1 The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign ...

MILLER: They were a right-wing terrorist group, and had some association with the socalled
colonels' coup. They saw any accommodation with the left, in their view, as
something that had to be destroyed. I think this phenomenon that we're living through
what we call “terrorism” requires specialized police work, a specialized form of
international police work. So far we're applying the wrong instruments by invasions of
Afghanistan and Iraq and the occupation of those turbulent countries. The 101 st Airborne
or Delta group or Seals are not the right instrument.
Q: Okay, well, Bill, I think this is probably a good place to stop, and we'll pick this up the
next time. After you'd completed this intelligence investigation, what did you do?
MILLER: After the completion of the inquiry we set up an oversight committee and I was
asked to put together the oversight process and hire the staff.
Q: All right, well, we’ll pick this – it’d be 1975?
MILLER: Seventy-six.
Q: Seventy-six. We’ll pick it up then.
Miller: Great.
***
Q: Today is the 19 th of December, 2003. Bill, 1976. What were you up to?
MILLER: We were completing the report, the final report, on the investigation into the
intelligence activities of the United States. This was a twelve-volume public document
and about 50 volumes of classified material. It was a comprehensive look into everything
the United States had done in the world of secrecy, with the purpose of defining, in 1976,
what the proper role of secret government was in a democratic society, and how secrecy
could be governed by our constitutional processes – processes that were established
several centuries before, and that the United States never had to contend with the kinds of
issues we were facing in 1976.
The outcome, intellectually, was the conclusion that secrecy was a necessary part of
democratic governments in the 20 th century, and that there was no way that could be
avoided. However, in a democratic society such as ours, it was necessary that secrets, no
matter how sensitive, could not be left to one man, that is, the president. Secrecy required
the participation of all three branches, in their appropriate ways. It was an assertion that
authoritarianism should not be permitted in a democratic society, and that secrecy held by
one branch, that is, the president, would lend considerable power to the possibility of
authoritarianism. So after a year and a half of very turbulent, difficult investigations and
tremendous struggle between the branches – particularly with the intelligence agencies,
105