Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[104-10332-10007.pdf — page 6]
Mr. John PereiraNovember 9, 1995Page 2We also believe that the Agency still is not providing the type of evidence that will be the most convincing to the Board. Where issues exist that the Board has not yet addressed, and where the Agency would like to see postponements upheld, *specific* information must be provided to support a postponement. General statements, while useful in identifying the underlying issues involved, do not provide the Board with the complete knowledge and understanding of the issue that is necessary to make an informed judgment regarding release of the information.The Board is looking forward to receiving the CIA's evidence in support of the postponement of true names. As you know, we have planned for some time to devote the December (12 and 13) meeting to this important issue.Additionally, you will find enclosed with this letter the next in our series of information requests, covering boxes 7-9 of the Oswald collection. We are submitting these requests now in an attempt to give HRG as much advance notice as possible of which records we will be reviewing for the January 4 meeting. Evidence for records to be reviewed January 4 should be provided no later than December 13, 1995.We hope that during HRG's review of the January documents, the standards outlined in this letter will be kept in mind. If at any point an issue is deemed so sensitive that a briefing is required, ARRB staff will meet with you at your convenience.Thank you for your attention to this matter.Sincerely yours,![Signature]David G. MarwellExecutive DirectorEnclosures
[104-10332-10007.pdf — page 7]
SECRET11 December 1995NOTE FOR THE FILESUBJECT: Briefing of JFK Board Staff: Cover1.  On 1 December, Barry Gibson, Deputy Chief of the Office of Central Cover, briefed the Executive Director of the Assassinations Records Review Board and other Board staff members. Also participating from CIA were John Goins and Eleanor Neiman of IMS; Linda Cipriani, OGC; and Barry Harrelson and I from HRG.2.  The focus of the briefing was on the need to protect the names of former Agency employees that appeared in the JFK records. Gibson discussed the risks involved for people who retired under cover if they were identified in the public record as former CIA employees. He discussed the efforts made by his office to obtain written statements from the more than 100 individuals whose names appear.3.  The purpose of the briefing was to assist the Board in its review of names when it meets on 12-13 December The Agency was asked in particular to present, in writing, evidence of risk for each of the names that will be discussed at the Board's meeting.![signature of John F. Pereira]John F. PereiraSECRET
[104-10332-10007.pdf — page 8]
13-00000MEMORANDUMMarch 20, 1996To:Review BoardCc:David MarwellCIA TeamFrom:T. Jeremy GunnSubject:Board Guidelines on Release of CIA Officer Names![CIA HAS NO OBJECTION TO DECLASSIFICATION AND/OR RELEASE OF THIS DOCUMENT]The Staff understands the Review Board to accept the following general guidelines on the release of true names of CIA officers:When the true name of a CIA officer (i.e. past or present employee of CIA) appears in a document, the Board will bring to its review a presumption that the true name will be released. In order to overcome this presumption of release, CIA must provide evidence demonstrating that release of the name would be harmful. In order to meet its burden of proving harm, CIA must tailor the evidence to satisfy one of the three categories identified in Part I (below). However, when the name of an officer is of such importance that the public interest would not be served in postponing a name, the Board may release the true name consistent with the principles identified in Part II (below).Part I. Categories of Officers.1.  Living officers. For living (present or former) officers, CIA must prove that:    (a) the officer is living outside the United States (or reasonably is expected to reside or travel outside the United States in the foreseeable future); (b) the officer is either working or is retired *under cover*; and (c) the officer objects to the release of his or her true name. If CIA satisfies this burden, the Board presumptively (see Part II below) will release a pseudonym and postpone the officer's true name until the year 2010.2.  Where current status of former officer is unknown. Where CIA has been unable to contact the former officer because his or her location is unknown, CIA must present a good faith showing that reasonable attempts have been made to locate the officer. If the Board is convinced that CIA has made a good faith showing that it was unable to locate the former officer, the Board will postpone the true name until June 1, 1997. However, the Board may postpone the true
[104-10332-10007.pdf — page 9]
name beyond June 1, 1997, if CIA provides to the Board, prior to May 1, 1997, additional evidence that satisfies the criteria of either category 1 (above) or category 3 (below).3. Names having effect on current intelligence interests. If CIA believes that the release of a true name may compromise currently existing intelligence operations or might otherwise cause an identifiable harm, it must provide evidence that: (a) the officer currently is engaged in clandestine activities; (b) the release of the true name would compromise ongoing intelligence operations or would compromise operations with current intelligence value; (c) the release of the true name would reasonably be expected to cause significant harm to a living person (including family members), or (d) the release of the true name would cause a significant harm to the national security or the foreign relations of the United States. If CIA satisfies this burden, the Board presumptively (see Part II below) will release a pseudonym and postpone the true name until 2010 or until such other date as CIA reasonably shows to be a date on which the release could be made without causing harm.Part II. Names of Officers Who Are Important to the Assassination Story.The Board presumptively will postpone the release of names consistent with categories 1-3 of Part I. However, for certain persons whose names appear in a context that is important to the assassination story, the Board may nevertheless vote to release the true name. In all such instances, the Board will notify CIA of the importance of such a person and provide CIA with the opportunity to provide additional information in support of postponing the release of the names. These names shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, with due consideration being given to the importance of the person to the assassination story and such evidence of harm as CIA may provide.
[104-10332-10007.pdf — page 10]
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLYFrom the Desk of Linda C. CiprianiNOTE FOR: Barry R. Gibson @ DOElaine S. Mathias @ DOFROM: Linda C. Cipriani OGCDATE: 03/04/96 09:26:53 AMSUBJECT: JFK - Central Cover appealThe General Counsel and I met with the JFK Review Board on Friday and discussed, among other things, how to deal with the potentialpublic release of the identities of former employees retired under cover. The Board clearly wants to do the right thing here, but they feel:they are not getting enough information to make that decision.Jeremy Gunn (JFK Board's General Counsel) will soon provided me with some of the Board's suggestions on how to deal with this which Iwill pass on to you (including how to deal with Whitten). I would at the very least like to be able suggest that we attempt contact again(either through CIA or the Board) with those retirees who have not yet responded to our letter. Of course, any suggestions you have atthis point will be extremely helpful. My sense is that this issue of protecting retirees is something everyone at CIA will want to appealjust on the principal of it, but that we should do everything possible to avoid an appeal. [Until we work out an agreement with the Board,you should continue to prepare that appeal you are drafting]In the meantime, can you please provided me the following figures:1.  The # of people we sent letters to regarding the potential Board releases. (isn't it 150?) and the following breakdown if available:,    *   # living abroad    *   # of those retired under cover vs. those whose cover has been rolled back or lifted    *   # of those who still work for us in covert/overt capacity2.  The # of responses we received to date.3.  The # of responses to date requesting that we don't release.4.  The # of responses to date saying that they didn't care.I realize you are all out of the office these days, but I would appreciate getting this as soon as you can. Thanks.CC: J. Barry HarrelsonEleanor E. Neiman @ DOFrederick Wickham @ DOADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10332-10007.pdf — page 11]
13-00000ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY8 March 1996MEMORANDUM FOR:J. Barry HarellsonJohn PereiraFROM:Linda C. CiprianiDCI/OGC/LDSUBJECT:JFK - March 18 Board MeetingREFERENCE:ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLYFrom the Desk of Linda C. CiprianiNOTE FOR:Paula A. Sweeney @ DCIRobert O. Davis @ DC!Robert D. Caudle @ DCIFROM:Linda C. CiprianiDATE:03/08/96 02:50:39 PMSUBJECT:JFK - March 18 Board MeetingI have been informed that Dave Edgers will be attending the next JFK Board meeting. If this is the case, it would seem that Jeff should go as well.Two issues need to be discussed with the Board: stations and cover employees.1. Jeff and the Board agreed in principal to a "window" in which all stations would be opened (1960-64). Of course, if there are particular stations which need to be exempted from this the Board will consider it upon the presentation of substantive evidence.- HRG and the Board think this is a good idea that would enable them to avoid raising potential appeals every month  -Dave Edger needs to be signed onto this idea.- Jeff, last month, presented additional information on Oslo, Stockholm, and Copenhagen. Jeff and Dave should be prepared to answer questions or provide more information so that the Board will agree to protect these stations.2. The Board recently released the names of 16 cover employees. An appeal is being prepared (or so I am told). The thirty days runs on March 18. We need to finalize with the Board how to handle this issue. At the last meeting the Board agreed that this was a really important decision, but that they were not getting the information they need to make the right decision. At the last meeting, the Board intimated that they might be willing to delay this release, if CIA and the Board could come to a mutually agreeable way to deal with cover employees. I understood from Jeff that this is an issue that CIA will appeal on just the principal. If this is true, the Board should understand what our ultimate position is on this, but that we are willing to cooperate with them to find a suitable alternative (using pseudos or generic descriptions like "case officer")3. I will be out all next week but Barry Harellson/HRG (30292) and John Pereira/CSI) (30373) will be happy to fill you in on the details. Barry will be contacting Bob Caudle next week to find out how the March 18 meeting will be handled.ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10332-10007.pdf — page 12]
13-00000ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY29 July 1996MEMORANDUM FOR: Chief Historical Review GroupFROM:Fredrick C. Wickham, Jr.DO, Focal Point for ARRBSUBJECT: Proposal for Dealing with Employees' Names1.  Cover mechanisms are an integral part of conducting clandestine operations. We are concerned about individuals that continue to be dependent on particular cover legends and on the organizations that cooperatively work with us to provide those cover legends. The following proposal is offered to streamline the process of handling names and minimize the potential damage an inappropriate release could cause.A. Incomplete and Unidentifiable names:a. We will release the occurrence of a name when a common last name appears by itself or in conjunction with a common first name such that it does not tend to specifically identify the individual.b. We will release the occurrence of a name if it remains unidentified after a reasonable search is conducted.B. Identifiable names for employees that retired overtly:In most cases, overt employees' names will be released, but in some cases overt employees may have a portion of their employment remain under cover. Such cases will require the same review as that of an employee who remained under cover into retirement.ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE_ONLY
[104-10332-10007.pdf — page 13]
13-00000ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE -ONLYSUBJECT: Proposal for Dealing with Employees' NamesC. Identifiable names for employees that retired covertly:a. We will make a reasonable attempt to locate a current address and contact the person. If the person objects to the release of his or her name for reasons associated with current life style issues, we will object to the release of the name. If the person does not have objections based upon personal circumstances we will review the name for organizational issues (See para C. c.)b. If reasonable efforts fail to locate the current address, but it can be determined that the individual is still receiving a pension, insurance or other benefit based upon cover legend, we will need to continue to protect the name since source of income or benefits can not be altered without prior notification to the individual. If we fail to identify a pension or other active benefit, we will review the name for organizational issues. (See para C. c.)c. We will make a reasonable attempt to review the name to look for identifiable harm to the person's safety, family, ongoing operational activities, national security or foreign relations. Assuming that none of the previous concerns are identified, we will review the potential damage to the cover mechanism or cover provider by the specific occurrence of the name if released.2. Because families of deceased employees could be the beneficiary of pensions or insurance provided under the employees cover legend, we must review them the same as we would the employee. We also have second and third generation officers following in the footsteps of their parents that could be negatively impacted by the revelation..3. Our efforts to locate current addresses will include all internal record systems maintained by Office of Personnel Security, Retirement Branch and Insurance Branch. We will include a checklist reflecting completion of these searches2ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10332-10007.pdf — page 14]
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLYSUBJECT: Proposal for Dealing with Employees' Nameswithin the documentation when requesting continued protection of the name.4. We considered options of contacting IRS or OPM during our attempts to locate current addressing information, but based upon the_fact that these offices would be unwitting of the cover arrangement for the individual, it was determined to be an unreasonable risk to the cover of these officers.![Signature of Fredrick C. Wickham, Jr.]Fredrick C. Wickham, Jr.ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10332-10007.pdf — page 15]
13-00000ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLYSUBJECT: Proposal for Dealing with Employees' NamesIMS/RPG Fwickham:mjk (29 July 1996)Distribution:Orig & 1 - Addressee1 - C/OCC1 - IMS/ESG/ALB1 - IMS/ESG/IRB1 - IMS/ESG/HCS1 - IMS/ESG-OIT/MSG/RDP1 - ESG Chrono4
[104-10332-10007.pdf — page 16]
CIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONSRELEASE IN FULL200011 February 1997MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORDFROM: Gary M. Breneman, ICSUBJECT: Comparison of ARRB and DO Memoranda re Treatment of CIA Officer Names in JFK Collection1. This memorandum is in response to an assignment to compare a 20 March 1996 ARRB memorandum written by T. Jeremy Gunn and The Directorate of Operations response dated 20 July 1966, authored by Fredrick C. Wickham, Jr. Both deal with the treatment of CIA officer true names which appear in the JFK collection -- when they will be postponed and when they will be released.2. First the ARRB Memorandum Gunn describes in legal terms the Board's position on the postponement or release of CIA officers' true names. He makes a proffer which states that there is a presumption in favor of release akin to a legal evidentuary rule which causes a burden to shift to the other party (CIA) to prove something. In this instance, it is factual evidence/proof sufficient to shift the burden not only back to neutral but to the other side of neutral which permits postponement.3. The Gunn memorandum then sets out the criteria required to meet the burden under several situations.
[104-10332-10007.pdf — page 17]
A. For officers who are still alive he states that the proofs required to postpone release of a name are three in number and all three must be met:i. The officer must be living outside of the U.S.OR,(R)easonably be expected to travel outside of the U.S. in the foreseeable future;AND,ii. The officer is either working... (presumably a current staff officer, contract employee, or independent contractor) ... or is retired under cover;AND,iii. The officer objects to the release of his or her true name.COMMENT: Mr. Gunn's criteria are a little confusing and reach beyond the Board's authority. First, note again that the three elements are joined by an AND meaning all elements must be met to satisfy a postponement. Second, the first requirement of living or traveling outside of the U.S. is not tied to cover. Many officers who do not work under cover all of the time are, in fact, provided cover for overseas TDY's. Thus, any officer who might reasonably' be expected to travel outside of the U.S. would warrant postponement of his true name. This would
[104-10332-10007.pdf — page 18]
seem to include every CIA employee, contract employee and independent contractor past and present.With respect to the third element, Mr. Gunn and the Board are simply in error. To my knowledge they have no authority to require that an individual be consulted concerning his or her wishes to maintain cover, thus having his or her true name postponed, or to give up his cover, thus having the name released. This decision does not lie in the first instance with the individual but is an institutional decision which lies solely within the purview of the Agency and the executive branch of the government. CIA as an executive agency charged with the creation, maintenance, and dissolution of cover mechanisms is the only entity competent to make such a decision. It alone knows if release of an officer's true name will compromise an existing cover mechanism which will, in turn, expose others who share or have shared the same cover. It alone knows if release of an officer's name will expose CIA sponsorship (a cover entity) of a sensitive activity. It alone knows if release of an officer's name will violate a promise of confidentiality to a commercial cover sponsor which could cause both embarrassment and possibly, financial hardship to the sponsor and, in turn, substantially hinder the Agency's ability to secure subsequent commercial cover sponsors.Turning next to the wishes of a particular officer (either current or retired) vis a vis staying with his or her cover, these thoughts come to mind. For current
[104-10332-10007.pdf — page 19]
employees, the decision is again not entirely theirs. If,after careful review, the Agency does not have a strongposition on the employee maintaining the cover, the officershould be permitted to decide. He or she should becounseled however, that an action to remove cover could havean adverse impact on future assignments or TDYs. Withrespect to retirees, if, after careful review, the Agencydoes not object to the removal from cover, the individualshould be permitted to decide. Note, that the responses tothis inquiry will be mixed. As a historical note, theAgency over the years has been on an ever-swinging pendulumwith respect to cover into retirement,✗ ✗ cover forlife, etc. There will be officers who petitioned hardunsuccessfully to have their cover removed when they retiredand will gladly consent to lifting the cover. There will bethose officers who do not want their cover lifted under anycircumstance.By way of summary, it is CIA not the Board and not theindividual officer who makes the initial decision concerningthe maintenance or lifting of cover.B. Former officers, status unknown. While theheading to this section would seem to suggest the CIA doesnot know the cover/non-cover status of some of its formerofficers, the section does not rally deal with this issue.Rather, within the section, Mr. Gunn simply recognizes thefact the CIA may not be able to find all of its formerofficers to ask if they want to be opened up or remain under
[104-10332-10007.pdf — page 20]
cover. The test required by Mr. Gunn to satisfy the Board and thus continue postponement until 1 June of this year is a good faith showing that reasonable attempts were made to locate the officer and failed.The section contains the additional provision which advises the Board may continue a postponement beyond 1 June of this year (i.e., until 2010) if the CIA provides the board with evidence which satisfies the criteria of either category 1 or category 3. Such additional evidence must be provided by 1 May 1977.The requirements or tests of this section for the Agency are not onerous but should be set-out as a series of uniform actions or check-off's taken in the attempt to locate each current status unknown officer. The record of these actions could then be presented to the ARRB in support of a request for continued to postponement. The DO Memorandum mentions of the possibility of asking the IRS or the OPM for assistance in this regard and this should probably be done. I recall however, that the Service will assist, through cleared contacts at the National Office, but only to the extent of determining the whereabouts of the individual and then contacting him and ask that he be in touch with his former employer. I have no current knowledge of cleared contacts at the OPM but they existed in the past and I assume they continue.C. Names having effect on current intelligence interests. The Gunn letter appears to subscribe a higher
[104-10332-10007.pdf — page 21]
level of concern to this section and its criteria than the previous two, not recognizing the plain fact that the criteria of all three sections are inextricable. It sets out four separate criteria which, if CIA satisfies its burden, i.e. provides sufficient evidence to prove any one of them, will operate to postpone a true name until the year 2010. Note again, the criteria required are four separate ones, each separated by a comma and between numbers 3 and 4 and "OR." They are:i. The officer must be currently engaged in clandestine activities; OR,ii. The release of the officer's name would compromise ongoing intelligence operations or operations with current intelligence value (presumably, the latter permits a review into the officer's past activities, agent relationships, and cover positions); OR,iii. The release of the officer's true name would reasonably be expected to cause significant harm to a living person (including family members); (read broadly, this provision would include, the individual, former agents, anyone who shared the same cover or cover position, i.e. a dedicated Department of State slot within an embassy); OR,iv. The release of the officer's name would cause a significant harm to the national security or the foreign relations of the U.S. (a criteria which is broad enough to drive the proverbial Mack truck through)