Senator KENNEDY. The decision contained, I thought, a strong and eloquent plea about the importance of the convergence of first and fourth amendment values:

National security cases, moreover, often reflect a convergence of first and fourth amendment values not present in cases of ordinary crime. Though the investigative duty of the executive may be stronger in such cases, so also is their greater jeopardy to constitutionally protected speech. Fourth amendment protections become the more necessary when the targets of official surveillance may be those suspected of unorthodoxy in their political beliefs. The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect domestic security. Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. . . . The price of lawful public dissent must not be a dread of subjection to an unchecked surveillance power. Nor must the fear of unauthorized official eavesdropping deter vigorous citizen dissent and discussion of government action in private conversation. For private dissent, no less than open public discourse, is essential to our free society.

There seems to be a strong commitment here to the convergence of first and fourth amendment rights. I was just wondering if you shared that view andMr. MARONEY. Yes, sir.

Senator KENNEDY. You were impressed by its discussion in the opinion.
Mr. MARONEY. Yes, sir; very definitely.

It is the intention of the executive branch to utilize electronic surveillance in present and future national security matters in full and ungrudging application of the rationale of the decision.

In connection with the latter point, I think it appropriate to note that it was the Department of Justice which sought a definitive resolution of the difficult constitutional questions presented by the Keith decision at the earliest possible time. When the district court ruled against the Government's position in this case, we had no right of appeal under the law as it then stood. We therefore resorted to the unusual remedy of petitioning the court of appeals for the extraordinary writ of mandamus on the basis that the question was of substantial public importance which should be decided by the courts. It was a result of that effort, that the matter has now been decided, which is better for everyone concerned.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Maroney follows:1

STATEMENT BY KEVIN T. MARONEY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, INTERNAL SECURITY DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am happy to appear here today on behalf of the Department of Justice in response to your request for our views on the subject of electronic surveillance and in particular, concerning the impact of the Supreme Court's decision last week in the case of United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan No. 70-153 decided June 19, 1972 and more popularly known as the Keith

case.

The immediate impact of the Keith case was set forth clearly by Attorney General Richard G. Kleindienst in his statement of June 19, 1972. Let me quote:

"In accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court, I have today directed the termination of all electronic surveillance in cases involving domestic security that conflict with the Court's opinion. Hereafter, surveillance will be undertaken in domestic security cases only under procedures that comply with the Court's opinion."

Whatever problems, Mr. Chairman, some may have had with respect to the difficult issue of electronic surveillance involving wholly domestic organizations have, in great part, been laid to rest by the Supreme Court decision. In such cases, under the law as it stands, the Government must seek prior judicial approval before intercepting wire or oral communications.

The Court's opinion in the Keith case would, however, suggest the possibility that Congress might desire to legislate standards and procedures for court approved electronic surveillance in domestic security cases under standards

somewhat different from the standards now applicable in ordinary criminal cases. However, as was stated last week by the President, the Executive Branch has no present intention of seeking such amendatory legislation with respect to the area governed by the Keith decision. In the event that future experience demonstrates a legal void, it will then be an appropriate time to consider the necessity or desirability of requesting appropriate legislation.

It is important to recall, however, that Justice Powell, speaking for the majority, made clear that "the instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country." Slip opinion, page 10. Subsequently at page 23, the Court pointed out:

"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."

The Keith decision made it clear that the court was limiting the scope of the decision to "domestic organization[s] . . . composed of citizens of the United States and which ha[ve] no significant connection with a foreign power, its agents or agencies." The Court recognized that it may "be difficult to distinguish between domestic and foreign" unlawful activities directed against the Government of the United States where there is collaboration in varying degrees beween domestic groups and organizations and agents or agencies of a foreign power." The Committee has asked that we address ourselves to the question of what level of foreign dominance and control of a domestic group would be considered sufficient to bring the group into the area of foreign activities which the Court has not yet ruled upon.

The Keith decision has suggested a standard of "significant connection with a foreign power, its agents or agencies." We do not interpret this as meaning casual, unrelated contacts and communications with foreign governments or agencies thereof. We would not try to apply this standard without the presence of such factors as substantial financing, control by or active collaboration with a foreign government and agencies thereof in unlawful activities directed against the Government of the United States. Obviously, such factors will be present in a very minimum number of situations.

I wish to assure the Committee on behalf of the Attorney General, that the Department of Justice accepts both the letter and the spirit of the Court's ruling in the Keith case. It is the intention of the Executive Branch to utilize electronic surveillance in present and future national security matters in full and ungrudging application of the rationale of the decision.

In connection with the latter point, I think it appropriate to note that it was the Department of Justice which sought a definitive resolution of the difficult constitutional questions presented by the Keith decision at the earliest possible time. When the District Court ruled against the Government's position in this case, we had no right of appeal under the law as it then stood. We therefore resorted to the unusual remedy of petitioning the Court of Appeals for the extraordinary writ of mandamus on the basis that the question was of substantial public importance which should be decided by the courts. It was as a result of that effort, that the matter has now been decided, which is better for every one concerned.

Senator KENNEDY. You talk about this unusual remedy of petitioning the court of appeals. What other choice did you really have?

Mr. MARONEY. Well, the choice that we had was disclosure of the information to the defendant.

Senator KENNEDY. Or dismissal?

Mr. MARONEY. Or suffering the dismissal of the case.

Senator KENNEDY. So it was really to carry through your own interest in maintaining a successful prosecution, rather than, should we say, the goodness of your heart?

Mr. MARONEY. I did not say out of the goodness of our heart. I indicated that we were as aware as anyone else that this was a constitutional problem hanging over all of us. We were aware of the difficulties of the legal problems involved and we were as anxious as anyone else to have the matter settled.

Senator KENNEDY. After hearing your statement here this morning, and after seeing Mr. Kleindienst's statement on June 19 and the President's comments at his news conference on June 22, I found it somewhat troubling that nothing

57-282-76-pt. 1-10

has been said by the Justice Department or the President about what you are going to do to cleanse all the Government files of the information that came from conversations which were tapped or bugged unconstitutionally. Could you tell us what your plans are about that?

EXHIBIT 7

CHEMICAL BANK-MASTER Charge Department, Lake SuCCESS, NEW YORK

We are Debiting your account for as per details below:

Date: October 4, 1971, total amount: $55.00.

Person: To be applied to Master Charge Account No. 170 097 061 015. Account number: Spec. Checking No. 097 518 654, Thomas King Forcade, 11 East 17 St., New York, N.Y. 10003.

Re: SAC, (157–3852) (P).

To: SA Thomas F. Lewis.

APPENDIX D

From: National Black Economic Development Conference.

June 18, 1970.

On 5/20/70, Mr. Daniel McGronigle, Cashier, Southeast National Bank (formerly Delaware County National Bank), 4th and Market Streets, Chester, Pa., advised that as of 1/1/70 the Delaware County National Bank merged with several Chester County banks to form the Southeast National Bank.

Subsequent to this merger, this bank instituted a new computer system for checking accounts. Under this system all checks drawn on active checking accounts are recorded on microfilm and available for review at the Computer Center of this bank at 24th and Edgmont Avenue, Chester, Pa.

Mr. McGronigle stated there is a current, regular checking account at that bank in the name National Black Economic Development Conference, Pennsylvania Office, 217 Concord Avenue, Chester, Pa. There are two persons authorized to sign checks on this account and they are Muhammad Kenyatta and Mary Kenyatta. As of 5/20/70, the balance in this account was $44.32.

On 5/20/70, Mr. Allan Ferguson, Executive Officer, Computer Center, Southeast National Bank, 24th and Edgmont Avenue, Chester, made available for review copies of the statement for checking account # 550-723-1, which is in the name National Black Economic Development Conference, Pennsylvania Office. Those statements dated 3/16, 4/15, and 5/15/70 reflect activity on this account during the 30-day period prior to the date of this statement. A review of the statements reveals the balance in this account has ranged from a high of $1,948.56 on 4/9/70 to a low of $38.19 on 5/14/70.

Mr. Ferguson stated it is not possible under their computer system to identify the nature and source of deposits and credits to this account. He would however, make available for review the microfilms containing checks drawn on this account during the periods covered by the above statements.

A review of these checks reflects almost all are signed by Muhammad Kenyatta and made payable to cash. All of these checks have a space on the face of the check after the word "for" in which is written the purpose of the check. On the vast majority of these checks the notation in this space contains such language as "operating expenses," "clothing allowance,” “maintenance expenses."

An average of 15 to 20 checks were drawn on this account for each of the three months reviewed. Among these checks the following are noted:

Check dated 3/9/70 in the amount of $300, payable to Thomas Jefferson Hospital for hospitalization of

Check dated 1/5/70 in the amount of $100, payable to

Afro American Willow Games for supplies;

Check dated 3/5/70 in the amount of $100, payable to

Nat Turner Community Center;

care of Young

for grant to

Check dated 5/8/70 in the amount of $144.95, payable to Bell Telephone

Check dated 5/13/70 in the amount of $50.00 made payable to

for

Company for phone #s TR 2-7083 and TR 6-8867;

emergency grant;

Check dated 5/14/70 in the amount of $10,000 made payable to cash for clothing allowance.

Will ascertain through Bell Telephone Company identity of subscribers to phone No. TR 2-7083 and TR 6-8867.

At Chester, Pa.

Will continue to monitor bank account of National Black Economic Development Conference at Southeast National Bank.

Origin: Field.

EXHIBIT 8

U.S. SECRET SERVICE, TREASURY DEPARTMENT

Office: Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

File No. CO-2-35,800; Doc. No. 17, 406.

Type of case: Intelligence-601.

Status: Investigation, continued.

Title or caption: Name of subject: Gary Kenneth Goodson, AKA Thomas King Forcade.

Investigation made at : Madison, Wisconsin.

Period covered: February 10, 1972.
Present whereabouts: Unknown.

Investigation made by: SA James D. Plichta.

Quarterly investigations: No.

Details: Synopsis-Toll calls from 1-5-72 to 1-21-72 from the phone at YIP and the underground newspaper headquarters in Madison, Wis., have been obtained and the respective offices are requested to identify the name and address of the holders of the numbers called in their district.

(A) Introduction: Case originated in the field in Madison, Wisconsin, on 2-8-72 when the Madison PD Intelligence Section requested I interview one of their informants in that city.

(B) Identification and background of subject: Name, Gary Kenneth Goodson, alias, Thomas King Forcade, current address, unknown, home address, unknown. (D) Other investigations: This interview was conducted by Officer George Croal and me on 2-8-72, at which time it was learned phone number 251-6401 was installed on 1-4-72 at YIP and Take Over headquarters at 7 Frances Court, Madison, Wisconsin. This is also the communal residence of, among others, Mark Knops, Michael Felner (Fellner) and Tim Slater.

Report made by: Special Agent James D. Plichta, February 11, 1972.
Approved: Special Agent in Charge Robert R. Bimke, February 14, 1972.

This phone was installed in the name of Michael Fellner. The local police informants advised that the group residing at this address is in daily contact with Thomas Forcade and, as previously reported in TWX 17 from this office on 2-8-72, regularly reach him at a New York City number 212-242-3888.

Local intelligence sources advise that during the YIP conference in Madison on January 7-9, 1972, Thomas Forcade was frequently seen in Madison driving a 4-door black Cadillac Fleetwood, bearing Pennsylvania registration 8D8414, which they advise is registered to Thomas Forcade, C/O Goldstein, 327 S. 17th Street, Philadelphia, Pa.

On 2-11-72 all toll calls from this number between 1-5-72 and 1-21-72 were received and they are as follows:

(F) Disposition: Investigation continued. The respective offices are requested to obtain names and addresses of the holders of the phone numbers called in their district. The holders of the numbers called in the Milwaukee district will also be ascertained.

EXHIBIT 9

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
Miami, Fla., September 9, 1972.

In Reply, Please Refer to File No. MM 100-16625.

Re: Thomas King Forcade, Security Matters, Revolutionary Activities.

YOUTH INTERNATIONAL PARTY

The Youth International Party (YIP), also known as Yippies, is a loosely knit anti-establishment revolutionary youth organization formed in New York City