On October 22, 1975, the Ambassador to Iran and former Director of Central Intelligence, Richard Helms, testified before the Church Committee. The Chairman, Frank Church (D-ID), wanted to know why the CIA had been opening American citizen’s mail since the mid-1950’s without a warrant. I fully expect that George Tenet, Michael Hayden, and John McLaughlin will have to give similar testimony before a future Congressional inquiry. Here’s a trip down memory lane and a look inside the mind of the old CIA. Richard Helms knew more about the secrets of the CIA than any other living man. He was convicted of lying to Congress about the 1973 coup in Chile.
Richard Helms, in the White House Cabinet Room, March 27, 1968.. Excerpted testimony is below the fold.
The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Helms, under which presidents did you serve as Director of the CIA?
Ambassador HELMS. I was appointed, sir, by President Johnson, and I served under him and under President Nixon until early February
1973.The CHAIRMAN. And as Director of the CIA, you told neither of these Presidents about the mail-opening program?
Ambassador HELMS. I have explained what the situation was as far as President Johnson is concerned. As best I can pull this together
I don’t recall speaking to President Kennedy.The CHAIRMAN. And when did you speak to Attorney General Mitchell about the mail-opening program? Was that at the time that the new administration came on and you wanted to inform the new
Attorney General of what was going on or was that a good deal later?Ambassador HELMS. It was a good 2 years later.
The CHAIRMAN. A good 2 years later. You were aware that the mail opening program was illegal, were you not?
Ambassador HELMS. Mr. Chairman, I am not a lawyer, and I think it would be unfortunate to take your time and the time of the committee to get into a debate on matters that are a little bit-well…not only a little bit, but a great, deal beyond my purview. I only want to say that we were given a charge back in 19-the late forties and early fifties. It has not come up in the hearings, at least as far as I know-, the ones I’ve been listening to and I would like your forbearance for just, a moment to explain something.
When the remnant parts of the OSS were picked un and placed as a sort of secret service under the CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency for cover purposes-after all, the Central Intelligence Agency was never designed by law to run espionage or anything of that kind-the National Security Council gave this organization, through the Director of CIA, some specific jobs to do, and in the intelligence field a more specific job was given in the area of counterespionage and counterintelligence, if you would like to call it that, the National Security Council intelligence directive gave the Agency the job of analyzing,
collating, and evaluating the counterespionage information.It also gave it the job of maintaining the basic files for the whole Government on counterespionage cases and in addition it put upon it the job of protecting the U.S. Government, the CIA and its installations, and so forth, from penetration and from any hostile intelligence services or even friendly intelligence services, as far as that is
concerned. Now, this charge was a difficult one. and there there very few methods available for carrying it out and carrying it out with any reasonable chance of success. One of those things is to penetrate another fellow’s intelligence service and find out who his agents are, a most
difficult job. A second is to find out about foreign agents from defectors from their service. Third are intercepts, signals, telephone calls, mail, anything that one can lay one’s hands on. and then overseas there are a variety of surveillance techniques which may or may not work, but those things are always available.Each one of them is very difficult and tricky in its own right, and I would like to point out that we have established beyond any doubt the number one target of the KGB and the GRU the two Soviet intelligence services is the Central Intelligence Agency. So every Director was very conscious of how seemingly unprotected he was against this
penetration but also to keep from having any agents get into this organization, because a great deal of Government information can be tapped by just having one person within the CIA.The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Helms, given the difficulties that the Director faces in connection with counterintelligence responsibilities, do you believe that this is an Agency that need not obey the law?
Ambassador HELMS. No; and I don’t think. Mr. Chairman, that you would find very many of those fine, patriotic people in the CIA that would feel that way. We are trying to get on with our job. We are trying to protect our form of government and our way of life.
The CHAIRMAN. We are not talking about motive. We are talking about a plan that went on for 20 years that everybody recognized was against the law. I am trying not, to talk about motives, good purposes, and patriotism. I am trying to find out why a program like this went on for 20 years, was against the law of the country by every indication
we have, statutes, the Constitution, the decisions of the Supreme Court, and all I am trying to find out from you is whether you believe that the CIA does not have to abide by these laws because of the problems that the CIA faces. Is that your position, or is it not your position? You can answer that question yes or no.Ambassador HELMS. Well, I think my position-I don’t think things are black or white in this life, and I just simply have to say that I am
not a lawyer, and I get a bit confused when I read articles like the one that Alexander Rickel wrote in Commentary in January of 1974 about the various categories of laws in this country, that one supersedes another, and so forth, this all having to do with whether the antiwar movement was illegal or not. I am not a lawyer. I just have to say that I would rather let it go at that.The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Helms, I cannot let it go quite at that because I think most anybody in the country whether he is a lawyer or not would have a very active suspicion that opening the mail was probably against the law. You do not have to be qualified to argue the case before the Supreme Court not to have that suspicion, and as the intelligent man you are, I can hardly believe that you would not have suspected that this was against the law. Did you ask your General Counsel in the CIA for an opinion as to whether or not-it was legal for the CIA to engage in this kind of
activity?Ambassador HELMS. No, I don’t, recall having done that, and there are plenty of memorandums, Mr. Chairman, in this record here from various people that claim that this was illegal, so it certainly came to my attention.