Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 42]
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLYRecommend: Delete items (d) and (e). Subpart (a) should be confined to documents created by agencies (vice used) during their declassification review.The inclusion of generic categories of information, i.e., those created independent of the assassination investigation(s) and review effort, appears to be a calculated effort to gain access to significant areas of information that are protected by other laws (i.e., circumvention of the FOIΑ.)If provisions (d) and (e) are not deleted and a and b not limited to materials created by or created solely for use in the assassination review, an additional section should be added that applies to section 1400.2 in its entirety. This should state that information created independent of the assassination review will be released unless protected by other laws, Executive Orders, and/or regulations.3. Other Comments:1400.1 (a)Recommend: Insert the word "reasonably" between "may have [reasonably) led to the assassination..."The mere allegation that foreign events or international developments may have led to the assassination at this point in time (after all the investigations) should not bring records not related to the assassination on their face within the scope of this act. There should be an objective standard, i.e., reasonable person threshold. Otherwise agencies could be subjected to massive records searches on little more than whim. The JFK assassination is the epitome of conspiracy theories. Without a threshold standard, the door would be opened to additional searches (without merit), the potential costs of which could be significant.1400.6 Originals and copies.Recommend: (2) and (3) Add the word "available" after "the earliest generation print (available)."Otherwise no provision to cover situation when earliest generation print can't be located.ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 43]
MAR 01 '95 12:53PM P.4ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY1400.8 Implementing the ARCA - Catalog of Assassina-tion Records. (COAR)Sections (a) and (c) appear to be inconsistent.As presently worded, former specifies allrecords will be listed in COAR; latter sectionimplies not all records will be listed, i.e.,requirement that in listing one must determinethat the record will more likely than notenhance, enrich....4. If any questions, please call 54644 (secure).![Signature of Kathryn I. Byer]Kathryn I. Byer3ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 44]
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLYNOTE FOR: John F. Pereira @ DCIFROM: Eldon I. Hatch/@ DA @ DCIDATE: 02/21/95 02:15:20 PMSUBJECT: Comments re the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act of 19921. In general there is not much in the regulation to cause the DA undo concern except for Sec. 1400.2 Interpretation of additional records and information; specifically (e), (1), (2), & (3). The schedules are classified in the agregate, filing systems and organization structures are classified in toto, and the storage facility is an Agency Records Center at a classified location. I know this may not be a lot of help, but I have little or no argument/comment concerning the other sections.2. If you have any questions/comments, please call me on 30683/or note.CC:ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 45]
Central Intelligence AgencyWashington, D.C. 2050522 February 1995Executive SecretariatInformation Review OfficerJohn F. PereiraHistorical Review GroupAttn: Barry HarrelsonBarry,Do not agree with "no portions of anyassassination records shall be withheldfrom public disclosure solely on groundsof non-relevance." See Section 1400.5.Non-relevant material should not have tobe reviewed for declassification & release.This could be a never-ending project.Thanks for the opportunity to comment.![Signature of Eunice M. Evans]Eunice M. EvansDCI/IRO
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 46]
1 March 1995MEMORANDUM FOR: Mr. PerieraFROM: Gary BrenemanSUBJECT: Comments on Proposed Rules, 36 CFRPart 1400, Concerning JFK RecordsCollection Act of 19921. You asked that I review subject proposed rules and   provide my thoughts and concerns. This is in response to   that request.2. As a general statement, the proposed rules are not   well written and seem to try to cast the biggest net   possible. With reference to poor draftsmanship, note that   at Sec.1400.2, they introduce a term "additional information   and records," and describe what the term includes. Compare   sections 1400.3 relating to “sources" and 1400.4 relating to   "(t)ypes of materials." In the latter, they have reversed   the term and used "additional records and information.”   While the intent is fairly clear, it causes one to wonder   what they had in mind.3. With reference to the big net approach, it is a   basic rule of statutory and regulatory drafting to not write   laws and regulations which cannot be enforced. In this   regard, I know of no authority in U.S. law, including the   JFK Act, which would give the Board jurisdiction over   records which "may be located at, or under the control   of,"..." (f)oreign governments." See 1400.4 (b). I have a   similar concern with respect to "private" records. Cf. Sec.   1400.1 (a).4. On the nonsensical side of the big net approach is   every book, magazine and newspaper article and which has   ever been written that may "report, analyze, or interpret"   the assassination. See 1400.1 (a). If read literally, the   Agency would have to give up all of its collections of   private books, etc. which fall within this definition.   This   is particularly true of those books we referred to here   within HRG for information and understanding as we conducted   the review. See 1400.2 (a) (a)ll documents used by   government offices and agencies during their   declassification review of assassination records..."
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 47]
5. With specific reference to the requirement of 1400.2 (a), the Agency should be concerned about its records within the DO which tie crypts to true names of projects and alias' and pseudos to the true names of individuals. Because we regularly called the DO office responsible for these matters for assistance in identifying the projects and names behind the crypts and alias,' this subsection would seem to place those document holdings within the reach of the Board. This needs to be addressed.5. Turning to 1400.7 (d), the Agency should be very careful here. In HRG's review and release of documents, we have often given out an alias but protected the true name. In others, we have given out the true name but protected the alias or pseudo. This section seems to vitiate that effort and needs to be addressed.6. I have several thoughts on the non-relevant issue which would take several more paragraphs. Suffice it to say, carried to its extreme, if the Board can in any way make the case a document is an assassination record, then they are entitled to access to it and may direct its release.7. I would be pleased to discuss any of these items with you if you wish.![Signature of Gary M. Breneman]Gary/M. Breneman
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 48]
2 March 1995# Assassination Record Definition: Comments## Background Section:[the statement "search and disclosure of records...must go beyond the records of previous commissions..." is based on a similar statements on pages 19 & 21 of the Report to accompany S. 3000]## Section 1400.1 - Interpretation of Assassination Record(a) "An assassination record includes,...,all records...that may have led to the assassination...”[S.3006 states that the "Board should act on a reasonable basis in requesting additional records. Recommend we insert "reasonably" into statement after "have" (or change may to reasonably could)](b) (2) "All records...or segregated by all Federal...agencies in conjunction with any investigation..."[means all "microfilm" documents are assassination records, and will have to be reviewed and accounted for even if we are successful in "postponing” most of these records]## 1400.2 Interpretation of additional records and information.(a) "All documents used by government offices and agencies during their declassification review of assassination records as well as all other documents, indices, records, and other material that disclose cryptonyms, code names, or other identification material in assassination records."[Section (a) is too inclusive; as written would include ANY document, book, index, record system or other material consulted or "used" during the review, regardless of relevance to JFK assassination. In fact, most of the material "used" in the review was used to determine if information/names/etc. had been previously released and had nothing to do with the assassination or investigations.Also the part of the statement following "as well as" needs clarification. Are they asking for all records that contain information on individuals mentioned in assassination records or are they asking for the records/indices/etc. that were used to identify individuals mentioned by crypt or code name in assassination records.[ the amendment recommended by FBI covers CIA concerns; ideally the word "used" should be changed to "created"]
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 49]
1400.2 (continued)(b) & (c) [ok](d) & (e) [add wording to identify time period for these records such as "at the time of the assassination and investigations".]1400.5 Requirement that assassination records be released in their entirety.An assassination record shall be disclosed in its entirety except for portions specifically postponed...,and no portions of any assassination records shall be withheld from public disclosure solely on grounds of non-relevance.[If this applies to an "individual" assassination record then there is no problem. However, if it applies, as I suspect, to files and groups of records then we have a major problem of privacy and source protection with the OP and 201 files. It may be possible to "postpone" the 201 and OP files under the Privacy exemption and National Security Act, however, the FBI approach to amending the regulation to deal with "incidental appearance of assassination material" seems a better approach. Our proposed amendment should include "files" as well as "records".]1400.6 Originals and Copies(a) (2) add "available" after "the earliest generation print"(b) in cases where a copy, as defined in paragraph (a) of this section is authorized...the board may...require a certified copy.[In some cases our file copy or original is a previously sanitized copy of the document; we may have to "certify" theses copies as the "original" file copy.l1400.7 Additional guidance(d)...Any records identified with respect to a particular person also includes any records for that person by any other name, pseudonym, codeword, symbol, number or cryptonym...[This needs clarification. It the goal of this section is to ensure that all files on an individual/project are provided regardless of how filed (under name, crypt, etc.) then I do not see a problem. However, with out clarifying language, this section could lead to the type of situation described by Gloria. FBI also requested clarification.)
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 50]
# Issues:Non-related (36,000+ pages) and OP (10,000 pages) material in microfilm collectionThe “segregated” records statement negates our claim that material in the Microfilm is “non-related”. We can point out that the HSCA requested, but did not review a lot of these records and that access was given to complete files even thought the request dealt with specific events or timeframes. However, given their objective of going “beyond” previous investigations, I not sure this would have any impact.A different approach would be to deny or postpone personnel type files including 201s that are not related to the assassination (guidelines to be established in consultation with the Board) as unwarranted invasion of privacy and/or protection of sources. Approximately 25,000 pages of the Non-related material are from 201 files; the remaining 10,000+ pages are from organization and project files.
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 51]
To: C/HRGSubject: OGC's comments on proposed JFK regulations.Bob's comments should be included in our response to the Board, however, not as he has recommended. The language and tone is very different and does not inserted well into existing text; I think his comments will work better as a separate paragraph or as an addendum.Barry
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 52]
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLYMEMORANDUM FOR: J. Barry Harrelson @ DAFROM: John F. PereiraSUBJECT: JFK Assassination Records Proposed RegulationsREFERENCE: 10 March 1995MEMORANDUM FOR: John F. Pereira @ DAFROM: William H. McNairDO/IROSUBJECT: JFK Assassination Records Proposed RegulationsREFERENCE: CSI-0319/95, subject as above, dtd 8 March 199510 March 19951. The DO concurs in ref comments and would add the following:A. Comment Par 2 re Section 1400.2 - para d and e(3) call for "Organizational charts of government agencies" and "Records necessary and sufficient to describe and agency's storage facilities and locations".Organizational charts of detail are classified and release would have to be balanced against DCI mandate to protect such details.Description and location of agency's storage facilities are classified and release of such information would have to be balanced against security concerns and DCI mandate to protect such information.B. Comment 4 re Section 1400.7 - Consideration should be given to protect records and files of different time frame not related to JFK where the subject is but a passing name or reference. To reveal full records could endanger national security without adding to body of information relating to JFK.2. Believe these two comments should be considered for inclusion into official CIA remarks.CC:CC:ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 53]
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLYNOTE FOR: John Pereira @ DCIFROM: Barry Harrelson @ DCIDATE: Kathryn 1. Dyer @ DI @ DCISUBJECT: 03/10/95 08:13:32 AMComments re Assassination Records Review Board's Interpretive Regulations1.  I have reviewed the draft comments prepared for the Agency regarding the AARB's proposed interpretive regulations and believe some modifications are in order.2.  First and foremost, the comments regarding Section 1400.2 do not adequately address the concerns previously raised regarding the unbridled inclusion of categories of records that have nothing to do with JFK's assassination, e.g., organization charts, records schedules, filing systems, etc. This section should> be limited to items created by agencies for use in the assassination review. Generic categories.> of information which stand alone on their merits should be included. This section is overly broad and inclusive. (Please see the discussion in my 1 March memorandum.) Contrary to the proposed comment that the intent of this section is "unclear", I think it is eminently clear, and that's the problem. I think our concerns would be better served by raising in terms of scope rather than intent. Also recommend against asking questions such as "Is it the intent...?" Heck, yes! Would suggest wording along the lines--"As presently worded, this section would appear to include...."3.  The proposed comment on Section 1400.7 opens the door to all records on a person vice those relevant to the assassination inquiries. Do we really want to set ourselves up for the obvious response to the question we are asking? There are a number of different points here that need to be clarified, all dealing with scope. The board's legitimate concern that all records on an individual records be addressed (regardless of how filed, e.g.under another name, pseudonym, etc.). And an equally legitimate Agency concern that1.) records on an individual when the records themselves are not relevant to the assassination inquiry,(i.e. other records on the individual may be), or 2.) that all records on individuals who merely happen to be mentioned in a document falling within the scope of the assassination inquiry (but the individuals themselves are not the subject of investigation) should not be subsumed within the scope of these regulations.CC:ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 54]
To: C/HRGSubject: OGC's comments on proposed JFK regulations.1) OGC submissionBob's comments should be included in our response to the Board, however, not as he has recommended. The language and tone is very different and does not inserted well into existing text; I think his comments will work better as a separate paragraph or as an addendum.2) DI IROKathy's comments on section 1400.2 are on target, but a little strong. I don't think the board will buy changed "used" to "created". Our proposed response, as written, does question the scope but not directly. (note: The FBI proposed wording, if accepted by the board, would satisfactorily limit the scope of this section). She does have a point in changing "intent" to "as presently worded".On section 1400.7, Kathy's reaction is the same as Gloria's. I think our response adequately address the concerns here, but could be strengthen without changing the tone of the response. (Note OGC comments will also address "scope" which clearly is Kathy's primary concern.Barry
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 55]
Mr. David MarwellDear David,We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Assassination Records Review Board's proposed interpretive regulations as published in the Federal Register, February 8, 1995. We recognize the value of providing guidance for those who are responsible for implementing the Assassination Records Collection Act.Our general view is that the regulations are comprehensive in identifying the range of records that would potentially be relevant to the JFK assassination or the scope of the investigations into the assassination.In a few sections of the regulations the wording seems somewhat overly broad or the meaning is not clear. Attached for the Board's consideration are comments on these sections. In some parts of the text we suggest possible changes in wording for purposes of clarification.We would be pleased to discuss these comments at the Board's convenience. It is our intention to continue cooperating fully with the Board and to make every effort to release assassination records held by the Agency.John F. PereiraHistorical Review Group, CIA
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 56]
Following are CIA's comments on specific sections of the Assassination Records Review Board's interpretive regulations, as published in the Federal Register, February 8, 1995.1. Section 1400.1 Interpretation of Assassination RecordIn paragraph (a) the reference to "activities and events that may have led to the assassination--" seems overly broad, and appears to go beyond the limits established in the Assassination Records Collection Act. We believe that it would be helpful to include an articuable standard in this section. The present text would permit inconsistent application of the regulations, which might encourage massive and expensive, additional records searches that are of doubtful value.The following change is suggested in paragraph (a):"activities and events that may *reasonably* be considered to have led to the assassination--" (This would be consistent with the Act.)2. Section 1400.2 Interpretation of additional records and informationParagraph (a) raises a question as to the purpose and definition of "additional records and information." The meaning of the phrase "all documents used--during declassification review of assassination records as well as all other documents--"seems unclear. Is it the intention to include any document, book, index, record system, etc. regardless of relevance to the assassination or investigations, including for example, legal opinions ? We assume that the purpose is to enable the Board to request and review additional records.We suggest that the section be made more specific, including a clearer statement of the intent. For example, with respect to cryptonyms, codewords, guides, etc. a more precise link to events related to the assassination or to a timeframe could be helpful.3. Section 1400.5 Requirement that assassination records be released in their entiretyThe introductory paragraph specifies that "no portions of any assassination record shall be withheld--solely on grounds of non-relevance." This appears to open the door for access to entire documents that contain information on sensitive activities even when the documents contain
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 57]
information that is only incidental to the assassination, such as a passing reference to a name. There is a potential risk that sensitive, non-relevant sources and methods would be compromised.We suggest that the Board consider adding wording to this section that accommodates those instances when there is a need to release ample information from a document to disclose assassination-related material, while still protecting obviously unrelated, sensitive information. The Board, of course, would continue to have access to the entire record.4. Section 1400.7 Additional guidanceParagraph (d) states "any records identified with respect to a particular person also includes any records for that person by any other name, pseudonym, codeword," etc. This appears to require that all records on any individuals who are merely mentioned in an assassination record be made available. Is the objective really to assure that all files on an individual or activity be made available regardless of the labels on the files ? If so, we suggest that the text be modified to reflect this.
[104-10333-10014.pdf — page 0]
# 2025 RELEASE UNDER THE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS ACT OF 1992![Assassination Records Review Board logo]**Assassination Records Review Board**600 E Street NW 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20530(202) 724-0088 Fax: (202) 724-0457June 9, 1997![JFK ACT RELEASE stamp]Stewart F. AlyAssociate Deputy General CounselOffice of General CounselDepartment of Defense1600 Defense PentagonWashington, DC 20301-1600CIA HAS NO OBJECTION TODECLASSIFICATION AND/ORRELEASE OF CIA INFORMATIONIN THIS DOCUMENTColonel James R. Moore, Jr., U.S.A.Information Management Officer,DCSPER (DAPΑ-ΖΧΙ)300 Army Pentagon, Room 2D749Washington, DC 20310-0300Re: Proposal for a Multi-Agency Declassification Review of Joseph Califano's Army Papers under the JFK ActGentlemen:The Assassination Records Review Board would like to make arrangements with you to declassify six boxes of Army records from the files of Joseph Califano. The files date principally from the period 1962-63, during which Mr. Califano served as Army General Counsel and as Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Army. The records had been deposited at the National Archives and Records Administration, where they were recently located. A description of the records, which primarily pertain to U.S. activities related to Cuba, is attached hereto. We have identified what appears to us to be equities of numerous military entities in the Califano papers as well as equities of the Central Intelligence Agency, the State Department, the United States Information Agency, and others.DeadlinesDue to the volume of the records, and the Review Board's current sunset date of September 30, 1997, it is important that we proceed expeditiously in our review of the records. We have slated the Califano papers for review by the Board at its August 5-6, 1997 meeting. The Review Board staff is prepared to assist you in making arrangements for a prompt and efficient review of the Califano papers.[^1] The Review Board is seeking from Congress a one-year, one-time extension to September 30, 1998. Congressman Dan Burton is sponsoring a bill to extend the life of the Review Board. Should the Review Board receive the proposed extension, we may be able to revisit the schedule proposed below.BOARD MEMBERS: John R. Tunheim, Chair Henry F. Graff Kermit L. Hall William L. Joyce Anna K. NelsonEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: David G. Marwell