Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 54]
13-00000If legislation is not passed by Congress and signed by the President regarding the JFK papers, to enhance public confidence and to provide reassurance that CIA has not held back any information relevant to the assassination, the Director has stated that he would appoint a panel of distinguished Americans from outside of government, perhaps including distinguished former jurists, to examine whatever documents we have redacted or kept classified. They would then issue an unclassified public report on their findings.The effort required to declassify the documents related to the assassination of President Kennedy will be daunting. However, it is an important program, and both the Director and I are personally committed to making it work. Even in this time of diminishing resources within the Intelligence Community, the Director has allocated 15 full-time positions to expand the History Staff and to form the Historical Review Group that will review the JFK documents and other documents of historical interest.I believe these actions attest to the seriousness of our intent -to get these papers declassified and released, and to open what remains classified to outside, non-governmental review. It is against this background that, in response to the committee's request, I cite our few technical reservations about the mechanism established by the joint resolution to achieve this same result. I intend to address only Intelligence Community concerns; I will9
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 55]
defer to the Department of Justice on any additional problemsposed by the joint resolution.First, vesting in an outside body the determination as towhether CIA materials related to the assassination can be releasedto the public is inconsistent with the Director's statutoryresponsibility to protect intelligence sources and methods.Second, we are concerned that the joint resolution containsno provision requiring security clearances or secure documenthandling by the Assassination Materials Review Board or its staff.Third, we are concerned that the joint resolution does notprovide the Agency with the opportunity to object to the releaseof CIA information contained in documents originated byCongress or the Warren Commission. Under the joint resolution,documents originated by these entities can be released directly bythe Executive Director of the Assassination Materials ReviewBoard without any review by the President or other ExecutiveBranch agencies.Fourth, the joint resolution provision for a 30-day period foragencies or departments to appeal decisions by the ExecutiveDirector to release information may not provide sufficient time formeaningful review of what could prove to be a large volume ofmaterial at one time.10
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 56]
Fifth and finally, section 6 of the joint resolution, which outlines the grounds for postponement of public release of a document, makes no provision for postponing release of documents that may contain Executive privilege or deliberative process, attorney-client, or attorney work-product information. While such privileges could be waived in the public interest and, in fact, are not likely to arise with respect to factual information directly related to the JFK assassination, they would be unavailable under the joint resolution in the rare case that they might be needed.These are technical problems that we believe can be solved in ways that will, in fact, expedite the release of documents bearing on the assassination of President Kennedy.But, again, whatever the future course of this legislation, CIA is proceeding even now to review for declassification the relevant documents under its control. Further, we will cooperate fully with any mechanism established by the Congress and the President to declassify all of this material.
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 57]
# SECRETCentral Intelligence AgencyWashington, D. C. 20505OCA 2157-9222 May 1992The Honorable John GlennChairmanCommittee on Governmental AffairsUnited States SenateWashington, D.C. 20510Dear Mr. Chairman:I am writing to correct for the record two statements I made when I testified before the Committee last Tuesday on the Assassination Materials Disclosure Act.I testified that there were 33 documents, amounting to approximately 110 pages, in the Oswald file that was declassified and released to the public. A subsequent count by my staff revealed that the file actually contains a total of 34 documents, amounting to 124 pages. I gave the correct numbers when I testified last Friday before the Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security of the House Committee on Government Operations.In addition, I was asked at your hearing by Senator Cohen whether the State Department or the CIA had had any contact with any Soviet officials concerning KGB or GRU files relevant to the Kennedy assassination. I answered that there had been no contact between the CIA and the Russian KGB on this matter, and I added that the State Department might have requested those files, but I was not certain. At the time, I believed that that was an accurate answer. I have since discovered, however, that in January 1992 an Agency official did ask the new Russian internal service (MBRF) for any information related to the Kennedy assassination. The Russians advised us, after reviewing their file holdings on Oswald, that they had nothing that would add to our knowledge or to the 22 November 1991 ABC television special on this issue, which they termed "detailed and objective."CL BY (2196777)DECL OADRDRV FM LIA 3-87
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 58]
13-00000SECRETThe Honorable John GlennTo avoid disrupting our continuing efforts to gain access to the Russian files on Oswald, the fact that the Agency has had direct contacts with the Russian service on this topic must remain classified. For the purpose of correcting the public record, I suggest the following unclassified statement:> In response to a request from the US embassy in Moscow, the Russians have reviewed their file holdings on Oswald. They have advised us that they had nothing that would add to our knowledge or to the 22 November 1991 ABC television special on this issue, which they termed "detailed and objective."I enjoyed the opportunity to testify before the Committee, and I hope that these corrections prove helpful. A similar letter is being sent to Ranking Minority Member Roth.Sincerely,![signature of Robert M. Gates]Robert M. GatesDirector of Central Intelligencecc: Senator CohenSenator BorenSenator Murkowski
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 59]
# SECRETCentral Intelligence AgencyWashington, D. C. 20505OCA 2157-92/122 May 1992The Honorable William V. Roth, Jr.Ranking Minority MemberCommittee on Governmental AffairsUnited States SenateWashington, D.C. 20510Dear Mr. Roth:I am writing to correct for the record two statements I made when I testified before the Committee last Tuesday on the Assassination Materials Disclosure Act.I testified that there were 33 documents, amounting to approximately 110 pages, in the Oswald file that was declassified and released to the public. A subsequent count by my staff revealed that the file actually contains a total of 34 documents, amounting to 124 pages. I gave the correct numbers when I testified last Friday before the Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security of the House Committee on Government Operations.In addition, I was asked at your hearing by Senator Cohen whether the State Department or the CIA had had any contact with any Soviet officials concerning KGB or GRU files relevant to the Kennedy assassination. I answered that there had been no contact between the CIA and the Russian KGB on this matter, and I added that the State Department might have requested those files, but I was not certain. At the time, I believed that that was an accurate answer. I have since discovered, however, that in January 1992 an Agency official did ask the new Russian internal service (MBRF) for any information related to the Kennedy assassination. The Russians advised us, after reviewing their file holdings on Oswald, that they had nothing that would add to our knowledge or to the 22 November 1991 ABC television special on this issue, which they termed "detailed and objective."CL BY (2196777)DECL OADRDRV FM LIA 3-87
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 60]
13-00000SECRETThe Honorable William V. Roth, Jr.To avoid disrupting our continuing efforts to gain access to the Russian files on Oswald, the fact that the Agency has had direct contacts with the Russian service on this topic must remain classified. For the purpose of correcting the public record, I suggest the following unclassified statement:In response to a request from the US. embassy in Moscow, the Russians have reviewed their file holdings on Oswald. They have advised us that they had nothing that would add to our knowledge or to the 22 November 1991 ABC television special on this issue, which they termed "detailed and objective."I enjoyed the opportunity to testify before the Committee, and I hope that these corrections prove helpful. A similar letter is being sent to Chairman Glenn.Sincerely,![Signature of Robert M. Gates]Robert M. GatesDirector of Central Intelligencecc: Senator CohenSenator BorenSenator Murkowski
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 61]
SECRETThe Honorable John GlennThe Honorable William V. Roth, Jr.SUBJECT: Corrections on DCI Testimony before the Committeeon Governmental AffairsOCA/LEG/SMDunne:me/37916 (21 May 1992) OCA 2157-92Distribution:Original - Addressees* 1 - DCI* 1 - PDCI* 1 - ExDir* 1 - DDO* 1 - D/OCA* 1 - D/CSI* 1 - C/DCI History Staff* 1 - ER* 1 - OCA Records* 1 - Leg Subj File* 1 - SMD Signer File* 1 - SMD Soft File
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 62]
# Senator John GlennIMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Jack Sparks (202) 224-5635May 12, 1992 Leonard Weiss (202) 224-4751Statement of Senator John GlennChairman, Senate Governmental Affairs CommitteeHearing onS. J. Res. 282, "The Assassination Materials Disclosure Act"May 12, 1992The bill before us today, S.J. Res. 282, is the "Assassination Materials Disclosure Act of 1992." The legislation was introduced by Senator David Boren and Senator Arlen Specter. An identical bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by our colleague, Representative Louis Stokes.The legislation would require the government to release records to the American public which are "relevant to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy." The bill would establish an independent review board within 90 days of enactment, and this board would work as quickly as possible to release the records to the public through the National Archives and the Government Printing Office.The bill creates a strong presumption on releasing documents. The onus will be on those who would withhold documents to prove to the Review Board and the American people why those documents must be shielded from public scrutiny.It is also important to stress that the legislation does not authorize any official investigation of the assassination. Its only purpose is to create a process by which the American public may be given the most complete access to review relevant records, and make their own observations and assessments. The Committee's work and the hearing today is likewise limited to this purpose.This bill is the result of a climate of suspicion and distrust that has grown over the years regarding the official explanation of the assassination of President Kennedy. It is a climate nurtured by many books, articles, television programs, and the recent movie "JFK." Disclosure of information is the only reliable way to maintain the public trust, and dispel distrust. Those of us who knew President Kennedy personally and remember where we were when we learned of President Kennedy's assassination must exercise our responsibility to the next generation of Americans, whose historical knowledge of the
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 63]
assassination of President Kennedy will be significantlyimproved by the release of these records.Ironically, it was President John F. Kennedy who firstrequired scheduled declassification in the release of ExecutiveBranch national security information. Declassification schedulesremained in effect until President Reagan eliminated therequirement in 1981, and President Bush persists in this samepractice. It is likely that more government documents related tothe Kennedy assassination could have been released over the past12 years if declassification was still a priority. It is alsofair to say that the 1986 amendments to the Freedom ofInformation Act, including broad law enforcement exemptions,have narrowed the release of Kennedy assassination records bythe FBI.The public interest in the history of the assassinationof President Kennedy has been insatiable. In one notedbibliography, a total of 5,134 books, articles, reports, films,or television programs were produced on the subject between theyears 1963 and 1979. The Library of Congress has over 250holdings on the subject. The FBI continues to receive reports,allegations, and requests for further investigation. Indeed, asDirector Sessions may testify today, the FBI has recentlylocated and interviewed two of the three "hobos" who wereidentified as witnesses of the shooting, as well as seven Dallaspolice officers who were not previously interviewed bygovernment investigators.The speculation about the assassination of PresidentKennedy may be more cruel than the truth itself. It is arguablewhether the disclosure of new information will dampen thespeculation, but I hope that the breadth of information madeavailable will answer many questions and provide many historylessons.I view the Committee's mandate as determining whether theprocess for review and release of the records is fair andappropriate; and that exemptions, when needed, must be kept to aminimum. The Department of Justice has told the Committee thatit will recommend a presidential veto of the bill as written. Ihope we can find a way to construct a process for release ofassassination related records that will be efficient andeffective, will gain the confidence of the public, and willaddress concerns of the Justice Department that are legitimate.The authors of the bill are to be congratulated forworking quickly to propose an independent and accountablemechanism to release records related to the assassination.However, we must carefully consider the parameters of the bill.I believe that the major issues include:- 2 -
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 64]
First, how will agencies and others who hold records define the universe of "relevant" Kennedy assassination materials? It is important to be able to go beyond the frame of reference of previous inquiries of commissions and committees, but the question must be asked: Where will the search for documents end?Second, the definition and search for "relevant assassination material" also raises important questions of human resources and costs to organize and make material available to the Review Board. How much will this cost?Third, what is the best mechanism to govern the review and release of records in an independent, accountable, and credible manner. The tension between management and public confidence in the process cannot be overlooked. However, it may be important to simplify the process. The bill proposes a five-member Review Board, with an Executive Director and staff. Are we creating a Rube Goldberg machine, or are these layers necessary?Fourth, we must ask why the bill, which acts in the name of openness in government, also exempts the Review Board from the Government in the Sunshine Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and judicial review?Fifth, is the issue of standards for postponement of disclosure. I strongly believe that the government should practice disclosure of information as the rule, unless there are demonstrable reasons for protecting the information. It is important to emphasize that while hundreds of thousands of pages of material will be released, the bill contains national security and privacy exemptions, and withholds personnel and administrative records relating to past official inquiries.I personally believe that the agencies and the Congress, which hold Kennedy assassination records should not wait for the passage of legislation, and the resolution of all issues in the bill, before releasing documents. It is my intention to move legislation through the Committee as quickly as possible, but regardless it will take time for whatever authority is created in statute to become assembled, establish procedures, and begin its work. We will hear today how ready key agencies and congressional officials are to release their records. If even some of the material can go out the door without further adjustments, then let's give the public access now. The review board or whatever authority is created will certainly have the opportunity to face the more difficult issues shortly thereafter.Today we are fortunate to have several experts and authorities to discuss these issues. These include the authors of the legislation, as well as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Director of the Federal Bureau of- 3 -
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 65]
Investigation. We are grateful to have our other witnesses as well. Among them is attorney James Lesar, President of the Assassination Archives and Research Center. Mr. Lesar's work represents the track record on public access to Kennedy assassination material under the Freedom of Information Act. He will speak to the nature and limitations of current access arrangements. We also have two prominent twentieth century historians, Professor Ernest May of Harvard University and Professor Athan Theoharis from Marquette University. Each possess extensive experience regarding the federal records of the intelligence and federal law enforcement communities. We welcome all of you to the Committee.- 4 -
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 66]
# CIHRGIS you have any oral comments, DRAFTVicki Pepper in the are to call. Dave 6/5/92SUGGESTED AREAS TO BE ADDRESSED IN REPORT LANGUAGE(IF NOT ADDRESSED IN THE TEXT OF THE RESOLUTION)1. Initial Review of assassination materials. It   should be made clear that section 5 of H.J.Res. 454, which   requires that records not provided to the Archivist for   public disclosure be made available to the Review Board   within 60 days of enactment, is not intended to preclude   agencies from conducting their own reviews and making as   much information available as possible before the Review   Board conducts its review of assassination materials.   Suggested clarifying report language:The Committee notes that some agencies, such as theCentral Intelligence Agency, have already begun toreview and release assassination materials. Section5(a)(2), which requires that all records of an officialinvestigation for which an agency is custodian be madeavailable to the Review Board within 60 days ofenactment of the Joint Resolution, is not intended topreclude agencies from continuing any reviews that theyhave ongoing and transferring documents to the Archivesfor public release wherever possible. In, fact theCommittee encourages such reviews to continue inasmuchas they can provide for more expeditious release ofassassination materials to the public.2. "Third agency rule" adhered to in review of   documents. The legislation on its face does not necessarily   provide that the agency or department that originated the   information will have any input into a decision to disclose   the record, or will even be apprised of such a decision   after the fact. Suggested clarifying report language:The Committee understands that existing regulationswithin the Executive Branch require that classifiedinformation originated in one agency may not bedisseminated outside another agency to which it hasbeen made available without the consent of theoriginating agency. The Committee expects thatagencies that are custodians of records will followthis practice before providing information to theArchivist under section 5(a)(1) for public releasepursuant to section 4.Section 5(a)(2) requires agencies that are custodiansof records of official nvestigations to make suchrecords available to the Review Board. The Board willthen make a determination of whether the materialqualifies for postponement under the criteria set forth
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 67]
in Section 7 and shall inform the custodian of recordsand the originating body of the record of itsdetermination. The Committee expects that the ReviewBoard also will consult with the agency or departmentthat originated the information in reaching itsdetermination as to whether public disclosure of thematerial must be postponed to ensure that it isapprised of relevant sensitivities presented by thatinformation. For example, the Review Board shouldconsult with the relevant Executive Branch agency thatprovided information incorporated into a Congressionaldocument before making a decision to release thatdocument and shall inform the originating agency of adecision to release that information.3. Identities of covert employees qualify for   postponement. *Intelligence agent is something of a term   of art that, left undefined, might not be construed to   protect information that would reveal the identity of covert   employees of intelligence organizations. Suggested   clarifying report language:The term "intelligence agent" as used in section7(a)(1)(A) is intended to permit postponement ofrelease of information that would reveal the identityof a domestic or foreign intelligence orcounterintelligence asset, collaborator, foreignliaison contact, or covert employee of a United Statesintelligence organization, where the identity of any ofthese currently requires protection.4. Board access to "any record" of an Executive   agency. In addition to adding language to section 10(1)(1)   to clarify that requests for additional records must be made   by the Review Board itself, report language should make   clear that the Committee does not intend the Board's   discretion in this regard to be unbounded. Suggested report   language:Section 10(1)(1) provides that the Review Board mayrequest "any record" from an Executive agency. TheCommittee intends to give the Review Board widelatitude to determine what additional records may beheld by agencies that are relevant to the assassinationof President Kennedy. Rather than the Committeeattempting to define what records should be requested,the Committee believes that this judgment is best leftto the Board, which will develop expertise inassassination-related issues and documents as its work
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 68]
DRAETproceeds. However, the Committee does not intend tovest unfettered discretion in the Review Board torequest any and all records of agencies without regardto their relationship to the assassination. TheCommittee expects that the Board will request onlydocuments that may bear some reasonable relationship tothe assassination, and that the Board will be guided bythe principle that unreasonable risk of exposure ofsensitive intelligence or law enforcement sources ormethods is to be avoided.