Reopening A

By Jay Peterzell/Washington

Should the U.S. Government be involved in coups that might result in the assassination of foreign political leaders? That old controversy was being debated with new intensity last week in Washington. In the wake of this month's failed coup against Panama's Manuel Antonio Noriega, the fickle finger of blame is being pointed in all directions. It has been aimed at George Bush, at Congress, at CIA director William Webster and at the coup plotters themselves. Last week it targeted a section of a presidential order that bars all direct or indirect U.S. involvement in assassinations. The issue was whether American officials withheld support for the coup out of fear that Noriega might be killed.

The prohibition has a venerable history. It was first adopted within the CIA in 1972 by former director Richard Helms. "It was bad policy for the U.S. to go around assassinating foreign leaders," Helms explains now. "Not only for moral reasons but also because in the U.S. nothing can be kept secret for very long." He was right. During the following few years, a drumbeat of press stories and congressional investigations disclosed past attempts by the CIA to kill Congolese ex-Premier Patrice Lumumba, Cuba's Fidel Castro and other foreign leaders. Though apparently none of these plots succeeded, President Gerald Ford included the assassination ban in a 1976 public Executive Order regulating U.S. intelligence activities. Every President since has adopted the ban with little change.

Senior U.S. officials admit that the curb on assassinations did not rule out American assistance to the plotters in Panama. Ironically, one reason the coup failed is that the goal was only to force Noriega into retirement, not to kill him. Still, there is a potential conflict with the ban if the U.S. supports a coup in which the death of foreign leaders, though not intended, is likely. CIA director Webster last week proposed an effort to define the policy more clearly so that CIA officers "can go right up to the edge of that authority and not worry if they or their agency is going to get in trouble." The Justice Department has been asked to prepare a draft for changes.

While many experts agree that Webster has identified a real problem, some think the ambiguity should not be resolved. "There is a gray area," says Anthony Beilenson, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. "And it ought to remain there. The fact that there's a little bit of uncertainty about the Executive Order serves a useful purpose. We should be cautious when it comes to coups that may lead to assassination." In fact, the CIA has procedures for high-level review of operations that could violate the ban. And yet a clear distinction between coups and assassinations is not always possible. The ban was not originally meant to restrict covert political-action operations at all, recalls Helms. "A coup d'etat seems to be confused by some people with an immaculate conception," he says. "Coups involve violence, blood and killing, and they often go in unpredictable directions." That is precisely why the risk of assassination and U.S. national interest must be weighed in each case.