This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/07/us/david-truong-figure-in-us-wiretap-case-dies-at-68.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
David Truong, Figure in U.S. Wiretap Case, Dies at 68 David Truong, Figure in U.S. Wiretap Case, Dies at 68
(about 17 hours later)
David Truong, a Vietnamese antiwar activist whose conviction on espionage charges in the United States in 1978 raised alarms about the federal government’s use of wiretaps without court orders and spurred passage of the 1978 Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act prohibiting such practices, died on June 26 in Penang, Malaysia. He was 68.David Truong, a Vietnamese antiwar activist whose conviction on espionage charges in the United States in 1978 raised alarms about the federal government’s use of wiretaps without court orders and spurred passage of the 1978 Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act prohibiting such practices, died on June 26 in Penang, Malaysia. He was 68.
The cause was cancer, said his sister, Monique Truong Miller, a lawyer in Los Angeles.The cause was cancer, said his sister, Monique Truong Miller, a lawyer in Los Angeles.
The prosecution of Mr. Truong and a co-defendant, Ronald L. Humphrey, a United States Information Agency officer who served in Vietnam, was the only espionage case to come to trial in connection with the Vietnam War. The two were charged with a “conspiracy to injure the nation’s defense” — an offense punishable by life in prison.The prosecution of Mr. Truong and a co-defendant, Ronald L. Humphrey, a United States Information Agency officer who served in Vietnam, was the only espionage case to come to trial in connection with the Vietnam War. The two were charged with a “conspiracy to injure the nation’s defense” — an offense punishable by life in prison.
But the case, which began after the war had ended, quickly ignited a conflagration in the battle between Congress and the White House over the limits of presidential power. The case, which began after the war had ended, set off a battle between Congress and the White House over the limits of presidential power.
Mr. Truong and Mr. Humphrey were sentenced to 15-year prison terms after a jury trial for what the government called a plot to pass sensitive State Department documents to Vietnamese diplomats in Paris. Both served five years in prison before being released. Mr. Truong and Mr. Humphrey were sentenced to 15-year prison terms after a jury trial for what the government called a plot to pass sensitive State Department documents to Vietnamese diplomats in Paris. Both served five years before being released.
Though Mr. Humphrey admitted taking the documents and Mr. Truong admitted passing them on, they denied having been spies, or having intended to harm the United States. Both said they had hoped to accelerate the normalization of relations between the United States and Vietnam. Though Mr. Humphrey admitted taking the documents and Mr. Truong admitted passing them on, they denied having been spies, or having intended to harm the United States. Both said that they had hoped to accelerate the normalization of relations between the United States and Vietnam.
Independent intelligence sources said the documents were low-level diplomatic cables, though some were classified as secret.Independent intelligence sources said the documents were low-level diplomatic cables, though some were classified as secret.
The case revealed a tangle of personal, political and diplomatic complications involving the lives of Americans and Vietnamese in the aftermath of the Vietnam War. More troubling for legal experts and civil liberties groups, however, were revelations about how the government had conducted its investigation.The case revealed a tangle of personal, political and diplomatic complications involving the lives of Americans and Vietnamese in the aftermath of the Vietnam War. More troubling for legal experts and civil liberties groups, however, were revelations about how the government had conducted its investigation.
No court warrants had been sought by the F.B.I. agents who had tapped Mr. Truong’s phone, placed a secret microphone in his apartment and hidden cameras in Mr. Humphrey’s office during the two-year inquiry — which critics saw as a violation of Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure. No court warrants had been sought by the F.B.I. agents who had tapped Mr. Truong’s phone and placed a secret microphone in his apartment and hidden cameras in Mr. Humphrey’s office during the two-year inquiry. Critics of those tactics saw them as a violation of Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure.
Attorney General Griffin B. Bell and President Jimmy Carter, who had personally authorized elements of the surveillance, said their actions were permissible under exceptions to Fourth Amendment protections historically cited by presidents in matters of national security. (President Richard M. Nixon had cited those exceptions in defending his authorization not only for wiretapping, but also for burglaries.) Attorney General Griffin B. Bell and President Jimmy Carter, who had authorized elements of the surveillance, said their actions were permissible under exceptions to Fourth Amendment protections historically cited by presidents in matters of national security. (President Richard M. Nixon had cited those exceptions in defending his authorization not only for wiretapping, but also for burglaries in the Watergate affair.)
In the Truong and Humphrey case, the federal courts stood behind the executive branch. Appeals brought by lawyers for Mr. Truong and Humphrey, claiming the evidence against them was illegally obtained, were denied.In the Truong and Humphrey case, the federal courts stood behind the executive branch. Appeals brought by lawyers for Mr. Truong and Humphrey, claiming the evidence against them was illegally obtained, were denied.
The courts’ stance galvanized civil libertarians in their campaign for changes in the law. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a prime sponsor of the 1978 intelligence surveillance law, said, “The recent prosecution against Humphrey and Truong point out the need for this legislation.”The courts’ stance galvanized civil libertarians in their campaign for changes in the law. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a prime sponsor of the 1978 intelligence surveillance law, said, “The recent prosecution against Humphrey and Truong point out the need for this legislation.”
“Serious constitutional issues are raised by the case,” he said in a speech on the Senate floor.“Serious constitutional issues are raised by the case,” he said in a speech on the Senate floor.
The law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a panel of federal judges known as the FISA court. It mandated that one of those judges review any future requests by the executive branch to employ such techniques in cases concerning national security. (After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, several laws were passed at the behest of the Bush administration to widen the president’s ability to bypass the legal system when conducting wiretaps.) Mr. Truong and his wife, Carolyn Gates, an American economist, left the United States in the 1980s to live in the Netherlands, where both worked as economic development consultants to the European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union. The law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a panel of federal judges known as the FISA court. It mandated that one of those judges review any future requests by the executive branch to employ such techniques in cases concerning national security. (After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, several laws were passed at the behest of the Bush administration to widen the president’s ability to bypass the legal system when conducting wiretaps.)
Mr. Truong and his wife, Carolyn Gates, an American economist, left the United States in the 1980s to live in the Netherlands, where both worked as economic development consultants to the European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union.
Mr. Truong had come to the United States in 1965 as a student, and earned degrees in political science and economics at Stanford University. Discouraged by his family from returning home — he was the son of an opposition leader jailed in Saigon by South Vietnam’s American-backed government — Mr. Truong became an outspoken antiwar activist in the United States.Mr. Truong had come to the United States in 1965 as a student, and earned degrees in political science and economics at Stanford University. Discouraged by his family from returning home — he was the son of an opposition leader jailed in Saigon by South Vietnam’s American-backed government — Mr. Truong became an outspoken antiwar activist in the United States.
When he was arrested on Jan. 31, 1978, Mr. Truong was doing postgraduate work at American University, and working as a lobbyist in Washington for several organizations advocating normalization of diplomatic ties between the United States and his country, which since South Vietnam’s collapse in 1975 had reunified under Communist rule. When he was arrested on Jan. 31, 1978, Mr. Truong was doing postgraduate work at American University, and working as a lobbyist in Washington for several organizations advocating normalization of diplomatic ties between the United States and his country, which had reunified under Communist rule since South Vietnam’s collapse in 1975.
Based on wiretaps and testimony of a double agent employed by both the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., Justice Department prosecutors alleged that Mr. Truong had been passing secret State Department cables about Vietnam-related foreign policy strategies to Vietnamese agents in Paris. Diplomats from the two countries were in negotiations there over matters, including an accounting of American prisoners of war and soldiers missing in action, still unresolved since the end of the war. Basing their allegations on wiretaps and the testimony of a double agent employed by both the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., Justice Department prosecutors said Mr. Truong had been passing secret State Department cables about Vietnam-related foreign policy strategies to Vietnamese agents in Paris. Diplomats from the two countries were in negotiations there over an accounting of American prisoners of war and soldiers missing in action as well as other matters left unresolved at the end of the war.
Mr. Humphrey, who had been involved in efforts to get his common-law Vietnamese wife and their children out of Vietnam since the Communist takeover, admitted taking the documents. Mr. Truong, who beyond his lobbying work had been trying to help members of his own family come to the United States, admitted passing the documents to Vietnamese citizens in Paris but said he believed they were editors of a Vietnamese newspaper there, not diplomats. Mr. Truong was born Truong Dinh Hung in Saigon on Sept. 2, 1945, the oldest son of Vo Thi Kim Hoang and Truong Dinh Dzu, a prominent lawyer and politician. Besides his sister and his wife, he is survived by a brother and several half-siblings. Mr. Humphrey, who had been involved in efforts to get his common-law Vietnamese wife and their children out of Vietnam since the Communist takeover, admitted taking the documents. Mr. Truong, who had been trying to help members of his own family come to the United States, admitted passing the documents to Vietnamese citizens in Paris, but he said he believed that they were editors of a Vietnamese newspaper there, not diplomats.
Mr. Truong was born Truong Dinh Hung in Saigon on Sept. 2, 1945, the oldest son of Vo Thi Kim Hoang and Truong Dinh Dzu, a prominent lawyer and politician. Besides his sister and his wife, he is survived by a brother and several half-siblings.
In a 2003 memoir, “Fighting Injustice,” Michael E. Tigar, the lawyer who represented Mr. Truong at his trial, described the prosecution as part of a political backlash against opponents of the war.In a 2003 memoir, “Fighting Injustice,” Michael E. Tigar, the lawyer who represented Mr. Truong at his trial, described the prosecution as part of a political backlash against opponents of the war.
“Unrepentant for its errors in Vietnam,” he wrote, the government “turned against those who had opposed its policies. Rather than opening debate about matters affecting national security, it invoked draconian laws to maintain the wall of secrecy.”“Unrepentant for its errors in Vietnam,” he wrote, the government “turned against those who had opposed its policies. Rather than opening debate about matters affecting national security, it invoked draconian laws to maintain the wall of secrecy.”
Mr. Truong’s sister said in a phone interview on Thursday that her brother took a more pragmatic view of the case.Mr. Truong’s sister said in a phone interview on Thursday that her brother took a more pragmatic view of the case.
“He saw it as a political case, and himself as a very small piece in the game that countries play when they want to achieve their political goals,” she said. In that game, she added, her brother understood “that we are all expendable.” “He saw it as a political case,” she said, “and himself as a very small piece in the game that countries play when they want to achieve their political goals.” In that game, she added, her brother understood “that we are all expendable.”