Security Not Compromised by Pelton Trial, Experts Say

Fears that the trial of convicted spy Ronald W. Pelton would seriously compromise national security turned out to be unfounded, experts in international affairs and civil rights said Friday.

A significant part of the reason, they said in interviews, was the ability of the prosecution to outline its case against the former National Security Agency communications specialist without disclosing intimate details of U.S. efforts to collect and analyze Soviet military communications.

Pelton was convicted Thursday of selling to the Soviets for $35,000 details on how the United States monitors Soviet military communications.

Facts Already Known

The experts, who monitor national security issues and who closely followed the trial, said that any information that came out of the seven-day proceedings either was already known or could have been obtained easily.

“Oh, God, no,” said John Pike, associate director of the Federation of American Scientists, when asked if any potentially damaging disclosures were made at the trial. Testimony on secrets that Pelton told the Soviets about U.S. surveillance was “far from imperiling the republic,” he said.

Moreover, Pike said, the Pentagon routinely announces in press releases potentially sensitive details, such as U.S. purchases of sophisticated computer equipment in the Maryland region, where NSA is situated--thus giving foreign intelligence clues on U.S. monitoring capabilities.

Mainly Embarrassment

Embarrassment, not damage, was the chief effect on the national security apparatus, said William H. Lewis, director of the Security Policy Studies Program at George Washington University.

Pelton, he noted, was bankrupt in 1979 before he quit his $24,500-a-year job as a communications specialist with a top-secret clearance at NSA. Lewis said that Pelton’s financial problems should have been a “warning signal” to NSA officials and that they should have kept closer tabs on his activities, even after he left the agency, to avoid embarrassment.

“There was obviously some tension and overall concern about not revealing too much information, but we gave the jury enough and did not reveal too much,” John G. Douglass, assistant U.S. attorney and the lead prosecutor, said immediately after Pelton’s conviction.

Walk a Fine Line

Throughout the trial, the prosecutors walked a fine line between saying just enough to make convincing arguments before the jury and irritating intelligence officials by saying too much.

William Perry Crowell Jr., the NSA chief of U.S. signal intelligence, made an unusual public appearance and gave information on the agency, including its budget, manpower and mission. But, while his testimony was rare, it also was broad in scope.

The trial was marked by frequent conferences with U.S. District Judge Herbert F. Murray as prosecutors headed off testimony that they contended was too sensitive.

Prosecutors, in discussing Pelton’s offenses, referred to U.S. signal collection operations as Project A, B, C, D and E and gave only the barest outlines of what they were. “That was an attempt to let the government prosecute a case without saying anything,” said Jeffrey T. Richelson, assistant professor of government and public administration at American University.

‘Chilling Effect’

Jerry Berman, chief legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, asserted that threats by CIA Director William J. Casey had a “chilling effect” on the media and kept some possibly significant details out of newspapers. Casey had vowed to seek prosecution of news outlets that revealed national secrets.

CIA spokesman Kathy H. Pherson said the agency is “not trying to pick on the media.” In his warning to the media, Casey was saying “don’t use the trial (as a way) to print” information other than that disclosed in the testimony, she said.

John K. Greaney, executive director of the Assn. of Former Intelligence Officers, argued that any attention focused on intelligence operations is harmful. Once the full transcript of the trial is scrutinized, he maintained, it could prove damaging.

Greaney, who worked for the CIA for 29 years, said: “My preference would be to get a (guilty) plea” and keep such cases out of court.