969, 1970 and 1971, FBI records show that there were never more than 50 wiretaps in operation at any one time, except in two instances, one in 1969 and one in 1970 where authorizations overlapped for a matter of days. Except for those two overlaps, the total number of telephone surveillances has consistently been below 50 for this three year period. Microphone surveillance has never exceeded six at any one time in 1969, 1970 or 1971.

The cumulative total for the year 1970 was 97. In addition, there were a total of 16 microphone surveillances used in all of 1970. From January through October 15 of 1971, there were never more than 43 wiretaps operating at one time, and a total of 79 wiretaps and six microphones for the entire period. During the 1960-61 period, however, the figures were significantly higher. On February 8, 1961, for instance, there were 145 electronic devices in operation, 78 taps and 67 microphones, according to a Department letter sent to Senator

Ervin's committee. On January 10, 1961, there were 85 wiretaps in operation, Director Hoover said in a letter to the then Attorney General, Robert Kennedy. On the day in 1961 that FBI Director Hoover testified before a Congressional Committee, he said there were 90 wiretaps in operation.

By comparison, there were 32 wiretaps and 4 microphones in operation yesterday in connection with national security matters.

Any assertion that "the total amount of Federal electronic eavesdropping without court permission far exceeds the eavesdropping with judicial approval" is false. The number of court authorized devices in 1970 was 180, compared to 113 national security devices installed.

Court authorized taps, which are used solely for gathering evidence for use in criminal prosecutions, are limited to 30 days' duration. There is no such limit for national security taps, which are solely for the purpose of intelligence gathering. To compare the two for the purpose of drawing inappropriate and preconceived conclusions does not serve the public interest.

INTERVIEW OF RICHARD G. KLEINDIENST BY ELIZABETH DREW ON
"THIRTY MINUTES WITH..." JUNE 14, 1971

Announcer. "Thirty Minutes With... Richard Kleindienst Deputy Attorney General, and Elizabeth Drew.

Miss DREW. Mr. Kleindienst, when your Administration came into office it was very critical of the previous Department of Justice. How do you think what your Department has done in the years it's been in power now differs from the way the old group ran the Justice Department?

Mr. KLEINDIENST. Well, we felt we had a reason to be critical as a result of either the policies of the preceding Administration in the Department of Justice, or probably more accurately, the lack of policies, and I guess, as a self serving statement, we think that we have had policies that have been effectuated and programs that have been put into being that fulfilled a very distinct need and what had come to be a lack in the enforcement of the federal laws in the Department of Justice.

To be specific, I think that the energy, the resources, the personnel and the money that the Congress has been willing to give this Administration and this Attorney General in the field of organized crime, in the field of narcotics, in the field of civil rights enforcement, in the field of antitrust enforcement, have really been remarkable, aggressive steps forward in these vital areas.

If I had to characterize it, again beneficially from the standpoint of this Administration, I think we have been engaged in doing things and less talking about them, and I think perhaps the preceding Administration was doing an awful lot of talk about a lot of things and not too much of the doing. Miss DREW. Then you feel you've achieved a lot more in these areasMr. KLEINDIENST. Yes, we do.

Miss DREW [continuing]. Besides getting money from Congress.

Mr. KLEINDIENST. Yes, we do. Take civil rights enforcement. I think for political reasons some segments of our society haven't beeen willing to give the President and the Attorney General in this Administration the

Miss DREW. You mean blacks, don't you? I mean, let's

Mr. KLEINDIENST. Well, I'd say black Democrats, and apparently at this time in our history most of our-the black political leaders are Democrats. But to give this Administration the proper credit that they deserve for increased enforcement in every areas of civil rights enforcement, and then also the miracle of school desegregation in the South of last year without divisiveness, without confrontation, where they in effect, notwithstanding some 15 years following the Brown decision, using the total community, black and white leaders alike, brought an end to our desegregated school districts in the South. I think the same comparison could be made in organized crime. This Administration, I think through the leadership and the basic strength of Attorney General Mitchell, is now using on cohesive, cooperative, coordinated basis, all of the resources of the federal government: Internal Revenue, the FBI, Customs.

Miss DREW. Well, those strike forces were started by Ramsey Clark, weren't they?

« ForrigeFortsett »