Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 114]
has, as a result of this movie, become apparently an expert on this subject?GATES: Mr. Chairman, I would characterize him as a self-styled expert on this subject. I am no expert at all. I think I have moved very far in the direction of releasing these documents, as you indicated at the outset of the hearing. I think that the agency-has-in many ways set a standard in terms of its willingness to release these documents, and our determination to do so whether or not there is legislation.Frankly, I find that the allegations contained in the--that I have been told about in the movie; I have not seen it--are offensive to the agency, and to the American government, and to a number of people who were in office at that time from the President of the United States on down, President Johnson on down.It is not entirely clear to me what particular purpose would be served by a meeting between myself and Mr. Stone.REP. CONYERS: Can you tell me about the sympathy and understanding that you may have for the American people's confusion and differences of view about whether Lee Harvey Oswald was alone the sole assassin of the president?GATES: Well, my view, and it's a very personal view, Mr. Chairman, is that--and I have never made a study of the assassination; I have not read the many books that have been written about it--but my personal view is that the enormity of the event and the sense of tragedy that the American people felt, and still feel, over that event, is so great that the idea of a single individual, a single irrational individual, committing an act of such enormous historical consequence is enormously--difficult to--for them to accept at face value.And in many respects, it is similar to the continuing controversy over the assassination of President Lincoln, as more than 100 years later we still read books about conspiracies and so on in that respect.And by the same token, and with all due respect to his memory, there doesn't seem to any similar kind of controversy about the assassination of President McKinley.And so I think it is the inability of a lot of people to accept such an irrational act with such enormous consequences that has contributed to this. And I think that the--one of the concerns that grows out of this film is not that people accept it at face value but rather than particularly young people who may not read much history and may not read the reviews and may not read what historians have to say that is critical about the movie, but come out of it with the sense that there is some fire in all that smoke; that he may not have it right, but there must have been some sort of conspiracy.And I've had, as I indicated to you the other day, I had a conversation about this with a distinguished United States Senator who had sent some of his smartest young staff out to see the money, and they came back and the reaction was not that they accepted what the movie said, but their concern that their government had in some way been involved. And frankly it was that more than anything else that prompted me to decide that it was imperative to get these documents out and try to dispel the6
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 115]
13-00000suspicions that had been created.REP. CONYERS: Thank you very much. Mr. Schiff.REP. STEVEN SCHIFF (R-NM): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Director Gates; I want to thank you for appearing personally here. I know that you have a heavy schedule, and I'm sure all the members of the committee do appreciate that.I have just a few questions, but I do have a couple of observations on your statement. The first is, I do not know personally whether Mr. Oliver Stone who testified before us at the last hearing is a real expert on the assassination of President Kennedy, or as you suggested a self-styled expert.I do know this, though. I do know that it's because of his movie that members of the Congress of the United States are discussing this matter publicly with the director of the CIA. And I'm quite-positive that his movie has caused all of that to happen today, and I personally give him the credit for that.Second of all, I note your observation that there is not a lingering conspiracy theory involving the assassination of President McKinley. To your knowledge, anywhere in the government, your agency or elsewhere, are there any documents or information which for any reason are not being released with respect to the assassination of President McKinley?GATES: Well, I can't speak to that from direct knowledge, Mr. Schiff. But I will say that since it predated CIA's formation by 47 years, I imagine not.REP. SCHIFF: Well, you see, I think that's_the central point here, is that there is--I'm not sure we'll ever resolve all the questions about the assassination of President Kennedy. You are correct that we have not resolved all the questions about the assassination of President Lincoln. On national TV I saw a program recently suggesting that John Wilkes Booth did not actually die as suggested, and gave reasons for that.But the difference between the assassination of President Kennedy and these prior terrible assassinations in our country's history is, this is the one situation where the government, for whatever reason, and for whatever circumstances, still holds information which it considers to be confidential. And that's the root of this controversy now, and that's the root of this hearing, I think.And I made a note of items that you as director of the CIA would consider to be still--to still warrant confidentiality today. And I made notes of three. If there were more, I apologize that I missed them. I'm not talking about the procedures, which you made observations about, and which I think you'll find the committee willing to discuss with the executive branch.But three classifications of records. The first is personnel records involving, I gather, government agents, perhaps CIA agents, fitness reports and credit reports, first of all.Second of all, the privacy issue because government7-
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 116]
files often accrue totally unsubstantiated information which can be fairly characterized as gossip, but which do get into the files when a total investigation is done; and third, where we've made a specific promise of confidentiality to a particular informant.Before I ask you about 'those three, can I just ask, are there any other areas of documents that you as director of the CIA believe should not be released in terms of a generic category like these?GATES: No, I would only include in the protection of sources also the protection of intelligence methods. But I think you've captured it.REP. SCHIFF: Let me just go back on each of these briefly.On protection of personnel records, why would those have gotten--I understand what you're talking about. I think we all do matters where there is internal monitoring of your own agents, which I understand is a necessity at times, why would those records have gotten into the assassination records on President Kennedy? Why are they mixed in there, do you know?GATES: I don't really know, Mr. Schiff. I think, as I understand it, from the materials that were prepared for me, a great deal of documents were swept up in the material that is kept, and as my statement indicates, I don't think I read this part of it: These files contain everything from the most mundane newspaper articles, which are obviously not classified, or shouldn't be, to the most sensitive intelligence sources.And so I think it's just a hodgepodge. As I also indicated, part of the problem that we have in going through these documents-is that they are not indexed; they are not catalogued; and they really have no organization to them.So when I started asking some months ago what was in the documents, what did we have, it actually took quite some time even to perform a survey to get some kind of idea of what kinds of records were in there.But I assume that these kinds of things were just swept up with a lot of other material.*****The Reuter Transcript Report ""Assassinations/hearing (first add)May 15, 1992MORELLLEnglish
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 117]
rtt-rw TEXT-ASSASSINATIONS-2a083113:52 05-15BC-TEXT-ASSASSINATIONS-2NDADDTHE REUTER TRANSCRIPT REPORTHOUSE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS LEGISLATION AND NATIONALSECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGTopic: H.J. Res. 454, Assassination Materials Disclosure Actof 1992Witness: CIA Director Robert GatesMay 15, 1992(Second Add)*****x x x other material.REP. SCHIFF: Well, let me go on to one of the other categories, and that is, where the government has given a promise of confidentiality, the government ought to keep that. Can't the information be released without revealing the informant? Because I think it's the information that is desired here, not necessarily the-identity of who provided it.GATES: My own view, Mr. Schiff, is that that should be the case in almost every instance.REP. SCHIFF: Finally with respect to intelligence methods, I understand that there's a national security point there. But we are also talking about 30 years ago, approximately.Are our intelligence-gathering methods so unchanged in 30 years that you believe that revealing how agencies gather and collect and evaluation information would present a national security risk today if revealed?GATES: Well, first of all, if an intelligence method is no longer in use, then I think it no longer--and there's little prospect of it ever being used again, I see no reason to protect it.I think here again, though, that the focus should be on the information provided by these sources and methods, rather than the identification of the sources and methods themselves. The only reason I would seek to protect them is in those instances in which those techniques are still being used, or we think there is a good chance they will be used again.With respect to sources, I think that we have a much longer standing commitment to protect them. But again, I'm prepared, either under the legislation, through the board that would be established, or in the absence of legislation, through an outside panel, to let people who are not in the intelligence business review any of that material that we had held back to see that we had justifiable reasons for doing so.REP. SCHIFF: So your overall position, Director9
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 118]
Gates, is that everything that can be released should be released?GATES: Absolutely, Mr. Schiff.REP. SCHIFF: Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.REP. CONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Schiff. The chair recognizes Mr. Thornton.REP. RAY THORNTON (D-AR): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Director Gates, for a very forthcoming and positive testimony before this committee. I think that it is important to emphasize that we share an interest in disclosing all of the information related to the substance of this without jeopardizing the capacity of your agency to conduct its business.And in fact, Section 6 of the proposed resolution says that disclosure to the general public of assassination material or particular information in assassination material may be postponed if its release would--and there's a whole list--but among that list is, if an intelligence source or method which is currently utilized or reasonably expected to be utilized by the United States government is involved.And Director Gates, I believe that you're telling us, and I want to ask you directly, that if the standards that are contained in this resolution were adopted, and the CIA's records as you have suggested they should be, were released, with those safeguards, do you believe that any sensitive sources or methods would be revealed or compromise by the information which is released?GATES: I think that the provisions that provide for the protection of sources and methods and that allow us ultimately the president to have the final say would provide adequate safeguards.REP. THORNTON: The protections in the bill for intelligence-related information then are sufficient?GATES: Yes, sir. I've indicated in my testimony we would ask the Congress to consider I think two additional categories of information. I mentioned executive privilege, or deliberative process. Attorney-client kinds of information. Again, we think that there would be very little information that would be withheld under those circumstances, but without mentioning it, that recourse would be denied.The second is, I think it would be useful to pick upon the same protection that the Congress has granted in separate legislation in terms of not revealing the names of covert employees of U.S. intelligence agencies.REP. THORNTON: I appreciate those suggestions. But in summary the release of the CIA records in accordance with the general outline contained in this resolution would not damage any current CIA operations; is that correct?
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 119]
GATES: No, sir, not in keeping with those safeguards.REP. THORNTON: I know, Director Gates, that you've recently released, as you told us, some materials regarding Oswald. Can you make a commitment here to promptly release all of the files about the CIA's operations against Fidel Castro in the late '50s and early 60s?GATES: We certainly--the files concerning Operation Mongoose, AMLash (phonetic), and so on, are included in the documents that will be reviewed in the---REP. THORNTON: That was my specific followup question as to whether those files would be included in the material.GATES: Yes, sir.REP. THORNTON: I want to thank you again for your - testimony. Like you I have not seen the movie, and that is not the basis of my concern. The basis of my concern is to make sure that all of the information that is in government possession relating to this assassination be released. Because in addition to the movie, I believe there are some inferences drawn by the House committee on investigations, and by the Garrison jury, that while no showing of a government conspiracy, that there were allusions to the possibility of an external conspiracy, and whatever may have existed needs to be dispelled by having the light of full disclosure shown upon the events of that time.Would you agree with that, sir?GATES: I agree with that totally, Mr. Thornton.REP. THORNTON: Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.REP. CONYERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Thornton. The chair recognizes Ms. Mink.REP. PATSY T. MINK (D-HI): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I too want to commend the forthright position that you've taken as the head of the CIA in initiating steps to release important documents that will contribute to the better understanding of the public at large as to what exactly happened.I also agree with my colleagues that while the conclusions and inferences that were part of Oliver Stone's movie are under question, and perhaps totally negated by your agency, they are nevertheless, the basis for the renewed attention and concern as to exactly what happened on that day. And therefore, it seems to me appropriate that the chair of this committee asked you to direct your attention to the content of that movie, because what we need now is an informed basis upon which to look at it.I happen to have seen it, unlike some of my colleagues. And there are a number of very troublesome questions that the movie raises, and I am in no position to
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 120]
evaluate it, as most of the people in the country. And therefore, the disclosure of these documents are extremely important.Looking at your testimony, Mr. Gates, I notice that you indicate that some of the documents which are relevant to this inquiry cannot be released by the CIA because they are in fact documents which belong to other agencies.--Would-you-comment on that and clarify that particular statement in your testimony?GATES: Yes, ma'am. In the course of the post assassination investigations, a great deal of information was shared among the agencies. For example, in the 17 boxes of Oswald records that we have, approximately 40 percent of those documents originated with the FBI, and were simply made available for information to CIA.About 20 percent originated with the State Department or other agencies, immigration and naturalization and so on. Under the third-agency rule, it is our obligation to leave it to those agencies to declassify their own documents. We cannot do that, and by the same token, they exercise the same practice with us.REP. MINK: Now, would the legislation that we are considering now make it possible for your agency, as the custodian of records that you have been given by other agencies, be included in your own disclosure? Can we make that possible?GATES: I don't think the legislation would do that, Mrs. Mink. I think that it would simply require those other agencies to undertake the same steps that we are in terms of reviewing for declassification the documents that they originated.We don't hold the record copies of those documents. We simply have copies of them.REP. MINK: Now, in the materials that you have volunteered for disclosure, with reference to Oswald, how much of the materials in your possession, therefore, had to be excluded because they were documents that your agency had been provided by other governmental agencies?GATES: Let me answer, and then check with my colleagues to make sure I got it right, in this very thin file, of the 34 documents, I think only 11 were originated by CIA. My impression is that the others had all--belong to other agencies had all already been declassified. That's correct.REP. MINK: So that we have the total file with reference to Oswald now in the public domain?GATES: The total file that CIA had in its possession.REP. MINK: But you just said that all the other agencies have also already declassified, meaning that they are part of the public domain, and cannot be obtained, if not necessarily voluntarily released by those agencies, are now available public documents?
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 121]
GATES: I don't know whether that's the case or not. Only the documents that we had from them have been released as part of the file we released. They may have other documents pre-November 22nd, 1963 that we didn't have.REP. MINK: In other words, in reference to Oswald everything that you had in your possession, regardless of whether it belonged to other agencies, because you found them to be declassified, have all been released?GATES: That's my understanding, yes, ma'am.REP. MINK: Now, there is a Washington Post article of May 14th which suggests that the materials that have been disclosed with reference to Lee Harvey Oswald contain nothing new. Is that your understanding also of the documents that you released to the archives?GATES: As I indicated earlier, I am certainly no student of this material. I do not know the answer to that question.**********The Reuter Transcript ReportAssassinations/hearing (second add)May 15, 1992MORELLLEnglish
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 122]
13-00000rtt-rw TEXT-ASSASSINATIONS-3a083513:54 05-15BC-TEXT-ASSASSINATIONS-3RDADDTHE REUTER TRANSCRIPT REPORT# HOUSE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS LEGISLATION AND NATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGTopic: H.J. Res. 454, Assassination Materials Disclosure Actof 1992Witness: CIA Director Robert GatesMay 15, 1992(Third Add)*****x x x that question.REP. MINK: Does anyone in the room here from youragency have an answer to that question?GATES: Some of the documents had not previously beenreleased, so would have represented new information.REP. MINK: Might we know today what exactly were newitems that had not been released previously?GATES: This is David Grease (phonetic). He is thedirector of our center for the study of intelligence.DAVID GREASE (director, center for the study ofintelligence): Mrs. Mink, some of these documents had beenpreviously released. About half of those that are--originatedat the CIA.Among the documents of other agencies that were in ourfiles, it's my understanding, but this would have to beverified, that almost all of them, if not all of them, had beenpreviously released.REP. MINK: So what consisted of new information thatthe public had not already had in its published files somewhere?GREASE: Yes, I understand. We would have to respondto you separately from that. I cannot from memory tell youprecisely which documents were new.I do know that the new ones are not of muchconsequence. They do not contain any information that isparticularly enlightening. But we can tell you after thehearing what those are.REP. MINK: Can you explain a second, if the CIA hadbeen alerted by the State Department by a cable dated October31st, 1959, with respect to Oswald's defection, why the CIA didnot open a file until 14 months alter?GATES: I don't think we have the faintest idea, Mrs.14
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 123]
13-00000Mink.REP. MINK: There was no policy in effect in 1959 with reference to persons who publicly announced defection to the Soviet Union?GATES: I just don't know.REP. MINK: Has there been any inquiry made within the agency to determine that 14-month lapse?GATES: I don't believe so.GREASE: We did attempt to contact people who might have been involved at the time, and that largely failed, and in addition, we gained no information. We don't know.REP. MINK: Now, I don't know the basis of this conclusion in the news article, but it indicates that the materials that were turned over to the National Archives, did not indicate that they were originals, unexpurgated originals, as the article says, that the materials turned over had been altered, revised, in some way by the CIA before they were released to the archives. Is that a true statement?GREASE: It is not correct to say that they were altered or revised. Our effort was to furnish the file that we had. That file contained copies of original documents. Therefore we thought it appropriate to furnish precisely what we had.What might be characterized as alterations by some by us are redactions of the kind of material that Director Gates has described to you, meaning some numbers, some names, but I can assure you, nothing of any consequence. These are Privacy Act considerations and things of that nature.REP. MINK: Mr. Gates, one final question: In your testimony you indicated that you did not support vesting in an outside body the determination of whether CIA materials related to the assassination can be released to the public, and to agree to that would be inconsistent with your statutory responsibility.I take it, then, that you oppose the provisions in this bill which call for such vesting in an outside body?GREASE: Frankly, my own view is that the provisions that provide that the president can have the final say, normally I would not shift to the president my burden for protecting sources and methods. But it seems to me that, given the unique circumstances of this case, it seems to me that that is one part of the bill that we could find a way to work around.REP. MINK: Then is it not somewhat inconsistent in your testimony in saying that if this bill didn't pass and didn't become law, you would appoint a panel of distinguished Americans from outside the government to do the exact same function for your agency?15