and intentionally so, with the answers I had given in my depo

sition (except for the strained interpretation I have described). I was indicted for false declarations on the basis of those answers in October of this year. In moving to dismiss the indictment, my counsel 'argued, with my approval, that the rule of Barr v. Matteo (providing official immunity from suit) extended to criminal prosecutions, and that the authority and discretion possessed by an official in my position embraced false statements to protect classified national security information from unauthorized disclosure.

That

The Court rejected that argument as fundamentally incompatible with the very existence of our society. ruling, and the questions asked by the judge in the course

of the argument, spurred my reappraisal of my whole conception of the Fielding incident.

While I early concluded that the operation had been

a mistake, it is only recently that I have come to regard it as unlawful. I see now that the key is the effect that the term "national security" had on my judgment. The very words served to block critical analysis. It seemed at least presumptuous if not unpatriotic to inquire into just what the significance of national security was.

When the issue was the proper response to a demonstration, for example, it was natural for me to question whether the proposed course was not excessive. The relative rankings of

the rights of demonstrators and the protection of law and order

- 9

could be debated, and the range of possible accomodations explored, without the subjects of patriotism and loyalty etra rising to the level of consciousness. But to succest that

national security was being improperly invoked was to intite a confrontation with patriotism and loyalty and so appeared to be beyond the scope and in contravention of the faithful performance of the duties of my office.

Yet what is national security? I mentioned that all of the potential uses of the information sought in the Fielding incident were consistent with my then concept of national seruitity. The discrediting of Dr. Ellsberg, which today strikes me as repulsive and an inconceivable national security goal, at the time would have appeared a means of blocking the possibility that he would become such a popular figure that others possessed of classified information would be encouraged to emulate him. More broadly, it would serve to diminish any influence he might have in mobilizing opposition to the course of ending the Vietnam war that had been set by the President.

And that

course was the very definition of national security. of the President to pursue his planned course was the ultimata national security objective.

The fact that I do not recall this use as my personal

mociveting force provides scant confort.

I would have accepted the rationalization I here just descripod.

The Lavocation of national security stopped re from asking kan question, "Is this the right thing to do."

Government, during which I have been under intense investigation and multiple indictments, has also affected my view. I have throughout this most difficult period been free, first because I had not yet been indicted and later on recognizance. And I perceive this freedom as the very essence of our society and

our system.

This freedom for me is not a privilege but a right protected by our Constitution. It is one of a host of rights

that I as an American citizen am fortunate to share with Dr. Ellsberg and Dr. Fielding. These rights of the individual cannot be sacrificed to the mere assertion of national security. National security is obviously a fundamental goal

and a proper concern of any country.

It is also a concept

that is subject to a wide range of definitions, a factor that makes all the more essential a painstaking approach to the definition of national security in any given instance.

But however national security is defined, I now see that none of the potential uses of the sought information could justify the invasion of the rights of the individuals that the break-in necessitated. The understanding I have come to is

that these rights are the definition of our nation. To invade them unlawfully in the name of national security is to work a destructive force upon the nation, not to take a protective measure. I have been recalling the U. S. personnel in Vietnam with whom I served in the military and with whom I visited