Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[104-10324-10002.pdf — page 82]
SECRETsaid, "That money was appropriated by Congress under my command, myresponsibility. It stays with me. We'll work with you and we'll help you andwe'll be part of your team kind of thing. But I can't relinquish control overmen, money, and material as appropriated to me." And McNamara said the samething and Rusk said the same thing so that they didn't achieve creating abrand new Agency in effect. And this was all brand new to the guys sittingaround that table. It might not have been new to Schwarz, who seemed tounderstand something about Landsdale's role, because when I started to talkabout Landsdale being in command and being in direct communication with us andissuing orders directly in the name of Kennedy, etc., etc., I remember Churchsaying to Schwarz, "Is General Landsdale available anywhere?" And Schwarzsaying something, "Yes sir. We have tracked him down, he lives in..." I thinkhe said Falls Church or something. He lives in Virginia anyway, "and we'retrying to get in touch with him to have him come here." And a little later onhe did come and testify. But this was seen like brand new stuff to them.This was June, mind you. And one of the things they were after was RogueElephant running operations against Cuba. And it had been written about quitea bit and all that kind of stuff. And they didn't have a clue. And theydidn't like the idea that, as far as I was concerned, the Kennedy boys were incharge. And they were running the war. And we were fighting a war againstCuba, undeclared or otherwise, but we were fighting a war. I said if we weresending people in to create sabotage activities inside Cuba, we were blowingthings up, people got killed on both sides, on their side and our side. And Isaid -- that's when I got into a fight with Hart. I remember that now. Andthat was foreign policy as far as I was concerned. And that's Hart said, "Itwasn't, the Congressman is involved." I said, "The hell with that." I said
[104-10324-10002.pdf — page 83]
SECRETCongress was providing the money. And we didn't create our own money. Wedidn't create our own weapons. And they knew what we were doing. And so,that was, I remember now, that was the fight with Hart.INTERVIEWER: And did they push the issue whether John F. Kennedy knew aboutall these activities?MR. HALPERN: Yeah, with me as far as I was concerned. Yeah, I said I assumethat the Attorney General reported to the President and Landsdale reported andLandsdale did not leave his office. He was in General Erskine's office in thePentagon. And he didn't leave his office. He stayed there physically and inthat office but he directed activities from there in the name of the Presidentand the Attorney General. That was MONGOOSE, I said. And it is all writtenup now in the Church Report. They finally got all the stuff straight, prettymuch straight. There are some errors in it. But I try to correct them. Itdoesn't always work. But that was one of the things that bothered me, theSenators themselves were being led around as they usually are, I think, by thestaff. They don't have enough time in the day I suppose to do all of thesethings. And the staff, even by June, is just beginning to get their feet weton something like this. And they were looking into other operations. One wasan Indonesian operation which was brought under Eisenhower's aegis. And Ithink they were hoping to use that again as another example of a RogueElephant. But my own feeling, and they never talked to me about that,although they should have. They talked to a lot of other people and I guessthey figured by the time they talked to enough people they didn't have to talkto me, because the record on that is so complete. You talk about paper. Nowthat one we had plenty of paper on, because everything was done by cables andmemos. And it was so complete and so accurate, in terms of starting with the
[104-10324-10002.pdf — page 84]
SECRETPresident's approval, Eisenhower's approval, and all the things that we did through the then 5412 Committee, and the papers on that were clear, and all the cable traffic was clear, that they figured there was no way they were going to pin that on CIA as a CIA operation because that was again, State, CIA and Defense all working as a team. We were carrying the main load at that level, but everybody was involved. No question. And all the record was there, so I guess they couldn't use that as a Rogue Elephant operation. The reason they hit the MONGOOSE one, I think, was because, Cuba being Cuba, the assassination efforts and that kind of stuff, they had to keep it back.INTERVIEWER: And it seemed to me that there was some mention along the way that the Agency was not going to call back people from retirement to participate in the investigations.MR. HALPERN: That's correct. And the Agency did nothing to help anybody, even serving officers without giving them any legal assistance. They were told to go get their own lawyers.INTERVIEWER: They didn't get support?MR. HALPERN: And that also broke the Band of Brothers, and there wasn't anything left by then. This was '75 now. But the Agency made it very clear in their memoranda and the Notices, the Headquarters Notices they issue to all employees that you are on your own, you get your own lawyers, etc., etc. You got no help from the Agency. Which was not true in the old days. Not true at all. There was a completely adversarial relationship that was developed..INTERVIEWER: So no legal support.MR. HALPERN: None whatsoever. You can, hell, go ask Paul to get you the old Notices that was put out on the Committee. No legal support whatsoever. Not even advice. Colby released everybody from their oaths by the way from84SECRET
[104-10324-10002.pdf — page 85]
SECRETtheir secrecy oaths in terms of testifying to Congress. Well, hell, first ofall I think that was a silly thing to do because when you, even the oathitself that you sign, the secrecy oath, look at the one you signed. Itdoesn't say anyting about withholding anything from Congress. In addition towhich Congress has made it very crystal clear in the laws they passed sincethen that nothing in here is to imply in any way you were to withhold anyinformation from Congress, through duly authorized Congressional requests.Correct.INTERVIEWER: Sure.MR. HALPERN: So he shouldn't have issued that one about releasing you fromyour oath when testifying before Congress. That's nonsense, utter nonsense.INTERVIEWER: And I imagine the people were really, I suppose, surprised thatthey didn't get any legal . . .MR. HALPERN: Oh, very much surprised. Particularly the retirees. Every timea retiree, you know, tried to get in touch with the Agency to get some kind ofhelp or guidance, what do I say, what do I don't say. You got nothing. Youwere on your own.INTERVIEWER: Were there any lawsuits that you were involved in?MR. HALPERN: No. There were lots of lawsuits that other people were in. Ithink Tom K's estate is still involved in several and I think Dick Helms isinvolved in several. So on, there goes it. I called them the kook cases, butthey are legal cases.INTERVIEWER: And they are real.MR. HALPERN: And they are real. And they are going through courts and whathave you, no question about that. The courts have not thrown them out. But,in terms of testifying before the Congress, a lot of the people were called
[104-10324-10002.pdf — page 86]
SECRETin. Like me, I'd never testified before Congress.INTERVIEWER: It was your first time.MR. HALPERN: Yeah. First time. And so far my only time thank the Lord. But I don't care about going before them again. They walk on water, they don't walk on water any more than I do. And the old story about they put on their pants one leg at a time like I do. Well, what the hell.INTERVIEWER: Did they contact you at all after the Hearing relative to any of the testimony?MR. HALPERN: No. No. You are given copies of the testimony and then you are allowed to make corrections on it because: a. the tape doesn't always work, and b. the guy who is listening and talks into it doesn't always get it. And sometimes the repartee is so fast nothing can catch it. And that happened with my argument with Gary Hart. That is totally missing from the written record. But you know, so, life goes on. But that is what you get and then you are allowed to adjust it and send it back or you can take it back and argue with them, or what have you.INTERVIEWER: They didn't give any indication that you might have to come to a public hearing?MR. HALPERN: No. I'm not big enough for that. I'm all over the Church Committee Report. I'm listed as the "Executive Officer to" or the "Executive Assistant to" or whatever phraseology. And that has been blown by Tom Powers and God knows how many other people. I didn't blow it but a lot of other people did. So, it doesn't take long to put two and two together.INTERVIEWER: Okay. How about some people say that the intelligence collection and analysis were seriously impaired during the year of investigation because of the man hours spent in preparing and transmitting
[104-10324-10002.pdf — page 87]
SECRETresponses to the committees. Did you . . .MR. HALPERN: I wasn't in there so I can't say. But I would say based upon what I know about the bureaucracy, it had to have a bad impact, a very adverse impact on: a. the morale of the people, b. the initiative of the people, which goes to zero or less than zero, you know, why should I stick my neck out kind of thing. It's got to then badly impact on any prospective agent you might want to recruit. A foreigner's got to have rocks in his head to be willing to work for the US Government these days in a clandestine capacity. And if I were a Case Officer today, I'd have to think about the sanity of the guy I am trying to recruit. Doesn't he read the newspapers? Doesn't he watch television? In my day, we were able to protect the identities of a source. Really protect the identity of a source. And there were really, literally, no more than a handful of people who knew the true name of an individual. They might know something about the guy's background, his capabilities, his access, that kind of stuff. A person might never ask but even if they did it would go in one ear and out the other. We usually referred to sources by their cryptonyms. And that was good enough for us. And that goes all the way up to Director. True names were things that you just don't talk about. And so in this day and age though, I'm not sure they can protect the true name of an individual. I was told, this is all hearsay, I was told that during the Carter administration that true names of agents were requested by and given to staff members of the White House staff. They obviously had the authority to ask for it and somebody gave it to them. I don't know how often that was done, but it was done enough. The mere fact that the cryptonym, mind you the cryptonym, of Hussein, King Hussein, from Jordan was front page of *The Washington Post* and that scared the pants off them. And that was early on in
[104-10324-10002.pdf — page 88]
SECRETthe Carter administration. That scared the pants off Carter and, what thehell was his name -- Jody Powell, who was the press officer and Brzezinski --to the point where they even made public statements about, you know, you'vegot to protect all this kind of relationships and what have you and what haveyou. Where Senator Moynihan said Jimmy Carter suddenly discovered CIA, whichhe campaigned against. You remember his litany about Watergate, Vietnam, andCIA were part of Jimmy Carter's campaign litany. Then Moynihan said somethingto the effect of: "Jimmy Carter, despite the campaign, has suddenlydiscovered that the CIA is now his." You know.INTERVIEWER: Sure.MR. HALPERN: But, I think, so when you are talking about the impact insideand the impact on operations, let alone what you do in terms of the amount ofpaperwork that had to be generated to supply the requests from the Hill. God,well, Scott Breckinridge, I guess you want to talk to him about that?INTERVIEWER: Yes I will.MR. HALPERN: Scott and Seymour Bolton were the team and they had a staff.And it was created by Walt Elder, was part of that, to help funnel papers toand from the Hill. And that became an industry all of its own. I'm sure, Imean, just without even having been there, I know enough about the bureaucracyas to how it works. And it had to be. And it was a continuing operation.And it creates a hell of a lot of trouble among the troops and the secretariesand the clerks and everybody else involved. You don't have time to doanything else. So how do you carry on the job of collecting intelligence?INTERVIEWER: Was there any, in your last year or two with the Agency, thatyou knew of, comments by intelligence services of other countries? Anyindication that they were becoming anxious or apprehensive about . . .
[104-10324-10002.pdf — page 89]
SECRETMR. HALPERN: Just the bare beginnings of that because, you see, the Freedom of Information Act wasn't actually amended until '74 and didn't go into effect until, I think it was, December of '74. Just as I was getting ready to leave. And we all knew that was going to be a problem. A real problem. And it became a problem. All you've got to do is read the testimony of George Cary, John McMahon, Admiral Inman. Well, you can go through the old great hearings. The amount of bad impact, adverse impact, it had with various intelligence services around the world. Particularly our old friends. And I'm sure it's gotten worse rather than better. With books like Woodward's book and so on and the continuing leaks. But I must say from where I sit on the outside, and I am only guessing, most of the leaks seem to come from the Executive Branch of government. I'm not just talking the White House but I'm talking the whole slew at all levels rather than the Hill. The Hill has got its problems but the Hill is doing more in terms of protecting itself, and protecting the information that's given than the Executive Branch has been able to do.INTERVIEWER: More recently?MR. HALPERN: Yeah. And over the last ten years. It's quite clear. You just, you know, you do this with a sixth sense and a gut feeling. You can tell what's right and what's wrong and what's true and what's false. More or less. You can't be totally right but you get a pretty good estimate or a feel on this thing. And so help me, the Executive Branch is a rotten sieve all over the place. Much worse than in my day.INTERVIEWER: Is that right?
[104-10324-10002.pdf — page 90]
SECRETMR. HALPERN: Oh yeah. It's not just me or my guys, it's all the way throughthe government. The Executive Branch everybody talks, that's all. On allkinds of stuff. It's not just. . .INTERVIEWER: Yeah, we're going to come back to that.MR. HALPERN: All right. It's not just one Agency. By a long shot. And Ithink the Hill is making better strides on this and think they are beginningto realize and have for a number of years, a number of them anyway. Even whatI told you about Huddleston. You know, you Members the Congress, trust us asyour surrogates. Well, okay, that's a step forward. Instead of trusting 535guys, you gonna trust 135. Well, that's a big step forward. And I say 135because I am adding up staffs as well as members of Houses and bothcommittees. And don't forget, and people -- most of them -- do forget, thatin addition to the two intelligence committees, you still have Appropriationsin both Houses, you have Armed Services in both houses, and they stilljurisdictionally ain't going to give up. But they get clued in about what'sgoing on, but it's far more than just a two bit leak. Remember that.INTERVIEWER: In practice.MR. HALPERN: In practice. Don't kid yourself. Far more people know and theyare better, they are beginning to learn, they are handling themselves muchbetter, they have control of the stuff. Look at the Iran/Contra stuff. Verylittle stuff leaked from the Hill. What you've got is what they want you toget. They are controlling that stuff. Very well indeed. They arecontrolling the pieces of paper, they are controlling the reproductionmachines, the xeroxes and all that kind of stuff. Much better than theExecutive Branch is doing. Yeah, sure, they are a smaller group. You know,
[104-10324-10002.pdf — page 91]
SECRETthey've only got 18 or 19 thousand people on the Hill to begin with and it's ahell of a lot better than what CIA must have: at least 16,000 probably.Alone. So look at the Pentagon, look at the State Department.INTERVIEWER: Isn't it interesting that time after time when one talks aboutleaks or when one reads about it, frequently an article in newspaper stories,the Congress is oftentimes the bad guy, the executive department is not verybad.MR. HALPERN: Well, that's why I'd take another look at that article and itleaked the information in it and read it again. And sometimes you wonder,hey, it probably didn't come from the Congress, because they are tighteningup. Not every staff member, for example, on the committees has access to allthe information anymore. That's been true for quite a while. Not everySenator or Congressman can come and -- well, they better not take anythingaway from the Hill. None of them can take even their notes away. They're notsupposed to make notes of what the hell they are reading. So the days oflooseness up on the Hill have long since gone on this kind of stuff.INTERVIEWER: There have been some real improvements on it.MR. HALPERN: They have learned the hard way. And they really mean it. Andthey realize that their own reputations are at stake. Which I think has a bigthing going for it. And I hope they get to a joint committee someday, andremember that the House committee staff is, in effect, a small professionalstaff now. It's not run the way the Senate committee is run. It's a smallergroup, they've been there a longer time and the staff director, Latimer, TomLatimer, has been there from the beginning. It's his second career. I knewTom when he was one of the guys up on the seventh floor in the Agency and over
[104-10324-10002.pdf — page 92]
SECRETat the White House with Kissinger. And he worked his way up, but anyway, thatis another story. But he's been there as a pro, minding his P's and Q's. Hehas a very small staff. I think there are a total of a dozen people, alltold. They are all pros. I mean, former professionals from one agency oranother. Which is unlike the Senate committee which is still more or lessbeholden to each Senator and the staff guy really is a Senator's appointee.And the staff director doesn't have much control over him. It's a differentstory. So it will give you something to watch. And maybe as a result of theIran/Contra stuff, they must be having a hell of a time coming up with theirreport. Oh God, they must be fighting like cats and dogs!INTERVIEWER: That's the impression I get from snippits in the newspapercolumn.MR. HALPERN: The reports now are at least three weeks overdue. And you know,they could have had a minority or majority report. They must be having a realgo through on that one.INTERVIEWER: I just happened to think when you were mentioning the earlierand, I'm not sure that it may be coming up a little bit later, were yousurprised when Mr. Colby agonized for a time over Mr. Helms' testimony and thedecision to turn the testimony over? Were you surprised at that?MR. HALPERN: Uh huh. Really something.INTERVIEWER: You didn't think he would?MR. HALPERN: I didn't think he would. I didn't think he should. But I'mtold by one of the principals involved, namely John Warner, who was then LegalCounsel or General Counsel :INTERVIEWER: Yeah, General.
[104-10324-10002.pdf — page 93]
SECRETMR. HALPERN: ...that Bill had no choice at that point. I've talked to John about this, I listened to his argumentation. I'm no lawyer. And I still find it hard that something couldn't have been done about that.INTERVIEWER: Yes, he spoke about that to me and put it on tape.MR. HALPERN: Yes, John is an honest man. I'm not saying anything about that. John said by the time it got to that point he couldn't advise Colby in any other way from a legal point of view. He had to tell him to go. And that I find very hard to accept. Although again, as we said before, times have changed. And times change and poor Dick was caught in the middle. Absolutely caught in the middle.INTERVIEWER: He sure was. What about certain issues raised by the Church and Pike Committees? What are your thoughts about certain of them such as mail opening?MR. HALPERN: Well, I think they did not prove the case, that it was illegal. And take as my text the fact that the Justice Department, in looking into this after the Church Committee and after spending God knows how many months and years looking into this thing, had to decide even under the Carter administration there wasn't anything we could do. There wasn't enough evidence one way or the other and when you had Postmasters General who testify. Some testified it was totally illegal. But some say it was perfectly legal. Nothing wrong with it. We knew what was going on and we agreed. And that's got nothing to do with whether the President is approved or not. When you have a difference of view from postmasters themselves, how the hell can you go to court on that? So, oh sure, it was another one of those headline grabbing things. And as somebody said, I don't know of anybody
[104-10324-10002.pdf — page 94]
SECRETwho was hurt by the fact that the mail was opened. Either physically, or legally, financially or any other way. And in most cases, we didn't even know it happened until years afterwards. And in some cases I think they had perfectly good justification to go look at somebody's mail.INTERVIEWER: All right. And how about the drug experimentation. Did that come as a surprise to you?MR. HALPERN: That was a surprise to me and it was a surprise to a lot of people. And a lot of people, I think, took very great personal affront in the fact that they, because they were a part of CIA, were now and forever more tarred with this kind of thing. I don't like it. I didn't like it when I heard about it for the first time. Particularly some of the nasty details about the two-way glass and getting a drunk in a bar and giving him something and following him to see what he did and that kind of stuff. But I also know the people involved in some of it and I know Sid Gottleib very well and I know Knoche very well and I can't imagine them doing this because they are a bunch of sadist or a bunch of Dr. Frankensteins who like to pull wings off of flies and watch the flies flop around. Nothing like that at all and I think if you look at Sid's testimony, at Gottleib's testimony, before the Kennedy Health Committee a couple of years after all this nonsense, in which he pointed out that we were really trying to find out what the hell the Soviets might have been up to when they used drugs. LSD was a completely new and untried substance. We didn't know what the hell it was. All we knew was that the Soviet were buying up a hell of a lot of it out of the Swiss drug houses, pharmaceutical houses. We didn't know what the hell it was going to do. We didn't know what the hell it was going to do to anybody. And we had to find