Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 204]
2language could be used to prohibit release of materials pertainingto Regis Blahut, the CIA employee suspected of tampering withautopsy materials pertaining to the Kennedy assassination.The second exclusion relates to the autopsy materials donatedby the Kennedy family to the National Archives. This assumes thatthe autopsy materials were those of the Kennedy family to give tothe Archives. This legitimizes a bad precedent. The autopsymaterials ought to be subject to public, not private, control. Theremedy for abuse of autopsy materials should be a newly createdright of legal action by family members rather than denial orpublic access.Sec. 5. Assassination Materials Review Board(b) Court of Appeals division shall appoint "5 distinguishedand impartial private citizens, none of whom are presentlyemployees of any branch of the Government and none of whom shallhave had any previous involvement with any investigation or inquiryrelating to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, toserve as members of the Review Board."Query: Is this language designed to exclude privatecitizens who have written or spoken critically of the officialinvestigations of President Kennedy's assassinations? Or onlythose persons who participated in official investigations orinquiries? If it excludes the former, then it will be difficultto find individuals who are sufficiently knowledgeable aboutKennedy assassination matters to make the judgments called for bythe Joint Resolution (i.e., defining what materials are related to
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 205]
3the assassination and whether the public interest in disclosure outweigh other concerns). Additionally, without such persons on the Review Board, it may be difficult to persuade the public that all pertinent materials will be disclosed, thus undercutting the objective of restoring trust in government. A committee of distinguished citizens who know nothing about the subject is not likely to inspire trust.Sec. 6. Grounds for Postponement of DisclosureSubsection 1 states that disclosure may be postponed if its release would (A) reveal "an intelligence asset."This must be qualified. It should only apply to living, covert intelligence agents. Furthermore, if material in the public domain identifies or suggests the identity of an intelligence agent, the presumption should be that such material shall be disclosed unless the agency which employed the agent can show by clear and convincing evidence that serious damage to the agent can reasonably be expected to result from disclosure.Subsection 1 states that disclosure may be postponed if its release would (B) reveal "an intelligence source or method which is currently utilized, or reasonably expected to be utilized, by the United States Government. . . "This provision also must be modified. The first problem is that there is no limiting definition of "intelligence source of method." Under this proviso, it would be possible to withhold such "intelligence sources" as newspapers, libraries, law enforcement
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 206]
agencies, etc., as well as the personnel affiliated with them. Research in a public library is an "intelligence method," and it, too, is no doubt currently utilized. A fortiori would this definition include the surveillance techniques employed at the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico City.The "intelligence source" definition should be limited to living sources in circumstances where disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in actual serious personal damage to the source. Where disclosure of the identity of the source will not cause serious actual damage to the current national defense or foreign policy interests of the United States or where the identity of the source has become publicly known or is likely to have become known to any hostile or formerly hostile foreign power or an agency thereof, it should be released."Intelligence methods" must also be modified so that it applies only to methods that are unknown to the public or to foreign intelligence agencies.Subsection 1 states that disclosure maybe postponed if its release would (C) reveal "any other matter currently relating to the military defense, intelligence operations or conduct of foreign relations of the United States; and the threat to the military defense or conduct of foreign relations of the Unites States posed by its disclosure is of such gravity that it outweigh any public interest in its disclosure.The chief problem with this provision is that there is no standard for what constitutes a" "public interest" of sufficient
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 207]
5moment to outweigh any of the putative threats. Is the generalinterest in the fullest possible disclosure a public interest whichmay be considered, or must a showing of public interest in thesubstantive content of the material at issue be shown?Subsection 2 provides that invasion of the privacy of a livingperson is a grounds for postponement of disclosure "if thatinvasion of privacy is so substantial that it outweigh any publicinterest in its disclosure."This exemption contains a phrase stating that it applies"whether the person is identified in the material or not." Thisphrase should be stricken. With this phrase included thisprovision is significantly less liberal than current FOIA exemption6, which covers only those invasions which result from the actualproduction of the materials themselves. Additionally, some contentneeds to be given to the invasion of privacy concept. Onelimitation would be that it must cause an actual as opposed to atheoretical invasion of privacy. A second that it relates only tointimate personal matters the disclosure of which would be likelyto have profound adverse impact on an individual.Subsection 3 states that disclosure may be postponed if itsrelease would constitute "a substantial and unjustified violationof an understanding of confidentiality between a Government agentand a witness or a foreign government. . ."This provision needs to be amended to include only thosepromises of confidentiality--either to a witness or a foreigngovernment--made in writing. Among the reasons for this are the
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 208]
6fact that (1) if the promise of confidentiality is not required to have been made in writing, then there is seldom any effective means to counter the agency's claim of confidentiality and the agency wins by default; and (2) the agency's claim of confidentiality frequently reflects not the desire of the witness but its own desire for secrecy.This provision needs to be amended to make it clear that it does not authorize withholding of the identify of, or information provided by, a deceased witness. Secondly, there should also be some time limitation on any understanding of confidentiality made with a foreign government. And perhaps there should be a requirement that the foreign government officially object to each such disclosure in writing.Additionally, it should be made clear, either in the text or in the legislative history, that it is not a "substantial and unjustified violation of a promise of confidentiality to disclose information supplied by a witness if the identity of the witness can be concealed..Section 8. Determinations by the Review BoardSubsection (g) provides that any decision of the AMRB that a record is not assassination material or that disclosure should be postponed "shall not be subject to judicial review."Why not? Likely to pose less of a burden and expense than litigation under the FOIA.Subsection (h) (2) provides that the President may certify that material "qualifies for postponement of disclosure pursuant to
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 209]
section 6, in which case release of the material shall be postponed, and this decision shall not be subject to judicial review."There is no limitation on the duration of postponement by the President. Suggest that the maximum period of time be that portion of the President's term which remains.Section 11. Rules of ConstructionSubsection (b) provides that nothing in the Joint Resolution shall be construed to eliminate any right to file requests with any Executive agency other than the Review Board or seek judicial review of the decisions of such agencies under the FOIA.One problem here is that transferring all agency records to the Review Board may mean that they are no longer "agency records" within the meaning of the FOIΑ."A second problem is that this provision eliminates the AMBR from FOIA coverage. This sets a bad precedent and sets up circumstances of highest irony in which an agency whose overriding mission is openness will itself operate in secrecy.A provision should be added here stating that in any FOIA action involving assassination materials the court is to apply the standards for postponement set forth in the Assassination Materials Disclosure Act in lieu of the exemptions provided in the FOIA.Additional NotesIt may be a good idea to expressly mention the Rockefeller Commission as subject to the Act.
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 210]
# Judge John R. TunheimChairmanAssassination Records Review BoardPrepared Testimony In Support ofH.R. 1553,To amend the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992to extend the authorization of the Assassination Records Review Boarduntil September 30, 1998.Before theNational Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice Subcommittee,House Government Reform and Oversight CommitteeJune 4, 1997I. IntroductionMr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Assassination Records Review Board in support of H.R. 1553, which would extend the authorization of the Review Board for one final year. The Board acknowledges that all of the issues surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy will likely never be fully resolved, however, this additional time will allow us to complete our work, including the review and public release of critical FBI and CIA records, submit a comprehensive and complete final report to the Congress and the President, and make available to the American public as much information as possible on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Burton for introducing H.R. 1553, and Congressmen Waxman and Stokes for cosponsoring this bill. These Members have exhibited an admirable bipartisan spirit and an understanding that we as a government, and as a nation, must bring closure to a sad chapter of our history, and that we must seize this opportunity to do it now. In addition, we would like to express our appreciation to Chairman Hastert for chairing this hearing today. It provides an opportunity to explain what the Review Board has accomplished to date and discuss how we could finish our work in Fiscal Year 1998, if given the opportunity.Please allow me to introduce the other members of the Review Board with whom I have had the professional honor and personal pleasure to work: Dr. Henry F. Graff,Professor Emeritus of History, Columbia University; Dr. Kermit L. Hall, Dean, College of Humanities, and Professor of History and Law, The Ohio State University; Dr. William L. Joyce, Associate University Librarian for Rare Books and Special Collections, Princeton University; and Dr. Anna K. Nelson, Distinguished Adjunct Historian in
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 211]
Residence, The American University. We have been honored to engage in this important effort to make the history of the Kennedy assassination available to the American public and I am pleased to be here today to testify before this Subcommittee and answer any of your questions.I would also like to describe briefly the professional staff that we are fortunate to have hired. The Executive Director is Dr. David G. Marwell, a professional historian who gained vast experience dealing with large numbers of important historical documents with the Office of Special Investigations at the Department of Justice and later as the Director of the Berlin Document Center. He leads a staff of 28 full-time employees, who have varied backgrounds as historians, lawyers, analysts, investigators, and administrators. The members of the staff have approached their unique task with seriousness of purpose, creativity, professionalism, and competence, and have assisted us in shedding new light on the assassination through the release of thousands of Federal Government records, and the acquisition of records in private hands and local governments that were not previously available to the American public. I believe that we assembled exactly the type of professional and diversified staff that Congress envisioned would be necessary to accomplish this difficult assignment.II. Accomplishments to DateAs I know you are aware, the Review Board was created by The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (JFK Act) as an independent Federal agency to oversee the identification and release of records related to the assassination of President Kennedy. I know that certain members of this subcommittee played a role in crafting and passing the JFK Act-a unique piece of legislation designed to remove doubt and speculation about the content of government records related to the assassination of President Kennedy. As a result of these lingering suspicions, Congress determined that an independent board was the most effective and efficient vehicle to make all assassination records available to the public.The Review Board has accomplished much since we began releasing previously secret records in June of 1995. The Board has acted to transfer more than 14,000 documents to the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection (JFK Collection) at the National Archives and Records Administration. We would not have been successful in our efforts without the significant assistance of the National Archives. The JFK Collection currently totals approximately 3.7 million pages and is used extensively by researchers from all over the United States.By the end of Fiscal Year 1997, the Review Board will have reviewed and processed nearly all of the assassination records that have been identified by the more than 30 different government offices believed to be in possession of relevant records, with the2
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 212]
important exception of the FBI and the CIA. I will elaborate on the status of records held by these two agencies later. The overwhelming majority of previously redacted information will have been made public by the Review Board.## III. Release of Government Records Related to the AssassinationBefore discussing what we will accomplish with one final year, I would like to highlight for the Members of the Subcommittee some of the important records that the Board has made public. They include:*   Thousands of CIA documents on Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of President Kennedy that made up the CIA's Oswald File and detail the agency's investigative activities following the assassination;*   Thousands of once-secret records from the investigation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, chaired by Congressman Stokes, including the controversial Staff Report on Oswald's trip to Mexico City;*   Thousands of records from the FBI's core and related assassination files that document the FBI's interest in Oswald from 1959-63, after he had defected to the Soviet Union, three years before the assassination; and*   The extensive FBI files on its investigation of the assassination.The important work in which the Review Board has been engaged can be best and most graphically demonstrated by showing you the "before" and "after" versions of one of the pre-assassination FBI documents to which I just referred and that the Board has released to the public. Prior to the Review Board's review, this FBI document (JFK Collection Record Number: 124-10023-10236, Attachment Number 1) was available to the public as you see it on the left. As you can see, it is heavily redacted. The only information that was not secret was the date of the memorandum, "October 12, 1960," that it was to the "Director, FBI," from "Legat, Paris" (the FBI representative in Paris), that the subject was "Lee Harvey Oswald, Internal Security," and that it had to do with a "Paris letter 9/27/60." The rest of the text was blacked out. Obviously, this version of the document left room for a great deal of speculation among historians and researchers regarding what was underneath the black ink on this document with the provocative subject title.The Review Board aggressively pursued the release of the redacted information in this document and several others that relate to the FBI's interest in Oswald before the assassination. After protracted negotiations with the FBI, an initial FBI appeal to the White House in an effort to keep the document secret, and a direct appeal to the Swiss3
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 213]
government, we were able to release the information. The unredacted memorandum shows that the Swiss Federal Police had been enlisted by the FBI to try to locate Oswald and to determine whether or not he had enrolled at a school in Switzerland. Now the public is able to see the document in full and judge its importance. In its redacted state, the document could have meant anything that a researcher's imagination and speculation could invent. In its released form, it must be analyzed for what it says.## IV. Identification and Location of Additional Assassination RecordsOne of the most important, most difficult, and most time-consuming responsibilities of the Review Board is to identify and locate additional records that are relevant to the assassination. This is a task that to some degree must logically come later in the process, after the Review Board has gained a full understanding of the records that have already been identified. Although the Review Board has made a significant number of requests for additional records and information, some of which I would like to outline, much remains to be done before it can be confident that it has completed this responsibility.I would like to highlight some of our efforts to identify and locate additional assassination records. Some examples:*   **Medical Records Inquiry.** The Review Board has several ongoing efforts to identify and locate assassination records involving medical issues. As with any homicide, the medical records are among the most important pieces of evidence. As part of its attempt to ensure that the medical records are as complete as possible, the Review Board staff has deposed the principal pathologists involved in President Kennedy's autopsy, as well as other individuals who had knowledge of the autopsy and related photographic records.*   **Identification and Location of Additional FBI Records and Information.** The Review Board has continued its efforts to locate additional FBI assassination records by making several requests for records and information. The FBI has assisted in this effort by giving the Review Board members access to requested files. The JFK Task Force at the FBI has, on the whole, been extremely cooperative and helpful to the Board and has provided the requested information.*   **Identification and Location of Additional CIA Records and Information.** The Review Board has initiated a number of requests to the CIA for additional information and records. The Review Board expects that these requests will be promptly and fully satisfied during the upcoming year.
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 214]
Identification and Location of Additional Secret Service Records andInformation. Time consuming and careful review of Secret Service activities bythe Review Board produced a series of requests for additional records andinformation that, in turn, led to the identification of additional relevantassassination records. For example, in response to the Review Board's first eightrequests for additional information, the Secret Service has submitted more than1,500 pages of material.Identification and Location of Additional Military Records and Information. TheDepartment of Defense (including its many components and the militaryservices) (collectively "DOD"), identified few assassination records on its owninitiative. DOD has nevertheless been cooperative with the efforts of the ReviewBoard to locate assassination records. When such records have been located,DOD has been willing to release the records with few redactions.Additional work would be required in our last year to ensure that all year to ensure that tassassination records in the military archives have been made a part of the JFKen made a merCollection. Fortunately, the diligent efforts of the ARRB staff have set the stagefor accomplishing this task.V. Release of Private and Local RecordsIn addition to the release of records in the Federal Government's vast files, andconsistent with the Board's mandate to make the historical record of the assassination ascomplete as possible, we have been aggressive in identifying and acquiring significantassassination-related records in the possession of private citizens and localgovernments, including:*   The original personal papers of Warren Commission Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin    that give further insight into the operations of the Commission;*   Copies of the official records of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison's    investigation of the assassination;*   The original papers of New Orleans attorney Edward Wegmann, from his work    as a member of the legal team that successfully defended Clay Shaw in 1969    against a charge of conspiracy to kill President Kennedy.*   Copies of records from the Metropolitan Crime Commission of New Orleans,    including records on District Attorney Garrison's investigation and prosecution    of Clay Shaw and records regarding New Orleans organized crime figures;
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 215]
* Long-lost films taken in Dallas on November 22, 1963, that the public had never seen and that shed new light on the events of that day; and* Private collections of records from individuals including Warren Commission attorney Wesley Liebler, author David Lifton, FBI Special Agent Hosty, Attorney Frank Ragano, as well as others.I am also pleased to announce today that the Review Board has just acquired the original personal papers of Clay Shaw, the late New Orleans businessman who is the only person ever tried in connection with the assassination of President Kennedy. Shaw was acquitted by a jury in 1969 after being charged as part of District Attorney Garrison's investigation. The Shaw papers will surely add another dimension to this particular chapter of the assassination story.All of these records will enrich the historical record of the assassination for future generations of Americans. Once these records are processed and described by the National Archives, they will be available for research.## VI. The Need For Additional TimeDespite our best efforts and significant accomplishments, some of which I have outlined, the Review Board will not be able to complete its work within the original three-year timetable set by Congress for the following reasons:* First, the authors of the original legislation believed that our task would take three years. That estimate was based on the best available information at the time, but the legislation established an unprecedented process. There was no way of knowing the problems of scale and complexity that the Board would encounter, nor was there any way to factor in the comprehensive approach we have taken in fulfilling our mandate.* Second, the Board was not appointed until 18 months after the legislation was signed into law. As a result, without the guidance of the Board, Federal agencies initially defined for themselves the universe of records that should be processed under The Act and to speculate about the kind of evidence that would be needed to sustain the redaction of assassination-related information. Once the Board was in place, agencies needed to redo a considerable amount of work. In fact, many agencies have yet to complete their review and the Board is still seeking their compliance.* Third, our enabling legislation imposed several restrictions on the manner in which the Board could operate. Unlike other temporary agencies, the Board6