YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Church Committee Hearings Domestic Surveillance - 1975

Church Committee Hearings Domestic Surveillance - 1975 — Transcript

by Kike Freeman · 5,998 words · 925 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00we're going to now show 40 minutes uh as
0:03the church committee investigates the
0:05Houston plan and this was televised at
0:08September 23rd 1975 by the Public
0:10Broadcasting Service PBS let's
0:13watch did you submit to the president
0:17certain
0:18recommendations with respect to the
0:20restraints on intelligence collection
0:22yes and have you got in front of you the
0:25document which is a tab A2 of our books
0:27yes
0:31and is that the document which you did
0:33submit to the
0:34president well which I submitted to Mr
0:37Hall you submitted mrman for
0:39transmission to the president is that
0:40right now in that document you make
0:44certain
0:44recommendations with respect to
0:47changing restraints which you thought
0:50had been placed upon intelligence
0:51correction is that right
0:54yes in making those
0:56recommendations did you believe you were
0:58representing the census of the entire
1:01working group that had worked on
1:04the study uh for yourself and for the
1:08president
1:09yes so that whatever recommendations you
1:12made with respect to Illegal opening of
1:15the mail or burglary or ctitious entry
1:19were ones which you believed represented
1:22the views of the entire intelligence
1:25Community with the exception of the
1:27footnotes of Mr Hoover himself is that
1:29right yes
1:34and you did recommend did you not
1:39that the United States should
1:42commence in your view
1:44commence as you understood it commence
1:47or recommence the illegal opening of
1:49mail is that
1:51correct yes it my understanding from my
1:55contacts with the bureau and through the
1:57working committee was that in the past
1:59that this had been
2:01a technique that had been employed
2:03particularly in matters relating to
2:05Espionage and that the professional
2:08intelligence Community indicated that
2:10they thought that it was a necessary
2:12technique to be undertaken under extreme
2:15circumstances uh and and that they felt
2:18that they should be authorized to do so
2:20and similarly you also basing your views
2:23on the recommendations of the entire
2:25intelligence Community except for Mr
2:27Hoover's footnotes advocated that the
2:30United States
2:32should commence or
2:34recommence to commit burglaries to
2:37acquire valuable intelligence
2:39information is that right yes uh I was
2:42told that the bureau had undertaken uh
2:45black bag jobs over for a number of
2:47years up until 1966 that had been uh
2:52successful and valuable again
2:54particularly in matters involving
2:56Espionage and that uh they felt this
2:59again was something that given the
3:01Revolutionary climate they thought they
3:03needed to have the authority to do and
3:05in both cases your position and their
3:07position was in effect that The end
3:09justifies the means no I'm not I'm not
3:12going to speak for what their position
3:14is but I don't think that fairly
3:15summarizes what my position was all
3:17right I'm sure some of the other me some
3:19of the the other persons here are going
3:21to question you on that
3:24issue did President Nixon through Mr
3:27halderman approve the recommendation for
3:30change which you had made on behalf of
3:31the entire intelligence Community
3:34yes what happened after
3:36that the question then arose as to how
3:39the decisions were to be
3:41implemented I had recommended to Mr
3:44halman that I felt that the president
3:46ought to call the directors back into
3:48his office and inform them personally of
3:50his decisions seemed to me that that was
3:53the proper course to take particularly
3:56in view of the sensitivity of the of the
3:58decisions relative to Mr
4:01Hoover however the president Mr
4:04halderman didn't think that that was
4:06necessary uh so then the question became
4:09how should a decision memorandum go
4:12out um Mr halman seemed to think that it
4:16was not necessary for either he or the
4:18president to uh do that and so I was
4:22nominated and you sent it out yes I did
4:24over my
4:26signature this
4:28document repres
4:30presented your proposals to the
4:33president
4:35for lifting or
4:38relaxing certain
4:40restraints on the intelligence Community
4:43with respect to gathering information on
4:46uh what you call the Revolutionary
4:49climate I would suppose that had
4:51reference to the anti-war demonstrations
4:53and anti-war protest group Senator I
4:56really was peripherally interested in
4:59antiwar demonstrations what I was
5:01concerned about was the 40,000 bombings
5:03that took place in one year what I was
5:06concerned about was the 39 police
5:08officers who were killed in sniping
5:11incidents yes and and everything
5:13connected with that well that's what I
5:16mean when I'm talking about
5:17revolutionary violence as opposed to
5:20anti-war
5:24demonstrations but whatever your purpose
5:27the the uh document you sent to the
5:30president contained your recommendations
5:33for lifting or relaxing certain
5:36restraints keeping restraints as in the
5:38case of the military and in some cases
5:41keeping
5:43restraints
5:46now was it your understanding when you
5:48submitted that document to the president
5:50that his authority was being
5:53requested for lifting or relaxing
5:56restraints if he chose to accept your
5:59recommendation
6:02yes now turning to um the question of
6:07male
6:09coverage on page two of your
6:13recommendations I
6:15read recommendation restrictions on
6:18legal coverage should be
6:21removed and I take it by legal coverage
6:24you had reference to the
6:27procedure that enables
6:30intelligence agencies law enforcement
6:32agencies to look at the envelopes if the
6:34procedure is followed there is a legal
6:36way for doing that yes then you
6:38recommended also present restrictions on
6:42Covert coverage should be relaxed on
6:45selected targets of priority foreign
6:48intelligence and and internal security
6:50interest now
6:51here you were referring to opening the
6:55mail were you not yes and that was
6:58against the law was it not
7:03yes
7:05so you were making a very serious
7:07recommendation to Mr Nixon you were
7:10recommending that he authorize mail
7:13openings even though such openings were
7:17a violation of the
7:20law well I I think what we were what was
7:23being recommended was that they be
7:25employed in spite of the fact that there
7:28was a federal law that prohib prohibited
7:30but as in the kind in in relationship
7:32both to male and to surreptitious entry
7:35there was and of course electronic
7:37surveillance there was the whole
7:39question as to whether in essence the
7:40Fourth Amendment applied to the
7:42president in the exercise of his
7:44internal security power and I think
7:45that's where that's why I earlier said
7:47that when you asked me about our
7:49thinking uh I think this is where the
7:51question arose in my mind what we were
7:54talking about is something that I'd been
7:55told had been done for 25
7:58years uh that had been done with the
8:00knowledge of the professional
8:02intelligence Community the people who
8:03had been here long before we got in town
8:05and be here long after we left town the
8:08question really
8:09was question of whether inherent in the
8:12executive power in matters involving
8:15internal security or the security of the
8:16state the president could act contrary
8:19to the dictates of a statute and I think
8:21that was the kind of dilemma that we
8:23recommending you were recommending that
8:25the president in this case
8:30authorize maale openings even though
8:34such action was contrary to the federal
8:36statute yes sir
8:38yeah and you have suggested that there
8:40might be some inherent right that
8:43circumvents the Fourth Amendment to the
8:45Constitution of the United States
8:46guaranteeing citizens against
8:48unreasonable searches and seizures
8:50without a warrant bearing upon um
8:55the uh National
8:58Security um responsibilities of the
9:00president Senator I think this really
9:02goes to the heart of the of the matter
9:04as you well know and I think if you
9:05recall in the Safe Streets act there was
9:08a Proviso clause in there that said to
9:11the effect that nothing this act is to
9:13be deemed to limit the power whatever
9:15power the president may have with
9:17respect to National Security matters I
9:19think it was that kind of approach to
9:21this whole area of Fourth Amendment
9:23rights as they involve in terms of
9:25National Security internal security that
9:27open the door to The Men Who in good
9:30conscience thought they could go ahead
9:31and do it now you yourself have
9:34suggested this was a very serious
9:36question Y and you were asking the
9:39president to take action that violated a
9:41federal statute upon the theory that he
9:44had some inherent right to do this now
9:48since that is such a central question
9:50since it does go to the protection
9:52offered American citizens with the
9:54Fourth Amendment of the Constitution did
9:56you take the matter up with the attorney
9:58general the United States to secure his
10:01opinion no no no when you
10:07testified uh
10:11earlier in executive
10:15session uh you were
10:18asked uh the
10:22following
10:24question
10:27notw you were not aware of the fact I
10:30take it that at this time the time you
10:33were submitting your recommendations to
10:35the
10:36president uh the CIA was was opening a
10:41mail Mr Houston you replied
10:45No in fact I think one of the more
10:48interesting things in this whole thing
10:50is why I didn't know half the things I
10:53didn't know when the president of the
10:55United States sat across the table from
10:57the directors of the intell
11:00agencies and said I want a complete
11:02report on what's going
11:04on I didn't know about the CIA mail
11:07openings I didn't know about the coel
11:10program these people were conducting all
11:12of these things on their own that the
11:15president of the United States didn't
11:16know
11:18about do you still stand by that
11:21testimony with the exception that I
11:24assume I I guess I can't be positive the
11:27president didn't know if he learned
11:29learn from other sources but I can say
11:31that I certainly didn't know about it
11:32and it was my responsibility to see that
11:35the president knew what was going
11:37on and to your knowledge he did not no
11:40to my knowledge he did not know and it
11:42would have been a very curious exercise
11:45for him wouldn't it to look at your
11:47recommendations asking for his authority
11:50to open the mail if he already knew that
11:52the practice had been going on for a
11:54long time before his authority was asked
11:56yes yes and he never raised that with
11:59you
12:02no and 5 days later upon reconsideration
12:06when he pulled back
12:09this and this report or this
12:15directive
12:17um did he do that for the purpose of
12:21revoking The Authority that he had given
12:25yes because Mr Hoover and Attorney
12:27General Mitchell had prevailed upon him
12:30to change his decision which he did and
12:33there was certainly no doubt in my mind
12:36nor do I think could there have
12:37conceivably been any doubt in the mind
12:39of any of the other people who have been
12:40involved that the revocation of the the
12:43recall of the decision memoranda meant a
12:46reversal of the president's position so
12:48the president revoked The Authority he
12:50had given yes for such things as mail
12:54openings
12:55yes and yet are you aware that the mail
12:58openings Contin for a long time after
13:00that revocation well I've read the
13:02Rockefeller Commission report
13:23yes senator of course is that I kind of
13:26sat down here and created out a whole
13:28cloth of entire array of of new
13:31techniques to exploit and infringe upon
13:34the civil liberties of the American
13:35people and that I forc it down dick
13:37Helm's throat and I Blackjack Admiral
13:40Gyer and I really used my heavy weight
13:43on all these poor little professional
13:45intelligence people and forc them into
13:47to coming up with all this now I think
13:50the fact of the matter is that the
13:51entire intelligence community at in the
13:54summer of 1970 thought we had a serious
13:57crisis in this country I thought we had
13:59a serious crisis in this country my
14:01attitude was that we've got to do
14:03something about it who knows what to do
14:06about it the professional intelligence
14:07Community the professional intelligence
14:09Community tells me this is what you give
14:11us these tools we can solve the problem
14:14I recommended those tools the thing is
14:16interesting to me about the fact that I
14:18didn't know about the mail openings I
14:19didn't know about the the uh uh coel
14:22program is that if we had known that
14:25many of these tools that they were
14:27asking for permission to use were
14:29already being used and we still weren't
14:30getting any results it conceivably would
14:33have changed our entire attitude
14:36toward the confidence we are willing to
14:38place in the hands of the intelligence
14:39community in dealing with this problem
14:42so I don't I since I've been out front
14:44of you know since first time we talked
14:47back in May of in when the armed
14:49services committee I mean I've been out
14:50front on this thing at the Houston plan
14:53I never wrote this report me that
14:55everyone calls the Houston plan I didn't
14:57write that report but all I all I want
15:01to say the record is I thought we had a
15:03serious problem I wasn't concerned about
15:05people who didn't like the War I wasn't
15:06concerned about people who thought Nixon
15:08was a l i wasn't concerned about who was
15:10going to be the Democratic nominee I'm
15:12talking about we were talking about
15:14bombers we were talking about assassins
15:15we were talking about snipers and we
15:18were I felt something had to be done
15:20these people said here's the tools we
15:22need I take full responsibility I
15:24recommended it so so what you're saying
15:26is really then that the inspiration for
15:29the report in most of its aspects in the
15:32absence of of anything but the scantiest
15:35of guidelines by the White House
15:38actually came from the agencies involved
15:41yes senator for example I never heard of
15:43nid 6 I never saw nid 6 for all I know
15:46niss 6 says you can have free lunch in
15:48the White House mess and and yet you
15:51know it's in here as a recommendation
15:53what was your attitude toward the
15:55president's decision to or the revers of
15:59his decision it resulted in rejection of
16:01the plan well I thought it I I thought
16:04it was a mistake for several reasons the
16:07first reason I thought it was a mistake
16:08is that it put us back to Ground Zero
16:11which was not merely back to ground zero
16:13in terms of operational techniques but
16:15back to ground zero in terms of lack of
16:18any coordination among the intelligence
16:20agencies secondly I felt in my own mind
16:24that Mr Hoover's objections were Les
16:27were were not uh based uh on well I want
16:31to phrase I thought that that not all of
16:32Mr Hoover's objections uh had been
16:35meritoriously submitted to the president
16:37is what he was really concerned about uh
16:40and and thirdly frankly I was concerned
16:43about what the effect is would have on
16:45the intelligence Community other than
16:47the FBI uh if they could put their back
16:50into this project which is supposed to
16:51been a joint effort they all reached a
16:54consensus and then one person director
16:56of the FBI could succeed in in reversing
16:59it so while you did not prepare this
17:03plan you were in fact its Advocate yes
17:08sir what
17:10um legal justification or other
17:13justification do you
17:15have as an attorney and an officer of
17:18the court and as a public officer sworn
17:21to hold the Constitution and the laws of
17:23the land to entertain and recommend
17:26illegal acts by the government well as I
17:29said senator in my it was my opinion at
17:32the time that simply the Fourth
17:33Amendment didn't apply to the president
17:35the exercise of matters relating to the
17:38internal security or national security
17:40it was a argument that Mr Justice
17:42Douglas for example anticipated in the
17:44United States district court case that
17:47rued
17:48unconstitutional the uh domestic wir TS
17:51because up until
17:541972 every president and with the
17:56possible exception of Attorney General
17:59uh Clark every attorney general argued
18:02that the president had inherent
18:03Authority Under the uh and executive
18:07power to engage in warrantless wire tabs
18:11and although the court in criminal
18:13matters had clearly held that a
18:14warrantless wir tap violated the Fourth
18:16Amendment yet the justice department
18:18even took the case to the Supreme Court
18:20because they felt that there was that
18:21inherent power and you and I both know
18:24as lawyers that if if there's an
18:26exception to the Fourth Amendment for
18:27electronic surveillance which is a
18:29trespass a common law then it doesn't
18:32take a lot of imagination to extend that
18:34from the trespass fee of the telephone
18:36to trespass via shp's entry or mail
18:39opening and that's frankly the kind of
18:41dangerous road that we were hustling
18:43down at this point all right if that's
18:45your justification why did you call it
18:47illegal then what your arguing is that
18:49it is legal for the president to violate
18:53uh rights constitutional legal rights of
18:56citizens if he's the president and if he
18:58invokes
18:59National Security is a justification but
19:01you didn't say that in your memo you
19:02said these things are illegal now which
19:04is it well I think that for for all for
19:08the for the purposes that seemed to me
19:09to be most relevant at the time that the
19:12that is that the operative action the
19:15operation is going to be undertaken by
19:17an individual who if he's caught is
19:18going to go to jail he's clearly illegal
19:21yeah and uh so that it would be fair to
19:25say that you understood and told the
19:28president president was illegal but to
19:30justify it now you invoke a national
19:33security defense which would make it
19:34legal no I'm not which which position is
19:37it I'm I'm Senator I'm not invoking any
19:40defense now because it uh you asked me
19:43what my opinion was at the time not what
19:45my opinion is now all right but what I'm
19:47saying to you is that the consideration
19:50that was that was given by not only me
19:53but by the other people who signed this
19:56report to discuss these things are
19:59was that frankly it was within the power
20:01of the president to do it all right why
20:03didn't you say that in your memo that
20:05this is would appear to be illegal but
20:07in fact it's legal because as president
20:10you have powers not mentioned in the
20:12Constitution but Powers which in our
20:14judgment we feel every president
20:17possesses uh which are such that the law
20:19doesn't apply to you and the
20:21constitutional rights of the citizens
20:23don't apply where the president decides
20:26that um the National Security
20:29dictates of course why didn't you say
20:31that instead of that you said it was
20:32illegal I said that because that's what
20:34the report had said all right now you
20:38recall at the time you were
20:41discussing these various options to be
20:44recommended to the
20:45president what the position was of the
20:48principals representing the various
20:50agencies you had a representative from
20:52the NSA one from the CIA one from the
20:57DIA and one from the
20:59FBI uh which of them
21:02objected uh during the course of making
21:05up these options to these
21:08um recommendations which involved
21:11illegal
21:12acts at the working group level I don't
21:15recall any objection do you recall any
21:17of them ever saying we can't do this
21:20because it's illegal no can you recall
21:23any discussion whatsoever concerning the
21:26illegality of these recommendations
21:29no does that strike you as peculiar that
21:33top public
21:35officers in the most uh high level and
21:39sensitive positions of government would
21:41discuss recommending to the president
21:44actions which are clearly illegal and
21:46possibly unconstitutional without ever
21:48asking themselves whether that was a
21:50proper thing for them to be
21:52doing yes I think it is except for the
21:55fact that I think for many of those
21:57people you were talking about something
21:59that they have been aware of had been
22:00undertaking for a long period of time is
22:03that an an adequate justification I'm
22:06I'm Senator I'm not trying to justify
22:07I'm just trying to tell you what my
22:09impression is of what happened at the
22:11time if criminals could be excused on
22:14the grounds that someone had done it
22:16before there wouldn't be much population
22:19any of the prisons today would there no
22:22what other things were being done as you
22:24later discovered by the intelligence
22:26community that may or may not have been
22:28recommended in your report that deal
22:31with similar matters I think there were
22:33several things that were critically
22:35important that we should have known
22:36about that we didn't and could have very
22:38easily influenced our judgment one of
22:40course was the co-intel program which we
22:42didn't know about operation chos or
22:45chaos or whatever it was that the the
22:47CIA had its own private operation going
22:50that we didn't know about can you tell
22:52us or is there any reason why the
22:54witness should not tell us what coel and
22:56Chaos were the the program no there
22:59there's no reason the justice department
23:02has now made disclosures on Co inel and
23:04I think the Rockefeller report set out
23:08uh uh operation chaos briefly for this
23:11record Mr Houston what were Co inel and
23:13what work as I understand the co inel
23:15program was essentially designed to sew
23:18Discord and and was a I don't know what
23:21the correct technical term for it is but
23:23it was an offensive uh program against
23:27uh Des designated and targets by the FBI
23:31uh in terms of uh give us an example
23:33well for example that Professor Jones is
23:36a member of the Socialist Workers Party
23:38and he's running for the school board
23:40and so friendly neighborhood FBI agent
23:42sends a letter to the uh newspaper
23:45saying you may not know this but this
23:47bir just running for the school board as
23:48a member of the Socialist Workers Party
23:50all right the co inel program you did
23:52not know about at the time of the filing
23:53of the Houston and you later learned
23:55about yes how did you later learn of it
23:58well when the justice department
23:59released the report you know whether or
24:01not the president of the United States
24:03knew of the coel program I don't believe
24:04so the all the information has been made
24:07public indicates that that no one
24:09outside the bureau was to know about it
24:11including anyone in the Justice
24:12Department including the Attorney
24:14General including the attorney general
24:17what was the other operation well the
24:18operation chaos and that is that that
24:21the apparently the CIA had a group set
24:24up that was direct was concerned Direct
24:28ly with matters affecting domestic
24:31intelligence collection or events that
24:34were occurring within the continental
24:35United
24:36States uh I didn't we didn't know about
24:40that in fact the impression that we had
24:43all along was that the CIA uh had very
24:47little interest in or coverage of areas
24:49which we thought were important which
24:51was what happened abroad when these
24:53people uh who were under surveillance by
24:56the FBI left the country that's where we
24:58thought the CIA effort should be all
25:01right I'm told that I have only one
25:03minute left Mr Houston let me ask you
25:05this uh do you have any information can
25:08you tell me quickly who authorized
25:10either Co inel or chaos was it a
25:13presidential authorization I I think so
25:16I I don't think any president knew about
25:18it and I think both of those programs
25:21went were originated before this
25:23Administration I think Co Andel went
25:26back into the Johnson Administration
25:28in operation chaos not trying to
25:31establish blame even responsibility I'm
25:33just trying to establish in my own
25:35Mind's Eye whether in these projects the
25:38agencies were self-starters or whether
25:39someone up the scale may have authorized
25:42uh I don't know except that they were
25:44originated in a prior Administration and
25:47and my understanding is that President
25:49Johnson didn't know about it and I don't
25:51believe President Nixon knew about thank
25:52you thank you Mr Senator Goldwater thank
25:56you Mr chairman
25:58I have a watch in front of me and I will
26:00confine myself to 10 minutes some of the
26:03interrogations have run
26:0515 but uh I don't have more than 10
26:08minutes worth I want to speak first
26:11about the Internal Revenue Service and
26:14I'm very happy that the chairman has
26:16mentioned this
26:17subject somebody on this committee has
26:20likened the CIA to a bull elephant
26:23running rampant I liken the IRS to a
26:27rattlesnake gliding along in the grass
26:30probably the greatest threat to American
26:32freedom and Americans of anything we
26:35have and yet this morning is the first
26:37public indication I've heard that the
26:39Internal Revenue Service is going to be
26:41investigated and I think it's time I
26:44notice a report or letter written by you
26:47on September 21st in which you said
26:51nearly 18 months ago the president
26:53indicated a desire for IRS to move
26:55against leftist organizations taking
26:58taking advantage of tax shelters I have
27:01been pressing IRS since that time to no
27:04avail in other words the IRS will
27:07protect any organization in this country
27:10they feel like protecting and close down
27:13on any organization that they feel like
27:16protecting and I think it's high time
27:18that this committee or some other
27:20committee expose just what we're up
27:23against in this country because the
27:25power to tax is the power to destroy now
27:28Mr Houston have you ever been a member
27:30of the CIA no sir FBI no sir Dia yes I
27:35was assigned to the DIA when I was an
27:37Army intelligence officer were you hired
27:40by the White House as a speech writer at
27:42one time yes sir and it was from that
27:45that you went into the preparation of
27:46the so-called Houston plan yes sir was
27:49the Houston plan ever used no sir never
27:52put into effect
27:56no what do you think about the Houston
27:58plan as you sit here
28:00today well Senator I think that the I I
28:04still believe that there is
28:07a uh a threat that may be characterized
28:11and defined as an internal security
28:13threat I think there are people that
28:15want to destroy this country I think
28:17there are people that are willing to go
28:18to Great Lengths to do it I think the
28:20two attempts upon the life of the
28:22president are symptomatic of that and so
28:25I think there's a great an
28:29necessary place in our society for an
28:31effective domestic intelligence
28:33collection effort and more importantly
28:36than collection for professional
28:38analysis of that
28:40information I think that it's perhaps
28:44easy uh to
28:46justify the emphasis that we attached in
28:481970 but I think it's just as easy to
28:51discount it I was we were sitting in the
28:54white house getting reports day in and
28:57day out of
28:59what was happening in this country in
29:01terms of the violence the numbers of
29:04bombings the assassination attempts the
29:06the sniping incidents 40,000 bombings
29:09for example in a period R Roc facilities
29:13in the month of May and a two-e period
29:14we are averaging six Barson a day
29:16against ROTC
29:18facilities what happened then I think is
29:21at least from from my
29:23perspective is that we were convinced
29:26ourselves that this was something that
29:27was going to get continue to get
29:29worse until we reached the point where
29:31all the people who are protect who were
29:33predicting police state repression were
29:35going to get what it was going to become
29:37a self-fulfilling prophecy because that
29:39was the only way it was going to be
29:40handled as for example I suspected had
29:42been true in the Chicago Black Panther
29:45raid and then the Los Angeles black
29:46panther
29:47shootout so my view was that we had to
29:50do something to stop it uh Mr White
29:53would say that this authorized extension
29:55into every person's mailbox a aside
29:58theoretically that may be true although
30:01I don't think that the terms that we use
30:03in terms of Highly selective targets or
30:05top priority Target was a bit looser
30:08than the terms that uh attorney general
30:10Clark used and and when he got
30:12authorization from President Roosevelt
30:14and when President Truman authorized
30:16electronic surveillance uh but the the
30:19fact of the matter is that we were
30:22motivated unjustly perhaps or
30:24unreasonably or unconscionably by a
30:27legitimate concern that was related to
30:29to the lives and the property of people
30:31that were subject to random acts of
30:33violence my view was that I had
30:35confidence in the professional
30:36intelligence Community these were the
30:39professionals these are the people who
30:40had been authorized to solve these
30:43problems what I didn't realize then is
30:46that these kinds of of
30:49programs uh although theoretically
30:52conceptually can be narrowly used in the
30:54best interest of the country by
30:55responsible people uh can lead to the
30:59type of thing that happened with the
31:00plumbers and with the Watergate now
31:02everyone tries to link the Houston plan
31:04as the precursor of the plumbers in the
31:06Water Gate I and in my mind that's
31:10totally untrue uh but it's obvious to me
31:14that this kind of thing lends itself too
31:17easily to the type of corruption that
31:18we've seen and therefore I've come to
31:22the conclusion that whereas I would
31:25traditionally have taken the position
31:26that I'm willing to run run the some
31:29small risk of infringing upon some small
31:31portion of the Public's otherwise
31:33legiate rights for the greater good of
31:36the security of all the people I now
31:39have come to the conclusion that that we
31:42have no practical alternative but to
31:44take a far greater risk that there are
31:46going to be these kinds of things that
31:48we can't deal effectively against uh
31:51until such time as perhaps uh our
31:55recourse is simply to the ongoing
31:57Criminal
31:58process uh so I uh but I I don't want to
32:03leave the impression that I think that
32:05there's no problem because I think that
32:07that we need to deal with this thing in
32:09such a way as to maximize the respect
32:12for the rights of the citizens at the
32:14same time not destroying the capability
32:17of the people acting through their
32:18government to protect themselves against
32:20those who would destroy this country
32:22well I thank you Mr Houston for that
32:23statement I agree with that statement
32:26100% I have no other questions I'll just
32:29comment that as long as we have Daniel
32:32ellsberg's some newspapers
32:36journalist uh media people
32:41organizations intent on changing the
32:44basic philosophy of this country by the
32:47same kind of subversion that you are now
32:51being at least charged with part way uh
32:55I think we have to be forever on our
32:57toes
32:58and I think you've expressed your
33:00purpose
33:02well every time I pick up a morning
33:04paper or an evening paper and I see the
33:06disclosure of secrets that I thought
33:09were locked up in my brain or my heart
33:11or my safe I get worried about my
33:15country and I hope that this committee
33:17through the continued diligence of its
33:19chairman and staff members will disclose
33:23everything
33:24wrong with this country
33:28that's all I have thank you Senator
33:36Goldwater you've indicated that
33:39uh after the fact you found out that
33:41many of the agencies that were on that
33:43inter agency task force were
33:45using tools that they were sitting
33:49there discussing White House approval
33:52for obtaining uh why do you think they
33:54were they were going through this
33:56charade I wish I knew I don't know I
33:59think
34:00that I think part of the problem was
34:03that if the other agencies knew they
34:04were doing it there would have been all
34:06sorts of problems because for example
34:09the FBI greatly resented President
34:11Johnson ordering the military
34:12intelligence into the domestic
34:13collection area in 1967 because that was
34:16their Charter but the president directly
34:19ordered it and they had to live with it
34:21although they certainly were anxious and
34:22happy that the urban committee hearings
34:24blew that out of the water and got those
34:26people out of the business
34:28I think for example the FBI and Mr
34:30Hoover would have had an absolute stroke
34:32if he had known that the CIA had an
34:34operation chaos oper going on uh so I
34:38think that the last thing the world of
34:39CIA would have done was to disclose to
34:41the bureau that they were working on
34:43their Turf I think so I think inter
34:45agency jealousies and rivalries had part
34:48to do with it I think the second thing
34:50is that if you've got a program going
34:52and you're perfectly happy with its
34:54results why take the risk that it might
34:56be turned off if the president the
34:57United States decides he doesn't want
34:59you to do it because they had no way of
35:01knowing in advance what decision the
35:03president might make so why should the
35:05CIA run the risk that the president may
35:07say hell no I don't want you guys
35:09opening any mail then if they had
35:11admitted it they' had to close the thing
35:13down the co-intel program apparently
35:16even the justice department didn't know
35:17about that if they' have told me it was
35:20obvious that uh you know that the word
35:22would have been out so it seems to me
35:25that many of these agencies just kind of
35:26operated in their own world and and had
35:29their own programs going uh they didn't
35:32want anyone else to know it and the
35:33thing that intrigues me is that I always
35:35was the illusion that the purpose of
35:36intelligence was to provide policy
35:38makers with information upon which to
35:40make policies but if the policy maker
35:42doesn't even know that those sources of
35:44information are available I don't know
35:45what in the world good it does anybody
35:47except the people who are operating it
35:49for their own gratification this really
35:50brings us back to Senator male's
35:53question how can a president uh feel
35:56that uh
35:58the law is being obeyed and presidential
36:01policy is being adhered to and uh
36:05doesn't that bring us then full circle
36:09back to the Constitution and to uh the
36:15Assurance the extent that we can be sure
36:17of any human undertaking that the
36:19constitution is understood that loyalty
36:22to the Constitution
36:24is being given by every public servant
36:28yes I think it comes back to a an
36:31assumption by all officers of what an
36:33agreement among all people in government
36:35is exactly what the limits and
36:37responsibilities and obligations opposed
36:39by the Constitution are but I think that
36:41the problem that we've had and is not
36:44just in this area Senator I think is in
36:46many areas that over the past 30 years
36:48you've had an accretion of Little Steps
36:52increased claim of executive power and
36:56pretty soon after 30 year period all of
36:58a sudden you woke up one morning and
37:00here was this creature that had been
37:01created that no one along the line had
37:03ever really contemplated each of these
37:06steps I think initially were innocent
37:08honest honest steps I I think most of
37:11these in my belief that these people
37:13intelligence Community were honest
37:15people dedicated people wanting to do
37:18what an honest job or what they thought
37:20was best for the country and I don't
37:22think that they were out to destroy the
37:24Liberties of the American people for any
37:26perverse political purpose
37:28but what happened in my judgment in this
37:30area where I got sucked in when I should
37:32have known better and where many other
37:34more intelligent sophisticated people
37:36have got sucked in in other areas is the
37:39whole concept of some of inherent
37:42executive power that really extends
37:46beyond anything contemplated by those
37:48who made the incremental claims as we
37:50went through the years and I think that
37:53position has been reached and now
37:55there's some hard looks at this and some
37:57knocks and perhaps we're even my
37:59judgment a little bit too much the other
38:01way uh but I think that's healthy and I
38:04think that that we're on the right track

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Church Committee Hearings Domestic Surveillance - 1975 by Kike Freeman, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 5,998 words across 925 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.