Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.09.40] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from California has 4 minutes remaining. Mr. WIGGINS. I yield the 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized. Mr. DENNIS. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman. First I would like to call attention to exactly what the Keith decision, which had not become law at the time we are talking about, held. 'The Keith decision stated that it -was necessary to get a. court warrant before instituting wiretaps in matters which involved only the domestic aspects of national security, That was not handed down at the time we are talking about, which was back in 1969, and the general assumption in governmental circles was that you did not need a prior court order to institute wiretaps for the domestic aspects of national security at that time. The contrary had never been held. But, it is important to know what the Keith decision did hold, even when it was handed down, and I read from the opinion of the court. We emphasize before concluding this opinion the scope of our decision. As stated at the outset, this case involves only the domestic aspects of national security. We have not addressed and express no opinion as to the issues which may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents. And in the footnote they say for the view that warrantless surveillance though impermissible in domestic security cases may be constitutional where foreign powers are involved see United States v. Smith and so forth. Now' a great many of these wiretaps here. were cases -where foreign were certainly involved and where foreign powers were certain affairs were certainly interested and where some people might even have been agents of foreign powers and even under this decision would still in all probability be lawful? Addressing what the gentlelady from Texas said, the. court said further, "Nor does our decision rest on the Language of section 2.511 or any other section of title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. That Act does not attempt to define or delineate that the powers of the President to meet domestic threats to the national security." It did not apply to it. It had to do with ordinary crime. So they did not take any guidance from the act. They did not speak where foreign people were involved. And they then held for the first time that strictly domestic national security required a court order. Now, back In 1969 there -were -a lot of important leaks. In early March--and I am using now the books of our testimony. both the President's presentation and our own presentation-- in early March of 1969, and this is from the President's presentation to our, committee, a decision was reached to conduct B-52 raids into Cambodia. They were conducted secretly and we had it in our testimony, too, to maintain the tacit approval of Prince Norodom Sihanouk. However, on May 6, 1969. William Beecher accurately reported these raids in the. Now York Times, jeopardizing the relationship with Prince Sihanouk. On April 1, 1969, the Department of Defense made a troop study about withdrawing troops from Vietnam. It had not yet been discussed with the South Vietnamese Government. Before, it was discussed with the South Vietnamese government, on April 6, 1969, Mr. Frankel ran an article in the New York Times, which jeopardized our relationship with the South Vietnamese Government. Mr. Kissinger so testified in an affidavit which he filed. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman--- Mr. DENNIS. And other similar matters all happened in 1969, and, to finish my sentence "Dear Mr. Hoover. Agent Sullivan wrote May, 1969, "1 thought you would like to know that Colonel Haig called me this morning to advise that they are, releasing X today. At least this is one leak that will be stopped." Respectfully, W. C. Sullivan." [01.14.26]