Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 25]
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLYFrom the Desk of Robert J. EatingerCIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONSRELEASE IN FULLNOTE FOR:J. Barry Harrelson @ DAFROM:Robert J. EatingerDATE:03/01/95 01:46:44 PMSUBJECT:Comments on proposed JFK regHere is advance copy:OGC-95-505221 March 1995MEMORANDUM FOR:Chief, Historical Review GroupFROM:Robert J. Eatinger, Jr.Assistant General CounselLitigation Division, OGCSUBJECT:Comments on JFK Assassination Records ProposedRegulation1.  The following are my comments on the Assassination    Records Review Boards proposed interpretive regulations published    in the *Federal Register* on 8 February 1995.2.  The term *assassination record* is defined in the    President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of    1992, Pub. L. 102-525, 106 Stat. 3443, Oct. 26, 1992, reprinted at    44 U.S.C. § 2107 note (the Act). Any interpretive definition by    the Board cannot exceed that in the Act. The Acts definition is    found in Section 3 (2) and provides:(a) Assassination record means a record that is related tothe assassination of President John F. Kennedy, that wascreated or made available for use by, obtained by, orotherwise came into possession ofvarious Federal, State, or local government bodies.3.  The proposed regulation is broader than that in the Act.    The proposed regulation *includes* as assassination records:    records, public and private, regardless of how labeled or    identified, that document, describe, report, analyze, or    interpret activities and events that may have led to theADMINISTRATIVE/INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 26]
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLYassassination of President John F. Kennedy; theassassination itself; and investigations of or inquiriesinto the assassination.§ 1400.1(a). This language in overbroad in two respects. First,the phrase events that may have led to is both broader thanrelates to as in the Act and provides no articulable standard.For instance, the theme in the Oliver Stone movie JFK appears tobe that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of aconspiracy to keep the war in Vietnam from winding down. Underthe proposed regulation, the Board might consider all recordsconcerning the war in Vietnam during the Kennedy Administrationas being assassination records. Without a standard, the phraseis permits arbitrary and inconsistent application. Third, itincludes information about investigations and inquiries otherthan those conducted by those entities identified in the Act.Although the Board states that it is following the intent ofCongress in seeking the most comprehensive disclosure of recordsrelated to the assassination, it appears the Board may beexceeding its authority.4. The definition further states that assassination record   includes, without limitation ... all records as defined in Sec.   3 (2) of the ARCA. See § 1400.1(b)(1). Thus, by its terms it   exceeds the statutory definition. Further, it is unhelpful   because by refusing to limit itself to any articulable class of   records it remains unlimited and subject to constant   re-interpretation by the Board.5. The proposed definition of additional information and   records under proposed § 1400.2 is objectionable because the   regulation does not provide the intended use of the definition.   The Board may be attempting to provide a definition useful in   interpreting the Boards authority under §7(j)(1)(C)(ii) of the   Act:The Review Board shall have the authority to act in a mannerprescribed under this Act including authority to ... directa Government office to make available to the Review Board,and if necessary investigate the facts surrounding*additional information, records, or testimony* fromindividuals, which the Review Board has reason to believe.isrequired to fulfill its functions and responsibilities underthis Act....(Emphasis added.) If this is the case, the Board shouldexpressly so state and provide opportunity for informed commenton that application. For instance, proposed § 1400.2(a) includesall documents used by the agency during its declassificationreview. This definition could include requests for legal adviceon particular matters. Such advice would be protected within theparticular agency by attorney-client privilege and should not beprovided to an extra-agency body.ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 27]
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY6. Please call me with any questions or suggestions.Robert J. Eatinger, Jr.CC:ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 28]
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLYTO: John N. Greer@ DCIFROM: John F. PereiraDATE: 03/02/95 05:07:45 PMSUBJECT: Re: Proposed Regs by JFK Assassination Records Review BoardA number of us have concerns about the broad approach in the proposed regs. Among others, Bob Eatinger has written a memo on the subject. We are preparing a formal response for the Board, which will be sent around for commentIn the meantime, I have had an informal discussion with the Board's Executive Director, David Marwell, advising him of our concerns. He has invited us to propose specific textual changes.The Board's deadline is 10 March.Any additional thoughts would be welcomeCC: Edmund Cohen @ DA @ DCI, J. Edwin Dietel @ DA @ DCI, Edward P. Moffett @ DCI, Thomas J. Benjamin @ DCIADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 29]
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLYFrom the Desk of John N. GreerOCANOTE FOR:Edmund Cohen @ DAJ. Edwin Dietel @ DAJohn F. Pereira @ DAFROM:John N. GreerDATE:03/02/95 04:22:48 PMSUBJECT:Proposed Regs by JFK Assassination Records Review BoardPage and I are very concerned about the overly broad reach of the proposed regulations of the JFK Board. I have prepared specific comments that I will send by separate cover. In essence, we are concerned that the regs reach too far into Agency records and stray too far from the definition of an "assassination record" in the law. What input does CIA have into this process and what are the time constraints? It looks like a power grab. It seems to us that Cohen should engage immediately in his role as Chair of the Agency Release Panel. The full ARP might wish to address these issues at it 9 March meeting. Please advise.CC:Edward P. Moffett @ DCIThomas J. Benjamin @ DCIADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 30]
CONFIDENTIALNOTE FOR: J. Barry Harrelson @ DAFROM: Gloria M. BoydDATE: 03/02/95 09:25:33 AMSUBJECT: Response to the JFK Proposed RegulationThis vehicle seemed to be the best one available to pass my "bullets" to you. Perhaps you can dump them in a Word file and ammend them with your thoughts.1400.1 Interpretation of Assassination Recorda.) non-limiting descriptor "may have led to the assassination" makes us vulnerable for capricious search demands1400.2 Interpretation of Additional Recordsa.) and b.) This relates to Agency classified resources that refer to the total Agency mission. - well beyond the "assassination" subject.Identification of all such resources will require a separate effort requiring substantial resources. In addition it may be impossible to identify all such specific resources as the review effort involved many people having experience throughout the Agency.These resources are classified and most probably would be recommended for "indefinite" postponement.d.) and e.) Information described in these sections has been and is protected by the National Security ActAs a time period for this information is not stated it is thus implied to be open ended and that all such information would be made available.1400.5 Requirement That Assassintion Records Be Released In Their Entirety- Nonrelevance issue will most likely result in marked increase in postponed records.1400.6 Originals and Copiesa.) Large portion of CIA's JFK collection is comprised of copies. A search for originals will require a massive resource commitment. There are additionally a substantial number of previously sanitized documents in the collections.1400.7 Additional Guidanced.) Application of this requirement may well jeopardize current postponements aimed at protecting Agency personnel and sourcesThis requirement also implies a new generation of searches to "round-out" or to verify previous searches and retrieved material..CC:> [Figure] Handwritten note: "p. 31 of report says R.B should act on a reasonable basis in requesting additional info/record."> [Figure] Handwritten note: Major Concern 201 & OP files. If an individual's minor involvement in the JFK story or in anti Cuban activities make his complete file (or all files on the individual) we will have a major source protection & privacy problem.
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 31]
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY7 March 1995NOTE FOR: Bob Eatinger, OGCSUBJECT: JFK Proposed RegulationsAs we discussed, I would appreciate your view as to whether OGC should send a separate paper to the JFK Board on the proposed regulations.The attached is what we in HRG propose to coordinate in the Agency today, 7 March, depending on your view. I'll hold off circulating the attached draft for comment until I've heard from you.(The Board asks for comments by 10 March.)![signature of John Pereira]John PereiraADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 32]
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY9 March 1995MEMORANDUM FOR: J. Barry Harrelson @ DAFROM: Jane C. HeishmanSUBJECT: JFK Assassination Records Proposed RegulationsREFERENCE:Per your request, Anthony Frasketi concurs with the proposed regulation.CC: James J. Boney @ DSTAnthony R. Frasket @ DSTADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 33]
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLYCSI-0319/958 March 1995NOTE FOR:D/IM/ADDA/ISDCI/IRODA/IRODI/IRODO/IRODS&T/IROOGC (Bob Eatinger)DD/OCAC/IP&CRDC/RDP/MSG/OITFROM: John PereiraHistorical Review GroupSUBJECT: JFK Assassination RecordsProposed RegulationsPlease review attached draft comments on the proposed regulations prepared by the JFK Assassination Review Board.Our deadline for comments to the Board is 10 March, so please send me or Barry Harrelson your suggestions by cob9 March![signature of John Pereira]John PereiraAttachmentsADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 34]
8 MarMr. 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 35]
# 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 articulable 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.
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 36]
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 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.
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 37]
In the letter to David, I would add at the end of the third paragraph:"Our Office of General Counsel provided some legal comments on the scope of the definition that we've included in the attached."In the attachment under the comments to Section 1400.1:After the first sentence, ending with "beyond the limits established by the (ARCA)", I suggest adding the following sentences:"The Act authorized the Board to issue interpretive regulations. Interpretive regulations, while entitled to great deference, cannot be inconsistent with the congressional intent to cover only certain specific activities. Rather, they should stay within the clearly articulated definitions provided by Congress. This is particularly important with respect to the definition of "assassination records" since the ARCA has a overriding effect on other statutory grants of power found necessary in the interests of national security, such as the National Security Act's direction that the Director of Central Intelligence protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure. The ARCA provides a statutory standard for protecting or "postponing" intelligence sources and methods" that applies only to "assassination records." The standard in the ARCA restricts those sources and methods that can be protected in assassination records. The Review Board is given the ultimate authority to apply that standard, subject to being overridden only by the President. Thus, the ARCA reflects a congressional desire to limit the DCI's authority to protect sources and methods, but only for "assassination records" as ARCA defined it. An interpretive definition by the Board that would sweep in records not covered by the Act, we believe, would exceed the Board's limited rulemaking authority. Thus, the proposed definition should be limited more clearly to those records identified by Congress as “assassination records. To do this, we believe .…"
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 38]
# 2. General commentIn the letter to David, I would add at the end of the third paragraph:"Our Office of General Counsel provided some legal comments on the scope of the definition that we've included in the attached."In the attachment under the comments to Section 1400.1:After the first sentence, ending with "beyond the limits established by the [ARCA]", I suggest adding the following sentences:"The Act authorized the Board to issue interpretive regulations. Interpretive regulations, while entitled to great deference, cannot be inconsistent with the congressional intent to cover only certain specific activities. Rather, they should stay within the clearly articulated definitions provided by Congress. This is particularly important with respect to the definition of "assassination records" since the ARCA has a overriding effect on other statutory grants of power found necessary in the interests of national security, such as the National Security Act's direction that the Director of Central Intelligence protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure. The ARCA provides a statutory standard for protecting or "postponing" intelligence sources and methods" that applies only to "assassination records." The standard in the ARCA restricts those sources and methods that can be protected in assassination records. The Review Board is given the ultimate authority to apply that standard, subject to being overridden only by the President. Thus, the ARCA reflects a congressional desire to limit the DCI's authority to protect sources and methods, but only for "assassination records" as ARCA defined it. An interpretive definition by the Board that would sweep in records not covered by the Act, we believe, would exceed the Board's limited rulemaking authority. Thus, the proposed definition should be limited more clearly to those records identified by Congress as “assassination records. To do this, we believe . . . ."
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 39]
2. Following are comments on specific sections of theAssassination Records Review Board's interpretiveregulations, as published in the Federal Register, February8, 1995.a. Section 1400.1 Interpretation of Assassination RecordIn paragraph (a) the reference to "activities and eventsthat may have led to the assassination--" seems overlybroad, and appears to go beyond the limits established inthe Assassination Records Collection Act. We believe thatit would be helpful to include an articuable standard inthis section. The present text would permit inconsistentapplication of the regulations, which might encouragemassive and expensive, additional records searches that areof doubtful value.The following change is suggested in paragraph (a):"activities and events that may reasonably beconsidered to have led to the assassination- - " (This wouldbe consistent with the Act.)b. Section 1400.2 Interpretation of additional recordsand informationParagraph (a) raises a question as to the purpose anddefinition of "additional records and information." Themeaning of the phrase "all documents used--duringdeclassification review of assassination records as well asall other documents--"seems overly broad and unclear. Aspresently worded, this section would appear to include anydocument, book, index, record system, etc. regardless ofrelevance to the assassination or investigations, includingfor example, legal opinions. We assume that the purpose isto enable the Board to request and review additionalrecords.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 moreprecise link to events related to the assassination or to atimeframe could be helpful.c. Section 1400.5 Requirement that assassination recordsbe released in their entiretyThe introductory paragraph specifies that “no portions ofany assassination record shall be withheld--solely ongrounds of non-relevance." This appears to open the doorfor access to entire documents that contain information on
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 40]
sensitive activities even when the documents contain 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.d. 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. We assume that the purpose is more specific i.e., to assure that all files on an individual or activity be made available regardless of the labels on the files. We suggest that the text be modified to reflect this.
[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 41]
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY P.21 March 1995MEMORANDUM FOR: John PereiraBarry HarrelsonCSI/HRGFROM:Kathryn I. DyerDI/IROSUBJECT: Comments--ARRB Proposed Interpretive Regulations1.  I have reviewed the proposed interpretive regulations drafted by the Assassination Records Review Board, particularly the sections addressing the ARRB's interpretation of the scope of certain provisions of the Assassination Records Collection Act. While I have comments on a number of sections, there is one section in particular which raises serious concerns--principally 1400.2 regarding additional information and records.2.  As presently worded, this section opens up significant records which have nothing to do per se with the assassination, and which are currently protected by various laws, including the National Security Act of 1947, and, moreover, are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.For example, (d) Organizational charts of government agencies.(e) Records necessary and sufficient to describe the Agency's:(1) Records policies and schedules;(2) Filing systems and organization; and(3) Storage facilities and location.Items (a) and (b) of this section ( 1400.2) also pose similar problems in that (a) includes all documents used by agencies during their declassification review...This includes all materials including omnibus classification guides or other materials (1.e. not merely those prepared for use in the JFK review) which would identify sensitive material across the board. Similarly, item (b) includes materials "created or used by agencies in furtherance of their review...." This entire section should at a minimum be restricted to items created by agencies for use in the assassination reviews. For example, if the DO has a master list of cryptonyms, some of which appear in JFK documents, only the subset should be included. Generic categories of information which stand alone on their own merits should be omitted.ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY