Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[104-10333-10008.pdf — page 45]
# REVIEW AND DECLASSIFICATION OF THE SEQUESTERED FILESIn 1992, CIA wrote to Speaker of the House Thomas Foley requesting approval to begin declassifying and releasing the records. In October of that year, Mr. Foley wrote a letter to the DCI granting CIA the authority to do so. The Speaker's decision was made in anticipation of passage of the Assassination Records Collection Act.## THE HARDCOPY MATERIALThe hardcopy part of the sequestered collection includes copies of most of the CIA documents in the Oswald 201 file. Also included are 201 files, personnel files, and security files on persons who are mentioned in documents relevant to the assassination, or who figure in one of the conspiracy theories.The collection also includes about 30,000 pages of documents, memos, and notes (many handwritten) that were created by the Committee staff during their investigation.
[104-10333-10008.pdf — page 46]
# THE MICROFILM PORTION OF THE SEQUESTERED COLLECTIONAs I noted earlier, there are approximately 72 reels of microfilm in the sequestered collection. (Incidentally, we have arranged to have all of the microfilm records printed in hard copy.)The decision to microfilm a portion of the sequestered collection was apparently based on two major considerations:First, the integrity of the sequestered records had to be maintained.Second, a number of the files requested by the HSCA were active and had to be available to allow people to continue conducting their normal activities.The solution was to replace certain records with microfilm versions. These records were microfilmed during 1979-80 with the approval of the Assassinations Committee.## THE CONTENT OF THE MICROFILMA sizeable portion of the microfilm--approximately 50 percent--duplicates the hard copy files. For example, there are 12 reels of material from the Oswald 201 file.The bulk of the reels consists of files on individuals and organizations, including personnel files of CIA employees. There are also a number of files on anti-Castro organizations. All but a small percentage of the materials are CIA-originated cables, dispatches, memoranda, reports, and correspondence.There are questions of privacy that we believe the Board may want to consider in determining what information is to be released to the public. Some of the records contain, for example, medical information on an individual.There are also questions of relevancy that we suggest the Board consider. For example, many of the documents cover sensitive activities that go far beyond the timeframe of the assassination or investigations into the assassination.
[104-10333-10008.pdf — page 47]
## SUMMARY--We hope that the Board has found this discussion of the sequestered documents useful.--We look forward to continuing cooperation with the Board as we all work towards releasing as much information as possible to the American public.6
[104-10333-10008.pdf — page 48]
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY24 February 1997MEMORANDUM FOR:Richard Flynn@ DITeresa Wilcox @ DSTKathryn DyerFROM:J. Barry HarrelsonCSI/HRG, JFK Project OfficerSUBJECT:Records Briefing for ARRB StaffREFERENCE:ARRB letter to DCI, dtd. 27 November, 1997, RE CIA Compliancewith the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act.1. The JFK Board (ARRB) staff has requested briefings by records "specialists" on the Agency's records systems as part of the compliance with the JFK Act process (see reference). The first DO briefing took place on 12 February. The DA briefing and a follow-up DO briefing is planned for early March. I would like to set up the remaining briefings as soon as possible.2. The ARRB staffers are very familiar with agency documents and have had several general briefings on Agency records; one member of the staff is a former Agency employee (CTC). These "compliance" briefings should focus on what files would have existed in the 1958-63 time period and how we search, or account for, those records today. The ARRB requests you have been working on give you some sense of the type of information they are interested in. In addition I am faxing a copy of the "talking points" prepared for the DO briefing. I have also ask Jeremy Gunn, ARRB General Counsel, to provide a list of directorate specific topics.3. The briefing can take place at HQ or at IP. The ARRB attendees will include Mr. Gunn and 4 or 5 members of the Board's CIA team; all are fully cleared (SCI). I have asked Mr. Gunn to provide a list of dates when he and his staff would be available. I will forward the list to you as soon as I receive it. Thank you for your assistance in setting up these briefings. If you have any questions, please give me a call on extension 31825.CC:John PereiraADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10333-10008.pdf — page 49]
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY24 February 1997MEMORANDUM FOR:Lee Strickland @ DADA Focal Point for JFK BoardFROM:J. Barry HarrelsonCSI/HRG, JFK Project OfficerSUBJECT:Records Briefing for ARRB StaffREFERENCE:1. Meeting with you, 21 February, 1997, same subject;2. ARRB letter to DCI, dtd 27 November 27, 1997, RE CIA Compliance   with the JFK Assassination Records Collection ACT.1. As we discussed in our meeting of 21 February, the ARRB staff has asked for briefings on the Agency's records systems. These briefings are the first steps in the compliance with the JFK ACT process describe in reference #2. At the meeting we set the first two weeks in March as the timeframe for the DA briefing. Mr. Gunn has requested that the briefing take place prior to 12 March if possible. The Board is meeting on the 13-14 March and he will be reporting on the status of the compliance process. Let me know as soon as possible if this is feasible.2. Your proposal to include representatives of offices of Security and Personnel is excellent. The briefing should focus on what records would have existed in 1963 and how we search, or account for, those records today. The talking points paper for the DO briefing, which I left with you, will give you a good sense of the type of information the ARRB staff is interested in. If you have any questions, please give me a call on extension 31825.CC:Becky L. Rant @ DAJohn PereiraADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10333-10008.pdf — page 50]
# Talking Points - 2/18/98 Judge John R. Tunheim, ChairAssassination Records Review Board1. OIM - New Office -   a. Bringing all of release programs into alignment.   b. Realize there are problems - let me read two short sections from a briefing I have prepared for the DDA and the EXDIR   Pgs 13, and 19   c. This office is not knee-jerk or Neanderthal in its approach. We care a great deal about what makes sense practically and legally   d. In fact we have a significant legal bent in this office.Lee is a former OGC attorney.His FOIA coordinator is an attorney.I am a former DGC on rotation from OGCAnd I have three attorneys assigned to this officeBruce Burke - Assoc DGC for InformationAnd two staff level attorneys:*Vicky Pepper* a GS-15 attorney and*Martin Boland* a junior attorney.2. Cover Issue:   a. Appreciate your consideration of our concerns on *state cover*.   b. As I explained when I met with Dr. Gunn on 3 February. There are subjects that seem like open secrets, if they could be called secrets at all. And certainly, this is different from a secret like x is a CIA spy in y country.   c. But as the State Department and our station chiefs have indicated, this is more important that it would seem at first blush. There are repercussions from official acknowledgment of certain ``open secrets."   d. Which brings me to perhaps a final point:
[104-10333-10008.pdf — page 51]
e. Intelligence information often looks sensitive to the layman or generalist when the expert will tell you it is innocuous. And conversely, what seems innocuous to the layman can be quite sensitive. Our job is to help you distinguish the one from the other.f. we rely on you to help us figure out ways to ensure your job is done and the American people are informed without doing damage to intelligence equities.g. We want to be as forward leaning as possible, and work out compromises so it is a win-win solution for our respective organizations and for the American people.h. We will strive very hard for a cooperative, harmonious relationship and we are committed to providing whatever resources are needed, from a very slender resource base to ensuring that we have met all of your taskings.[shifted 7 additional contractor/reviewers to bring the total to 20]
[104-10333-10008.pdf — page 52]
# ChallengesOffice of OIM Information ManagementADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY## Process◇ Directorate Search & Review Is Cumbersome◇ Coordination Is Resource Intensive & Inefficient◇ IRO Task Not Perceived As Important□ --Limits Experience & Sophistication We Can Bring to the Task◇ The IRO Has Little Clout or Resources## Policies◇ Saying “No” Is Easier Than Justifying Damage◇ Past Practices Are Not Examined Until Forceds/addais/ed/briefing/982Gina8.pptProcess: First, process - the components own the information and the IRO is the gate- keeper who controls what will be done, what will be searched, and what will be released. This makes coordination complex, but the larger issue is that the IRO usually does not have either the clout or the resources to do the job and we find cases bottle-necked.Policies: What also makes coordination difficult, is an institutional bias to withhold until forced to release. Thus, we adopt silly positions. When pressed, we often concede in the end, but we lose credibility in the process.There is no stomach, and perhaps no time to:Question the questionable,Revalidate the counter intuitive,or even overturn the nonsensical.
[104-10333-10008.pdf — page 53]
# OIM Corrective ActionsADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY* Expedite Automation Efforts◇ Assure All Released Agency MaterialContained in a Compatible and EasilyAccessible Database* Conduct a Top Level Review of Current  Classification Policy◇ Confirm What is Sensitive and What is Nots/addais/ed/briefing/982Gina8 pptSixth, Capture of Previously Released Information: We are trying to complete the job of populating a data base of previously declassified and released information.It is not acceptable that those outside the Agency know better than we do, what we have released. Our MORI database, once fully populated will allow us to:Satisfy many requesters from information we already have declassified.Speed up our declassification by knowing what decisions have already been made.Increase the consistency of our decisions.And most importantly, avoid wasting resources and embarrassing ourselves fighting to protect what already has been released.And seventh, Classification Policy: The world is changing.The overall budget figure was never released, but now it is.It was forbidden to mention the existence of the NRO; that has changed.All NRO contractors were under cover; now a two page listing of those contractors has been published in the media.We tightly protected all overhead imagery program, but we now are declassifying product from early systems.On the other hand, we still have policies that are outdated and may no longer make sense - [Farm, defectors, psychoanalysis, bios, World War II liaison information.]A small effort can inject fresh thinking, and can staff issues for periodic and systematic validation by senior management.This can pay dividends by keeping us from wasting time and resources protecting and defending what senior managers believe can and should be released.
[104-10333-10008.pdf — page 54]
Secret - Working Notes17 August 1998Talking Points for meeting with ARRB Executive Director,Laura Denk - 4:00 p.m., 17 Aug. 1998Meeting is primary a "Meet and Greet"Laura will be looking for reaffirming of commitment to complete the tasks still outstanding and to meet the deadline for the Final Declaration. She may also bring up the subject of a "Memo of Understanding" on what is to be done after the Board goes out of business.Current Status:Sequestered CollectionThe re-review is virtually complete-- the remaining material (approximate two boxes) is mostly security files)[Note: In the review controversial, complicated or Denied in Full documents were white-banded for later processing; I currently have a team of 3 reviewers going through the collection handling these problem documents. A number of these could lead to potential appeal issues. It will take 2-3 weeks to complete the white band review.]Russ Holmes' fileReview -- approximately 2/3 completedIndexing -- approximately 1/2 completedSpecial RequestsComplete -- 22Continuing -- 10 (searches complete; material being collected or available for review)Outstanding -- 5 All DO[Note: Two of the outstanding requests (CIA 16 and CIA-IR-04) are long-overdue priorities that the ARRB staff requested by completed by 7 August. Laura may raise this issue. Several of the "Continuing" requests are close to completion.]Preparation of Records for NARA(Board Determination Documents and Release in Fulls)The pace will pick as I move reviewers from the sequestered collection to assisting with preparation.[Note: Will probably need additional resources in September to complete the task]Secret - Working Notes
[104-10333-10008.pdf — page 55]
Secret - Working Notes## Post Board Tasks (some examples)*   Duplicates from the Sequestered Collection, Russ Holmes, and other working files.*   Referrals received in last two months of project (We will try to review as many as possible by end of September)*   Other documents/material that it is not feasible to review by 30 Sept. or extremely time-consuming for both staffs and marginal to the story (examples: Mexico City tapes, card files that duplicate information in the file)## Other Topics for Discussion*   Final Declaration -- "Who signs" may come up.*   Transfer of Oswald classified files to NARA by 30 Sept.*   Transfer of all Release In Full documents to NARA by 30 Sept.    [Laura changed procedures -- we no longer have to send through ARRB staff; send directly to NARA.]## Next Meeting - 25 Aug.- Possible Issues*   Mexico City Tapes (200+)*   Board leaving toward declaring as Assassination Records; DO's initial response is to object. I have advised DO that we will need a "defense" for Aug. 25 meeting.IFDECANTERAlthough the release of DECANTER was delayed at last meeting, I understand the Board still leans toward release.Secret - Working Notes
[104-10333-10008.pdf — page 56]
Secret - Working PaperNotes from Briefing of ARRB Staff on Stations(11 October 1995 - ARRB conf. room)CIA Attendees: Bill McNairLee CarleJohn GoinsChuck BriggsHal BeanBarry HarrelsonBill re Stations:No problem with release of CAS (Controlled American Source), fact we have overseas locations, CIA representatives in specific countries -- the problem comes with officially acknowledging the stations thereby putting the host government and service in a position of explaining why it is allowing a foreign espionage unit to operate in the country. This may become a serious political issue for the government, especially in countries where the government does not acknowledge its own service. Also can be perceived as "rubbing their nose in it" and can affect the trust between the Agency and the host service (violated agreement of confidentially).Marwell pointed out that this information was 30 years old and asked what was the impact of acknowledging a station presence in 1963 on current operations or relations.Bill responded "opened up old sores" and cited Rome and the sensitivity to our involvement in past election. Mentioned the reaction to the announcement on covert actions by DCI.Gunn asked if stations = liaison relationship; Bill said the other service can not say it did not know the CIA was operating in its own country -- would look incompetent.Mary asked about changes in government; Bill responded that intell types tend to stay own or its revolving door where the group that leaves when a neww government comes into power will be back in power at some point.Bill comments on specific stationsIf important to the story such as Mexico City and the surrounding stations which were involved in the cable exchanges re Oswald, then will release."Don't take it away from us for little or no gain to the story", I. e. if not critical to the story let us protect.Secret
[104-10333-10008.pdf — page 57]
Secret - Working PaperHe indicated he could live with opening the stations for short windows if important to story, but also said it created a problem about protecting other activities in that windowMoscow - opened for Oswald windowsRome - No, past elections issue and current narcotics projectsDelhi - No, counter narcotics projectsMadrid - Liaison relationships have been up and down; (PNGed five officers) can't afford any more flapsRabat - long time relationship w/ head of state; could give anti-government labor unions an issue (however, would not "fall on my sword" for this oneHelsinki and Stockholm -- would go to DCI with request to appeal (governments currently under fire for cooperation with US/very sensitive operation under wayMarwell asked about substitute language: Scandinavia, Northern Europe -- Bill responded with Western Europe/ said southern Europe for Rome, Madrid etc. "ok"London: do not want to acknowledge but could live withAustralia - very sensitiveBerlin - is open in 1955; 1963 (?) Bill may have been having second thoughts about previous statement "to release", but I think it still stands -- there was a discussion of why Berlin important to story.Mary asked about other European stations, Bombay and some South American stationsBill did not have specific on other stations but made a couple of commentsBonn and Hague - no problemBrussels - very sensitive to any mention of intelligence service presenceWould get back to them on other stations[I promised Bill a list of the Stations]Secret
[104-10333-10008.pdf — page 58]
Secret - Working PaperOther issues discussedCrypts other than LIS and AMs - there was a discussion re deleting digraph and letting rest of crypt; everyone seemed receptive, but no decision.Bill mentioned Iranian takeover as good example of damage caused by release of documents with crypts, file #s, etc. Gunn ask if there was an internal "damage" study prepared. Bill said he would check.Marwell rejected the approach of the Agency having the opportunity to discuss Board actions before official notification. If we have evidence, need to present upfront, not come back with additional evidence after the decision.The balancing of public interest vs Agency needs came up several times; Marwell commented that even if a document or item is not important to the Oswald story, the Agency must still defend.Bill stated several timed during the meeting "If important to the story, we can live with release".Barry12 October 1995Secret
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 0]
# 2025 RELEASE UNDER THE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS ACT OF 1992AGENCY-INTERNAL USE ONLYPRIVILEGED ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCTOGC-94-5291619 September 1994MEMORANDUM FOR: David P. HolmesDeputy General CounselFROM: Robert J. Eatinger. Jr.Assistant General CounselLitigation Division, OGCSUBJECT: DCI Sources and Methods Authority With Respectto JFK Assassination Records1. Per your request, I have attached a copy of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (ARCA), Pub. L. 102-526, 106 Stat. 3443-3458, reprinted at 44 U.S.C. § 2107 note. For your convenience, I have highlighted the pertinent provisions that will aid in responding to an inquiry regarding the statute's effect on the DCI's statutory authority to protect intelligence sources and methods.2. The clear language and intent of the law is to supersede statutes that prohibit disclosure of information, except for some irrelevant subject areas, such as tax records. The statute provides that "it shall take precedence over any other law (except section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code), judicial decision construing such law, or common law doctrine that would otherwise prohibit" the disclosure of information subject to the Act. ARCA § 11(a). This language, taken with the provisions discussed below which limit the intelligence sources and methods that may be protected and set a strict procedural scheme by which information is to be reviewed under the ARCA, effectively supersedes the DCI's National Security Act authority with respect to intelligence sources and methods information subject to the ARCA.3. Section 6 of the ARCA provides the grounds for which the release of information may be "postponed." The statute contemplates that all information will eventually be released. Indeed, it specifies that all information will be made available to the public no later than 25 years after the passage of the ARCA (which occurred in October 1992) unless the president certifies that continued postponement is necessary. ARCA § 4(g) (2) (D). With respect to intelligence-related information, ARCA_allows postponement if:"(1) the threat to ... intelligence operations ... is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest, and such public disclosure would reveal-.PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCTAGENCY-INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 1]
AGENCY-INTERNAL USE ONLYPRIVILEGED ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCTSUBJECT: DCI Sources and Methods Authority With Respect to JFK Assassination Records(A) an intelligence agent whose identity *currently* requires protection;(B) an intelligence source or method which is *currently* utilized, or reasonably expected to be utilized, by the United States Government and which has not been officially disclosed, the disclosure of which *would interfere* with the conduct of intelligence activities; or(C) any other matter currently relating to ... intelligence operations ... the disclosure of which *would demonstrably impair* the national security of the United States."ARCA § 6(1) (Emphasis added.)4. The originating agency is to make the first review to identify information that meets the standards for postponement. ARCA § 4(c) (2) (D) (i). For CIA, this effort is being undertaken by the Historical Review Group, in consultation with the Directorate of Operations and other appropriate Agency components. Information the originating agencies identify for postponement must be transmitted to the Review Board. ARCA § 4(c) (2) (E). The Review Board "shall consider and render decisions on a determination by a Government office to seek to postpone the disclosure of assassination records." ARCA § 7(i)(1). Specifically, the "Review Board shall consider and render decisions on ... whether an assassination record or particular information in a record qualifies for postponement of disclosure under the Act." ARCA § 7(i) (2) (B).5. If the Review Board determines to order the disclosure of information that the originating agency felt met the criteria for postponement, it "shall notify the head of the originating body of its determination and publish a copy of the determination in the Federal Register within 14 days after the determination is made." ARCA § 9(c)(4)(A). If the information contained in an assassination record is "obtained or developed *solely* within the executive branch, the President shall have the *sole and* nondelegable authority to require the disclosure or postponement of ... the information under the standards set forth in Section 6." ARCA § 9 (d) (1) (emphasis added). The President's decision must be certified to the Review Board within 30 days of the Review Boards determination. *Id.* Records postponed by the President must be re-reviewed every 5 years. ARCA § 9 (d) (2).2PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCTAGENCY-INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 2]
AGENCY-INTERNAL USE ONLYFRIVILEGED ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCTSUBJECT: DCI Sources and Methods Authority With Respect to JFKAssassination Records6. I would be happy to discuss this further if you so desire. You might also want to contact John Pereira (x30373)   since he has met with some or all of the Review Board members.![signature of Robert J. Eatinger, Jr.]Robert J. Eatinger, Jr.Attachment3PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCTAGENCY-INTERNAL USE ONLY