Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[124-10168-10040.pdf — page 24]
# SECRET## 21. CIA REQUEST FOR TOUR FOR COLOMBIAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE - REPRESENTATIVES - 1957In July, 1957, CIA requested a tour for several Colombian officials who were coming to this country under CIA invitation. CIA was told that no tours would be given to the Colombians because in the past a Colombian ambassador had grossly insulted the Bureau after we had arrested the ambassador's chauffeur on White Slave Traffic Act charge.If we so desired, we could give consideration to accusing CIA of trying to impose upon us individuals whom we considered undesirable in light of the foregoing. (Memorandum July 15, 1957, Roach to Belmont "Representatives of Colombian Intelligence Service - Request for Bureau Tour by CIA")## 22. REQUEST FOR SECURITY SURVEY OF COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS - NEW YORK CITY - 1957On November 15, 1957, our New York Office was contacted by the local CIA representative who desired to be informed if the Bureau could conduct a security survey of the premises of the Council on Foreign Relations which were located across the street from a building occupied by the Soviet - United Nations Delegation. The CIA representative indicate that his visit to our office was pursuant to instructions received from Allen Dulles who allegedly was concerned about the possibility of the Soviets establishing coverage of conversations and discussions which might be held at the Council. It should be noted that the Council included as members many well-known personalities, including officials of the United States Government.Pursuant to instructions, Allen Dulles was informed on November 18, 1957, that we did not like the approach used by CIA in that such a sensitive matter had been taken up at the field level rather than through Bureau Headquarters. (Menorandum Roach to Belmont November 19, 1957, re "Council on Foreign Relations")SECRET- 7 -
[124-10168-10040.pdf — page 25]
SECRET23. In October, 1957, we received information from indicating that a Polish scientist then visiting in the United States might defect. We followed developments through and we kept CIA advised... The Agency was fully aware of the situation and particularly know that we were in contact with. We subsequently received information indicating that a CIA employee, established contact with for the purpose of developing information concerning the work of Polish scientists. A protest was made to CIA for not properly coordinating their interests with us, bearing in mind that the action taken by possibly could have jeopardized a Bureau operation. (Re:24. By letter dated February 10, 1958, we directed a protest to CIA charging that Agency with interviewing the subject a Romanian alien, without first obtaining the necessary clearance from the Bureau. (Re:25. ALLEGED IMPERSONATION OF FBI EMPLOYEEOn April 23, 1958, we received information indicating that a CIA employee allegedly had represented herself as being with the FBI when she tried to arrange an interview with an official of the International Association of Machinists in Washington, D. C. gave a signed statement in which he claimed that he had received a phone call from a Miss who said she was with the FBI. Upon checking with CIA, we were informed that Miss denied that she had made such representation. (Memorandum Roach to Belmont April 25, 1953, "Unknown Subject;")26. By letter dated May 12, 1958, the Bureau protested to CIA for interviewing an alien in the Detroit area without first obtaining the necessary clearance from the Bureau. Such clearance was necessary pursuant to established agreement. (Re:SECRET- 8 -
[124-10168-10040.pdf — page 26]
SECRET30. GENERAL REINHARD GEHLENThe Legal Attache, Bonn, advised by letter dated June 10, 1953, that he had been invited to visit General Reinhard Gehlen the head of the West German Intelligence Service. became aware of this invitation, and an Agency representative informed our Legal Attache that it was not desired that the Legat visit with Gehlen Our Legat was instructed by the Bureau to accept the invitation regardless of the CIA position.We could evaluate the CIA position in this matter as being uncooperative. (Memorandum Roach to Belmont June 17, 1958, "Relations with CIA")31. CIA INTEREST IN CHINESE ALTENSIn June, 1958, we raised the question concerning CIA'S failure to adhere to an agreement relating to CIA'S recruitment of Chinese aliens in the United States for overseas intelligence operations. Under the agreement, CIA was not to approach any Chinese alien without first checking with us. A situation developed in Illinois indicating that CIA allegedly had become interested in recruiting an alien and even took some action without first checking with us. We expressed our disapproval in a letter to CIA June 12, 1958. (Memorandum Belmont to Boarduan June 9, 1958, "Recruitment of Chinese Aliens in the United States for Overseas Intelligence Operations")32. CIA OFFICIAL'S CRITICISM OF "MASTERS OF DECEIT"Our Legal Attache, Tokyo, obtained a copy of a memorandum sent to an official in our Embassy in Tokyo by Chief of the CIA Office in Japan. In his communication belittled the value of "Masters of Deceit" as an anticommunist weapon in foreign countries. He claimed that the book pertained only to the Communist Party, USA, which he characterized as a small, ineffective, fraction-ridden organization. He stated that the author of the book was not an intellectual but rather a policeman. (Memorandum Roach to Belmont June 12 and 24, 1958, "Masters of Deceit.")SECRET- 10 -
[124-10168-10040.pdf — page 27]
SECRET33. CIA DEVELOPMENT OF INDONESIAN GOVERNMENT SOURCES IN    THE UNITED STATES.In May, 1958, CIA furnished identifying and background data concerning three individuals , all employees of the Indonesian Government and assigned to the United States. had been developed as a source of information by CIA in came to CIA in Washington, D. C. and volunteered his services. had been developed as a source by CIA and had been furnishing some information to the Agency. In a letter dated June 24, 1958, we told CIA that in the case of , we felt that the Agency should have notified us at an earlier date in order that we could have considered exploitation for internal security purposes at the outset. (Re: Indonesian Activities - 100-254749)34. MICHAL GOLENIEWSKI, AKA DR. HEINRICH SCHUTZEThe subject, a former member of the Polish Intelligence Service, defected to the United States and furnished extremely valuable information. The beginnings of this case include information raising questions concerning CIA cooperation.In June, 1953, we developed information indicating that CIA May have opened a letter in Switzerland which had been addressed to the Director by an individual who had identified himself as Dr. Heinrich Schutze. The writer further indicated that he might be connected with the Polish Intelligence Service. The letter addressed to the Director had been placed in an envelope which, in turn, had ended up in the office of the United States Ambassador in Switzerland. We subsequently received a copy of the particular communication from CIA, and the contents were such at that time that no action was required by the Bureau. We asked CIA for particulars leading to the alleged opening of the letter which had been addressed to the Director. CIA claimed that it had not opened the letter. We were confidentially informed by an Agency representative that the Ambassador had opened the letter and then referred the matter to CIA. The contents were such that investigative action of an extensive nature was required by CIA in Europe. What actually happened at the United States Embassy is something we may never know. (Michal Goleniewski - 65-65192)SECRET- 11 -
[124-10168-10040.pdf — page 28]
# SECRET35. By letter dated June 26, 1958, we voiced our concern regarding CIA's alleged interview of a Chinese alien whom CIA was considering for overseas recruitment. CIA denied that an approach of the alien had been made. Our investigation contradicted the statements emanating from CIA. (Rev Bureau file)36. COMPROMISE OF FBI TECHNICAL SURVEILLANCE COVERAGEOn July 18, 1958, CIA requested the Bureau for permission to play a recording of a "telephone" conversation obtained by the Bureau to King Hussein of Jordan. The recording had been developed through our sensitive coverage of the Egyptian Embassy in Washington, D.C. On June 5, 1958, we had obtained the contents of a conversation between Mahmoud Rousan of the Jordanian Embassy and the Egyptian Air Attache. The conversation strongly indicated that Rousan was working closely with the Egyptians. Subsequently, CIA developed information indicating that Rousan was a key figure in a revolutionary plot, the objective of which was to overthrow King Hussein.Rousan returned to Jordan and was imprisoned by King Hussein based upon information made available through CIA. Rousan denied any implication in any revolutionary activity and he was strongly supported by certain top officials in the Jordanian Government. The King told CIA that he was on the spot and that he needed proof of Rousan's conspiratorial activity. CIA asked if we would permit the recording to be played to the King stressing that this was the only way King Hussien could be convinced.On July 18, 1958, a CIA official was advised that the Bureau positively would not grant permission to playing of the recording. We maintained that if we granted such permission, our other coverage of a sensitive nature could be seriously imperiled.On July 21, 1958, Allen Dulles asked if the Bureau would reconsider its position in view of the critical situation in the Middle East. Pursuant to instructions, CIA was then told that in view of the position in which the Bureau had been placed, we acceded to Dulles' request. CIA was further told that we were seriously considering the termination of all of our technical surveillances because we did not intend to be placed in such a position in the future.On July 22, 1958, Dulles told the Liaison Agent that he was very much disturbed over the Director's reaction. He stated that he was not interested in holding a pistol toSECRETNW 50953 DocId:32169180 Page 29
[124-10168-10040.pdf — page 29]
# SECRETanybody's head and he further indicted that he was deliberating whether or not the recordingshould be used. It was recommended that the Liaison Agent follow the matter for the 'purpose of determining if the Fecording was to be used by CIA. The Director's notation was, "NO. The fat is in the fire now and it is useless to waste any more time on it. We will probably hear of any details in Pearson's column. H."The strong position we took in resisting the dissemination of such sensitive information to a foreign government was fully justified. (Momorandum Roach to Belmont, dated July 22, 1953, re "CIA Request for Permission to Play Technical Surveillance Recording to King Hussien, Jordan"## 37. CIA ALLEGED PARTICIPATION IN MEXICAN GOVERNMENT### DEPORTATION OF AMERICAN COMMUNISTSIn 1958, CIA officially informed us that it was engaged in a program designed to disrupt overall communist activity in Mexico. We became concerned because this program was to involve deportation of undesirables, including American communists residing in Mexico. The implementation of such a program would have resulted in the return of American communists to the United States. CIA denied that it was engaged in any operation specifically designed to oust American communists. In September, 1958, we were informed that the Mexican Government had embarked on a strong anticommunist program and certain Americans were ordered deported. We checked with CIA and the Agency's chief in Mexico City claimed that his Agency was not involved.The Liaison Agent subsequently was informed on a strictly confidential basis that the American Ambassador had been in contact with certain Mexican officials concerning possible anticommunist activities. The Ambassador had consulted with the local CIA chief and had asked for a list of Americans who could be considered as being deportable. The CIA officer reportedly furnished a list of approximately 40 names. (memorandum Reach to Belmont, September 17, 1958, "Legal Attache's Office, Mexico City, Relationship with Embassy and CIA)## 38.We expressed our displeasure to CIA in September, 1958, because of that Agency's unauthorized investigation in the United States of a Romanian citizen who was here in connection with an exchange program. The Romanian indicated to an American friend that he was interested in staying in the United States, but was not ready for actual defection because ofSECRET- 13 -
[124-10168-10040.pdf — page 30]
# SECRETto notify the Bureau. A letter dated September 16, 1959, wasal lso: sent to and he was told that the Bureau wasdisappointed in him because he had failed to make any objectionto the article and had not alerted us concerning the impendingattack against the Bureau. (Memorandum Frohbose to Belmont,August 27, 1959, "Allen Dulles: America's Global Sherlock,"True! Magazine, September, 1959"; and Memorandum. Frohbose toBelmont, September 4, 1959, "Allen Dulles")45. ACTIVITIES OF CONTACTS DIVISION OF CIA - 1959We received information in September, 1950, thatthe Contacts Division of CIA had held interviews with Americanbusinessmen in the Boston area, which dealt with meetings betweenthe businessmen and visiting Soviets CIA reportedly was inter-ested in developing positive intelligence information, but itso happened that one of the Soviets was involved in a doubleagent operation being handled by the Bureau. The Bureau alreadyhad notified CIA of our interest in the Soviet. By letterdated September 29, 1959, we voiced our objection to the mammerin which CIA had handled this. (Re Bureaufile46. APPEARANCE OF COLONEL FRANTISEK TISLER BEFORE THE    HOUSE COMMITTEE ON UNAMERICAN ACTIVITIES (HCUA) - 1959On November 6, 1959, information was receivedindicating that HOUA was interested in obtaining Colonel FrantisekTisler, a Czech defector, to testify before the Committee. HCUAadvised us that it had contacted the State Department who, inturn, had conferred with CIA. Allen Dulles allegedly informedHCUA that Tisler was agrceable to appearing before the Committeeand that he would be made available pursuant to certain securityinstructions.The Director asked whether or not CIA had authorityto make a defector available to a congressional committee withoutfirst checking with other interested agencies. The Director wasinformed that CIA did not have such authority because a NationalSecurity Council directive made it very clear that this could notbe done without processing the matter through the Inter-AgencyDefector Committee. In this particular case the aforementionedCommittee had not called a mecting, but the chairman, a CIAofficial, had made certain phone calls. A Bureau representativewas contacted by phone on November 6, 1959, but at that time wehad not formulated a position. Allen Dulles allegedly contactedthe chairman of the Committee and was told that the Committechad no objection to making Tisler available.# SECRET- 17 -
[124-10168-10040.pdf — page 31]
# SECRETOn November 13, 1959, CIA representatives were informed that we wore opposed to making the defector availablga to ICUÀ. On that same date we were told that CIA was informing HOUA it was reversing its position and that upon reconsiderations it did not feel that Tisler could be made available.By memorandum dated November 14, 1959, the developments in this matter were reviewed and it was recommended that at the next Inter-Agency Defector Committee meeting we strongly protest CIA's dereliction in the handling of the HCUA request. (Bureau file 105-38068)47. CRITICISM OF DIRECTOROn April 11, 1960, of Reicco Company, Caracas, Venezuela, informed the Bureau that he recently held a conversation with an official of the U.S. Embassy in Caracas. was a CIA employce (5) took exception to complimentary statements made by Concerning the Director and the FBI. stated that the Director should have retired five years ago for the good of all concerned. A protest was made to Allen Dulles on April 20, 1960. (Memorandum Frohbose to Belmont, April 21, 1960,48. CIA OFFICIAL ALLEGEDLY ADVOCATING RECOGNITION OF RED CHINA - 1900Name PositionIn Fobruary, 1960, for the Richardson Foundation, volunteered information concerning statements allegedly made by a top CIA official. allegedly advocated recognition of Red China.This matter was called to the attention of Allen Dulles and on April 20, 1960, Dulles informed the Liaison Agent that he had conducted an inquiry, had reviewed a tape recording of talk, and was satisfied that had not made the statement attributed to him.The above is being cited in the event we desire to dispute the position taken by Dulles. If the evidence clearly established that had made such a statement, we could use the information to support a position that we would have been warranted in being most circumspect with CIA. (Memorandum Frohbose to Belmont, April 21, 1960,49. ALLEGED INSTALLATION OF MICROPHONES ON U.S. PREMISES ABROAD BY CIAA State Department representative informed th that a microphone had been found in the U.S. Embassy, Mexity; that it had been planted by CIA; and that Allen Dulles allSECRETNW 50953 DocId:32169180 Page 32 - 18 -
[124-10168-10040.pdf — page 32]
SECREThad maintained that if CIA was to operate effectively, it had to know what was going on in U.S. establishments. The implication was left that CIA was covering activities of other U.S. agencies through technical installations." Inquiries developed information indicating that CIA had installed a microphone in the Embassy at the request of a State Department official. The Office of Security in State Department was contacted in an effort to pin this down in a more specific manner. We were told by State that their records did not contain any information concerning the microphone.Subsequently, a letter was transmitted to all Legal Attaches instructing them to be on the alert for technical installations which may affect Bureau operations. (Memorandum L'Allier to Belmont, May 2, 1960, "Installation of Microphones on U.S. Promises Abroad by CIA")50. We received information indicating that the subject, a former Cuban intelligence agent, had planned to detection, New York City. We were told that the CIA representative in New York City complained to CIA stressing that the Agency had no power or authority to promise the subject immunity. (Memorandum L'Allier to Belmont, September 30, 1960, ")51. Miss, a CIA employee, obtained a position as a secretary in the Office of the Delegation to the United Nations. Prior to receiving this job, CIA checked with the Bureau. The Liaison Agent subsequently learned that she was leaving her job and informed the Bureau. The Liaison Agent informed CIA that The Liaison Agent inquired if she could recommend somebody else. She gave them the name of another CIA employee, Miss informed CIA that the Agency was out of line by not first checking with the Bureau before recommending to the Bureau was interested in developing intelligence information which might be useful. In this instance, CIA was obstructing operations by not appropriately coordinating with the Bureau. (Memorandum L'Allier to Delmont, October 31, 1960,SECRET- 19 -NW 50953 DocId: 32169180 Page 33
[124-10168-10040.pdf — page 33]
# SECRET52. CIA USE OF BUREAU INFORMATION IN A U.S. INTELLIGENCE BOARD DOCUMENTOn March 30, 1961, the Liaison Agent contacted Allen Dulles concerning CIA's failure to obtain Bureau clearance for use of our information in a U.S. Intelligence Board document. No known damage had been done, but the Agent stressed the sensitivity of the Bureau information. Dulles requested one of his subordinates to establish a procedure to prevent a recurrence of such errors. (Memorandum L'Allier to Belmont, March 30, 1961,53. "SPY IN THE U.S." BOOK AUTHORED BY PAWEL MONATIn July, 1961, our Chicago Office received galley proofs of the book "Spy in the U.S.," written by Pawel Monat. A review of these proofs disclosed several references which portrayed our counterespionage capabilities in an unfavorable light. Since CIA was responsible for Monat and for any writing which he might perform, the matter was discussed with CIA. It turned out that CIA had not been following the preparation of the book. We were told that steps would be taken to protect Bureau interest. The publishers had indicated to CIA that they would cooperate on changes. Although some changes were made, the book still came out with some information which was not entirely favorable to the Bureau. (Pawel Monat, Bureau file 105-40510)54. CONFLICT WITH LEGAL ATTACHE MEXICO CITY 1961On October 6, 1961, our Legal Attache, Mexico City received information indicating that the Czech Embassy in that city was planning to protest harassment of its personnel by U.S. Intelligence. The Legal Attache was told by the local CIA office that the Agency was not involved. On October 12, 1961, the same CIA officer changed his position and admitted that CIA had been involved to a certain extent. The Liaison Agent objected to these tactics. It was important to him to know the facts so he could be guided accordingly. (Memorandum L'Allier to Sullivan, October 18, 1961, Czechoslovakian Diplomatic Activities - Mexico55. CIA TECHNICAL SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES - 1961When he defected in December, 1961, furnished information concerning alleged penetration of American intelligence. Inquiries and review conducted by CIA within the Agency suggested that a CIA intelligence officer, was a logical suspect. We conferred with CIA and on February 9, 1962, we advised the Agency that we would take over the investigation.SECRET- 20 -
[124-10168-10040.pdf — page 34]
SECRETInstructions were sent to the field and we then learned in *New York City* that CIA allegedly planned to make a recruitment approach. The matter was taken up with CIA headquarters and a protest was made because of the wide discrepancy in the reports we received on CIA intentions. (Memorandum Brennan to Sullivan, April 18, 1966,67. PASSING OF BUREAU DOCUMENTS TO SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD BY CIA EMPLOYSE - 1966In September, 1966, we developed information indicating that copies of FBI documents had been passed to Senator Byrd by CIA. The matter was discussed with the Director of CIA and the Agency subsequently conducted an investigation and established that one of its employces, had submitted a name check request to the Bureau concerning one who was the subject of the material in question. At that time had a responsibility of handling name check requests for CIA and, in this connection, was in contact with our Name Check Section. He admitted that he instituted a name check on an "off the cuff basis" for another CIA employee namedIt is my recollection that one or both CIA employees were subsequently fired or asked to resign. (Memorandum Brennan to Sullivan, September 21, 1966, "Leak of FBI Documents Concerning to Senator Robert C. Byrd")68. ALLEGED COMPROMISE OF BUREAU DOUBLE AGENTIn March, 1967, we protested to CIA in connection with a matter relating to our mutual interest in a *chemist* connected with *Corporation* in *New Jersey*. We were utilizing the *chemist* as a double agent in an operation directed against the Soviets. CIA had established a relation- ship with the same person for the purpose of acquiring positive intelligence relating to the field of Our Newark Office received information indicating that a CIA officer, without authorization, compromised our relationship with the *Chemist* discussing the matter with the president of the firm. (Memorandum Sullivan to DeLoach, March 15, 1967, )69. In July, 1967, we protested to CIA in a case where the Agency allegedly had failed to report to us concerning a communication which a Cuban exile, residing in the United States, had received from the Cuban Intelligence Service. The particular communication had instructed the exile to initiate preparationsSECRET- 25 -