◆ SpookStack

oy RENE ARR ie Saeed “ya ' 1 Sige Ee aan “ed Ny gine net me, ted cubes = ’ igs a Constitutional protection that _is zealously guazced by Tal agents. I was never given any reas ‘gon to think otherwise in any ' event. i have read everything that has - “come across my desk concerning “the wiretap controversy. I have tricd to view the various material ohjectively, Still, while there are . Jesitimate areas ‘of criticism of tie FLL or any olher federal agency, the charge that the Bureau poses a threat to “the privacy of the indi- ; vidual citizen’ seems without foun. dation in fact. I would not argue - , that electronic eavesdropping per - se poses no threat, rather that the © danger and indiscriminate tise * stems overwhelmingly from non- > police sources. lersonally, I am not incliaed to. - ‘believe the FEI has been indis- ‘ eriminate in its use of clectronic - » eavesdropping for several reasons. \ Many agents are attorneys and _ have a decprunning processional - _ respect and commitment io Consti- . " tulional safeguards. Wiretaps are . gencrally ineffective against sophis- ticated criminal or alicn ciements, aad to implant a microphone device requires personal exposure to great Canger and the very probable dis- association by one's employer if ; ono is killed or caught in aa act of. are mw ee re ee ras Pad tresnass, Given these - Cumsianevs, i seca op tha: agents” af ihe Foxy d, -Cheuse i risk lbeir lives indis-' crininawly against siaall fry oz: " someone tae circelor doesn't like. r.anally, as the same conga: y mentioned further implied. } iy PRINCIPAL complaint with’ =t he current furor over the question of wiretapping is that legit: jmato perspective seems to havo been obscurod in an Orwellian vision of unbricted intrusion into every area of our personal ‘and. private lives. Aithougn not entirety, without basis in a time when the: federal government is considering’ _ Storing computerized dossiers on "Individual citizens, the fear is too - overpowering for the facts before us. What we know is that approxi- ‘ mately four cases of eavesdropping -have been revesicd. The Fal claims they were directed against “organized crime or in the interest of national security. Unfortunately, _the BI is in no position to docue _ Ment its assertion and neither can critics prove their icars, The questions which need to be _ asked in the stalemated debate | concern the legitimate uses, if any, - ‘of hicden clectronic ears. Nas organized crime in this coun: -, ty recched a sufficiont level of power and danger to warrant per-- . haps some kind of judicially and " judiciously controlled use of such@ : electronic gear? If so, what are- the most workabic procedural safc guards tiat would protcct not only: - individual Privacy from “unrea- ; sonable’ searches but also insure _ the security of the action? ot _*e = «* . * DHE National Crime. ‘Commise + sion is expected to recommend "to President Johnson early next year a system whereby a federal * investigative agency could present its case for installation of listening , units to a federal judge, who would , deicrming the justification of tha " request and insure that any infors , Mation intercepted in such a way’ ; " would not find its way directly or . indirectly into a courtroom. While I value my Constitutional’ rights as highly as the next persoa’ ang consider myself no self-a> pated defender of J. Edgar Hoo ver, Lom persuaded that some such accongement for the use of clece’ troaie devices against organized cvime is sorcly nevded, and, more-: overs in our individual and Rational, te 1 b See pee AEN = 0 SFR OS A AR Fi 1