Part: 1234         Session: 123         Page 565758596061626364656667686970717273747576777879808182838485868788 of 512

in such-and-such a place which is designed for the invasion of Cuba.” I was involved in some arguments after the fact on this because I was quite disturbed about the fact that we did do it, but at least it was mitigated by the further fact that this had been published elsewhere anyway.

We were not the first people to publish it, which made me feel better about our part in it. But this is always a very tough problem. I'm on the conservative side here; I am not in favor of publishing material that could affect the national security. Of course, nobody is in favor of publishing material that could damage the national security. The argument always is, will this particular thing do it, you see, and I lean on the conservative side here. Hanson Baldwin, with whom I've had arguments about this many times, tends to lean the other way; that is, he will, because certain material has been published in a technical journal, feel that this gives us the right to publish it, too. But I'm pretty conservative about this.

Is there, to an extent, or was there, to an extent, the feeling that if you published the Guatemala story it might even help avert the actual carrying-through of the plan?

I don't believe that this was the real reason for publishing it, and I think that if that had been the reason, it would be a wrong reason. That would be an editorial reason affecting a news story. No, I think that the only reason-although I was doubtful about the wisdom of our publishing the story, I would not accuse our news department of publishing it for that reason and I'm sure that they, too, would agree that if that were the reason, it would have been a wrong reason. It may have had that effect.