Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 124]
GATES: No, ma'am, what I would appoint that panel todo is examine all the redactions that we had made, and toexamine all of the documents that we decided could not bedeclassified, and then provide a report to the American peopleon whether or not any of those redactions or those withhelddocuments had a bearing on the assassination.They would not make the decision to declassify.REP. MINK: Now, would the establishment of such apanel of outside experts in effect also under your definitionviolate the Privacy Act?GATES: I don't know the answer to that. I would haveto have--I would have to have our attorneys look at it.REP. MINK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.REP. CONYERS: Thank you very much, Mrs. Mink. You'vetouched on some very important areas.There are just two related considerations that I'dlike to bring to your attention, Director Gates. One is in theFreedom of Information Act, where electronic data is adiscretionary matter with the agency, and we would like you toreview the problem with the release of CIA electronic data ofpreviously released requests. It's a technical point, but Ibring it to your attention for your future consideration.And finally, with regard to the Castro records, andAMLash and Gilverto Lopez (phonetic), it is my hope that youwill elevate those as high up on your agenda for reconsiderationfor release as soon as appropriate. There are a number ofmembers in the Congress that have asked me to bring this matterto your attention as well..GATES: I think we can do that, Mr. Chairman.REP. CONYERS: Thank you very much. And on behalf ofthe committee, we deeply appreciate your appearance before ustoday.GATES: Thank you, sir.END GATES TESTIMONY**********The Reuter Transcript ReportAssassinations/hearing (third and final add)May 15, 1992REUTERLLLEnglish
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 125]
# Assassination Records Review Board600 E Street NW • 2nd Floor • Washington, DC 20530(202) 724-0088 • Fax: (202) 724-0457January 30, 1998CIA HAS NO OBJECTION TODECLASSIFICATION AND/ORRELEASE OF CIA INFORMATIONIN THIS DOCUMENTThe Honorable Dan BurtonChairmanCommittee on Government Reform and Oversight2185 Rayburn House Office BuildingHouse of RepresentativesWashington, DC 20515Dear Mr. Chairman:This letter is the Assassination Records Review Board's sixth monthly progress report, as required by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight report on H.R. 1553 (now P.L. 105-25), that extended the authorization of the Review Board until September 30, 1998.At the January 22 closed meeting, the Board processed for public release approximately 3,600 FBI records, 1,000 CIA records, and 350 records from other agencies. The nearly 5,000 records processed by the Board is its highest total for a single meeting. In addition, the Review Board recently released approximately 600 pages of military records regarding U.S. policy toward Cuba from 1962-63. Additional military records related to U.S. policy toward Cuba in the early 1960's will be ready for public release in the coming months.The 710 records that the CIA made available for Review Board action at the January meeting is the highest monthly number of records released to date. In addition, a total of 289 HSCA documents with CIA equities were opened in full pursuant to discussions with the CIA. Although the Review Board believes that the pace must continue to increase, the momentum is unquestionably in the right direction. The CIA also has advised us that it has added additional reviewers and indexers, which we believe should help it process more records during the upcoming months. We now are conducting weekly meetings with CIA for the purpose of evaluating the pace of the review process. The CIA also has increased its progress in responding to our requests for additional information and records. The requests that we had identified as priorities have now been answered either in whole or in part and the CIA has shown an increasedBOARD MEMBERS: John R. Tunheim, Chair • Henry F. Graff • Kermit L. Hall • William L. Joyce • Anna K. NelsonEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: T. Jeremy Gunn • DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Thomas E. Samoluk
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 126]
The Honorable Dan BurtonJanuary 30, 1998Page 2willingness to respond to follow-up requests more quickly. While there are a significant number of requests outstanding, the increased responsiveness of the CIA bodes well for the completion of these requests in a timely manner.Since our December report, the Board's FBI team has reviewed an additional 20,000 pages of records from the FBI's HSCA files. Included in these files are the names of individuals who have a prominent role in the history surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy. Although this page count is higher than last month, we have advised the FBI that the volume must return to earlier levels to ensure that the review is completed in a timely manner.As I reported in my January 16, 1998 letter to you, all of the agencies and offices to which you addressed letters in December have now contacted us and pledged to complete their work in a timely manner. In particular, recent meetings and communications with the Internal Revenue Service have been fruitful and provide reason to believe that the IRS will fulfill its obligations under the law.I would also like to take this opportunity to provide you with an update on the Board's federal compliance program. The State Department has submitted a draft final compliance statement and we expect that its obligations under the JFK Act will be completed and appropriately documented by early March. The Joints Chiefs of Staff has submitted its final compliance statement, and the Board has agreed that its compliance statement is complete. The Social Security Administration also has submitted its final compliance statement and has now received notification that its obligations under the law are fulfilled. We continue to work with the other federal agencies that have obligations under the JFK Act and the compliance program is proving to be an effective mechanism to document their progress.Again, thank you for your continuing interest in the work of the Review Board and the support that you have provided in working with various federal agencies. Please do not hesitate to have a member of your staff contact me if you have any comments or questions. I can be reached at 724-0088, ext 226.Sincerely,T. Jeremy GunnExecutive Director
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 127]
# T. Jeremy GunnExecutive Director and General CounselAssassination Records Review BoardPrepared Statement forSenate Governmental Affairs CommitteeHearing on S. 712March 25, 1998Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee - I appreciate the opportunity to testify on S. 712 from the perspective of a person who has labored in the declassification trenches for the past three and one-half years. Although I serve as the Executive Director of the Assassination Records Review Board, I wish to emphasize that I am testifying here today not as a spokesman for the Review Board, but as an individual who has been involved in day-to-day interactions with numerous Federal agencies on issues related to declassification. The Review Board members, who were appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, are Judge John R. Tunheim, Professor Henry F. Graff, Dean Kermit L. Hall, Dr. William L. Joyce, and Professor Anna Kasten Nelson. The Board members have provided the American people unparalleled access to information that has been held secret for more than a third of a century. The Review Board's official positions on matters related to declassification will be set forth in its Final Report to Congress and the President later this year.I applaud the efforts of Senator Moynihan, Senator Helms, and this Committee to reduce government secrecy. One of the tragic consequences of government secrecy has been the widely held belief that the government has known much more about the assassination than it has been willing to reveal to the public. Many of the assassination records that we have seen could have been opened to the public years ago without any harm to the national security. The efforts of this Committee could go a long way to help alleviate the suspicion of government - some of it being justifiable suspicion - that has festered since the assassination of President Kennedy.Because my experience comes principally from the field of declassification, I will focus my remarks on that area rather than discuss the very important issue of initial classification.I. BackgroundAlthough the word *unique* is over-used, it can fairly be applied to the work and accomplishments of the Review Board. The Board was created by Congress in an effort to release the government's still-secret files related to the assassination of President Kennedy. In accordance with the declassification standards articulated in Section 6 of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, 44 U.S.C. § 2107, Pub.L. 102-526 (as amended) ("JFK Act"), the Review Board
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 128]
-2-has opened up previously classified records from numerous agencies and departments, including the CIA, NSA, FBI, the Departments of State, Defense, Treasury, and Justice, as well as the Military Services, Secret Service, Senate and House Committees, and the National Security Council.Under the JFK Act, agencies are required either to open assassination records in full, or to present to the Review Board proposed redactions and evidence in support of their proposed redactions. After receiving the agencies' evidence, the Review Board deliberates and makes "formal determinations" as to whether the records should be opened. The Board's determinations have been overwhelmingly in favor of opening records. If an agency disagrees with the formal determination of the Review Board, its sole recourse is to appeal the Board's decisions to the President. Thus far, only one agency, the FBI, has appealed Board decisions. (The appeals ultimately Involved approximately 90 records and four different issues.) After extensive briefings had been submitted to the President -- with each side arguing why the records should or should not be released - the FBI ultimately withdrew its appeals and negotiated with the Review Board for resolution of the issues. Without exception, every formal determination ultimately made by the Review Board has prevailed and records have been released in accordance with Board decisions. It has now been almost two years since an agency has appealed a decision to the President. Thus, the Board's work has been a success. Although I do not consider the JFK Act to be the precise model for future government-wide declassification efforts, it nevertheless has provided valuable lessons that may be of use to you as you consider S. 712.II. The "Four Noble Truths" of DeclassificationIn my opinion, any legislation that would attempt to have a significant impact on the culture of secrecy must do more than articulate worthy goals and establish bureaucratic entities to reiterate those goals. Effective legislation must address the significant institutional impediments to declassification. Any conscientious effort to change the secrecy system should take into account what I will call the "Four Noble Truths" of declassification:first, an independent entity, not the classifying agency, should be the final decision maker on declassification;second, the independent declassification entity should be informed, committed, and skeptical;third, in order for declassification to be successful, there must be internal institutional incentives to declassify information; andfourth, the key to successful declassification is *not* the articulation of the
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 129]
# List of ExhibitsStatement of T. Jeremy GunnExhibit A.Cable to the Mexico City Station from CIA Headquarters, November 27, 1963.This document was released in full after a Board vote in 1995. The second line of typed text includes the crypts (or cryptonyms) "RYBAT" and "GPFLOOR." These crypts appear in the "slug line" and they are routing and sensitivity indicators. "GPFLOOR" is the crypt that refers to Lee Harvey Oswald. This same crypt appears in the first line of the second paragraph of text. CIA originally advised that GPFLOOR could not be released in the slug line although it could be released in the text of the cable.Exhibit B.Letter to the Legal Attaché in Paris from the Director of the FBI, October 12, 1960. Subject: Lee Harvey Oswald - Internal Security.This document was one of several records exempted by the FBI because it contained foreign government information. The stamps on the page suggest that the document was reviewed in 1977 and stamped exempt from declassification. This document was re-reviewed in 1992 and severely redacted. The Review Board, with the assistance of the Department of State, approached the Swiss Government and requested that it consent to the release of the information. In December 1995, the document was released in full after a Board vote and with the concurrence of the Swiss Government.Exhibit C.Memorandum to the Secretary of Defense from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, January 31, 1964. Subject: A Contingency Plan for a Coup in Cuba.The Review Board located several Top Secret documents related to military contingency planning for a coup in Cuba. This exhibit contains one page from a 58-page document formerly classified Top Secret--Sensitive. The document was excluded from automatic declassification and was unavailable to the public in any form. It was systematically reviewed in October 1989 and the classification was continued. This document and many similar documents were opened in full at a declassification session in July 1997 after review by representatives of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, the National Security Council, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.Exhibit D.(a) Vietnam January-August 1963, Foreign Relations of the United States, Vol. 3. pp. 265-270.(b) Memorandum for the Record of the Eighth Secretary of Defense Conference on Vietnam, May 6, 1963, Honolulu, Hawaii.
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 130]
In May 1963, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara met with military advisers in the eighth of a series of conferences on Vietnam in Honolulu, Hawaii. Part (a) of this exhibit includes all of the material that had been publicly released on the conference prior to Review Board action (a 6-page summary published in *Foreign Relations of the United States*) and part (b) includes the title pages of the full 213-page Record [of the] Eighth Secretary of Defense Conference from the Joint Chiefs of Staff Official File that has now been opened in full. Prior to Review Board action, the memorandum had been excluded from automatic regrading and declassification and could presumably have remained classified forever. A stamp on page 1 discloses that the document was systematically reviewed by JCS In May 1989, and the classification of Top Secret was continued. The document was opened in full at an ARRB declassification session in July 1997.Exhibit E.Monthly Operational Report 1-30 September from the Chief of Station, Mexico City to Chief KURIOT, October 18, 1963.The CIA typically is reluctant to release information regarding technical surveillance. This document is a CIA monthly operational report for Mexico City for September 1963, a period that includes Lee Harvey Oswald's arrival in the Mexican capital. The attached form discloses that this document was reviewed in 1993 and postponed in its entirety. It was opened in full in 1995 after a Board vote.Exhibit F.NSA SIGINT product report, November 26, 1963.The Review Board has had some success in releasing NSA records. This document discloses NSA's intercepts of communications related to Cuban military alerts after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. It was originally unavailable to the public in any form and was exempt from automatic declassification. This document was released with sanitizations by Board vote.Exhibit G.Memorandum to McGeorge Bundy from Gordon Chase, June 15, 1964. Subject: Assassination of Castro.This document from the files of the National Security Council was originally classified "Secret" and was exempted from declassification in 1976. The NSC agreed to release it in full after discussions with the Review Board in 1998.
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 132]
covered other topics. Finally, an official said: "I don't see why it can't be released. Thisis an issue for COMMO [COMMO is the Communications Office.] Someone askCOMMO whether it cares." COMMO was subsequently asked -- and it had no objectionto the release. I now infer that protecting crypts in slug lines was an ingrained agencyhabit rather than a considered judgment. The disclosure came only after incessantquestioning by a skeptical interlocutor.*Illustration 2.* During the course of our review of records from the Secret Service,the Board identified for the Secret Service a record it intended to open in full and theagency objected. The Board then advised that a copy of the record had actually beenpublished in full in 1964 as an exhibit to the Warren Commission Report. The agencycontinued to object, arguing that even a subsequent release of an open documentwould again disclose matters that should be kept secret. The Board subsequentlyvoted to open the record.*Illustration 3.* In several FBI documents that were subject to appeal to thePresident, the FBI argued that certain types of its electronic surveillance had notpreviously been disclosed. In our opposing memoranda, we showed that Director J.Edgar Hoover, in open testimony to Congress, had effectively disclosed the existenceof the electronic surveillance. Those records are now open.*Illustration 4.* See Exhibit B. The Review Board was presented with a heavilyredacted but provocative document-pertaining to an FBI "Internal Security" inquiry intoLee Harvey Oswald in October 1960. The FBI declined to release the Information,arguing that it contained the equities of a foreign government and that the governmenthad refused to release the information. The Review Board, with the assistance of theDepartment of State, thereupon approached the Swiss Government and requested thatit consent to the release of information about the assistance that the Swiss FederalPolice provided to the FBI to track down Oswald. The Swiss government agreed andthe record is now open in full.*Illustration 5.* See Exhibit C. The Review Board located several Top Secretdocuments related to military contingency planning for a coup in Cuba. Exhibit Ccontains one page from a 58-page document from this group that had been "excludedfrom automatic downgrading and declassification." The Review Board staff arrangedfor a group of declassifiers from several military and other national-security entities tomeet at the Review Board offices in a joint-declassification session. The 58 pages ofthis document, and many other records from this group, have gone from beingcompletely closed to completely open.*Illustration 6.* See Exhibit D. In May 1963, Secretary of Defense RobertMcNamara met with military advisers in the eighth of a series of conferences onVietnam. Exhibit D includes all of the material that had been publicly released on theconference prior to Review Board action (a 6-page summary published in Foreign
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 133]
-5-Relations of the United States, 1961-63 Vol. 3) and the title page of a 213-page Record [of the] Eighth Secretary of Defense Conference from the Joint Chiefs of Staff Official File that has now been opened in full. Prior to Review Board action, the memorandum had been excluded from automatic downgrading and declassification and could presumably have remained classified forever. A stamp on page 1 discloses that the document was systematically reviewed by JCS in May 1989 and the classification of Top Secret was continued. The document was opened in full at a declassification session in July 1997.Illustration 7. See Exhibit E. Like the FBI, the CIA typically is reluctant to release information regarding technical surveillance. Exhibit E is a monthly operational report from Mexico City from September 1-30, 1963, a period that includes Oswald's arrival in the Mexican capital. In 1993, the document was postponed in its entirety. The Review Board voted to open the record in its entirety.Illustration 8. See Exhibit F. The Review Board has also had some success in releasing NSA records. Exhibit F is dated November 26, 1963, and discloses NSA's intercepts of communications related to Cuban military alerts after the assassination. It was originally unavailable to the public in any form and was exempt from declassification. After Board action, the important information has been released.Illustration 9. See Exhibit G. Exhibit G is a National Security Council document that pertains to an alleged plot to assassinate Castro. Although it was originally classified "Secret" and was deemed to be exempt from declassification, the NSC agreed to release it in full after discussions with the Board.I trust that these examples show that agencies are initially inclined to protect information that can and should be released. But the examples also show that, with a little prodding by an independent entity, agencies can and will participate in a cooperative spirit to declassify secrets. Under the current regime, outside of the JFK Act, agencies have little internal or extemal incentive to take an energetic approach to declassifying records. Agencies do not send the message to agency personnel that a fast track to career advancement lies with the release of more information than is absolutely necessary. Agencies have the natural disinclination to release information that has been painstakingly acquired. Ultimately, secrecy becomes a habit and declassification is mired in lack of attention and inertia. There is, however, an important and encouraging message that comes out of the Board's experience: once agencies come to the understanding that they must declassify records and that there is a presumption that records should be opened, the agencies will cooperate in good faith with the requirements established by Congress.