Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 167]
## 6. Intelligence EstimatesFinished intelligence reports and estimates do not usually contain source identifications and will not normally require paraphrasing. However, departments and agencies should review such publications to ensure deletion of sensitive source identities and details of collection systems.## 7. AdministrationInformation concerning the administration of intelligence agencies may be required. This may include staffing charts with occupants identified. Identities of personnel formerly not under cover and now functioning in a cover assignment should be deleted as well as those who may in the future be considered for a covert assignment.## 8. GeneralThe following categories of information or specific examples may arise in any number of circumstances in documentation requested by the Select Committees. In all cases, serious consideration should be given by the department or agency concerned to the necessity of deletion or paraphrasing of this type of information, prior to providing the document.(a) Agent or informant names or operational information revealing them.(b) Details which would reveal sensitive methods and techniques (1) employed in human source collection, (2) employed for the physical security protection of the department's or agency's personnel or physical environment.(c) The numbers, locations, times and other indications of recruitment, attempted recruitment or emplacement of personnel within targeted foreign organizations.
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 168]
(d) Names of particular employees whose physical safety or future careers might be placed in jeopardy by exposure.(e) Foreign or US sources, official or otherwise who agreed to cooperate under terms of explicit or implied confidentiality, who would be embarrassed or endangered by disclosure of their role.(f) Assumed identities, locations or other information permitting identification of defectors or refugees who might be targeted for retaliation.(g) Identifying information on intelligence services of friendly and neutral countries and collaboration of those services with US intelligence agencies.(h) Identification of technical foreign intelligence operations of high vulnerability or extremely high political sensitivity.(i) Details of arrangements with US and foreign banks, investment houses, etc., in support of intelligence operations.(j) Specific information on special relationships with private firms established with the approval of top corporate officials. This includes names of firms or industrial associations that collaborate in a special manner such as providing cover for foreign intelligence operations.(k) Names of firms collaborating with US intelligence agencies in collection and assessment programs (especially those having large foreign clienteles).(1) Proprietary, trade secret or patent information.
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 169]
# 9. Techniques of ParaphrasingParaphrasing of intelligence material may include the physical removal of the identity of a person, place or thing from written communication with or without regard for the residual content. Use of a substitute terms is an example of paraphrasing which permits intelligent continuity of the material without revealing the true identity. Paraphrasing does not extend to the use of false or misleading substitute material.The integrity of official records must be maintained. The following paraphrasing techniques apply only to copies of records.(a) Names may be obliterated, masked or replaced with substitute terms, the residual material xeroxed and the copy submitted to Committees.(b) The material can be retyped or reprinted with substitute phrases or substitute descriptions which do not reveal the sensitive material.(c) Entire pages can be removed from some documents and replaced with a blank page carrying only reference information as to the location of the sensitive material within the contributing department or agency.(d) Within a category of inquiry, it may be desirable to extract a complete document from requested material when the request is broad and all-inclusive within its field. The existence of such a document should be made known to the Committees but retained by the agency or department for review under escort of a representative of the department or agency.# 10. Management of DocumentsThe original record and a copy of the paraphrased version provided should be readily available in all cases. Materials developed within an agency or department in response to requests should be- 5 -NW 88296 Docld:32989532 Page 170.
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 170]
reviewed at an appropriate level for completeness, responsiveness and accuracy. In the case of documents or materials of a community nature, the release should be done in coordination with the departments or agencies and/or the Program Manager concerned an any paraphrasing should be agreed upon during coordination.This proposed use of paraphrasing as a special arrangement to protect selected issues contained in material provided to Select Committees by one agency may prove to be a futile exercise if not practiced in common by all participating departments and agencies. It is essential to the proposal that departments and agencies attempt to employ the same criteria for paraphrasing and coordinate as required. This paper can serve only a's general guidelines.
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 171]
JAMES O. EASTLAND, MISS., CHAIRMANMOMAN L. HRUSKA, NERR.JOHN S. MCCLEAN, ARK.HIRAM L. FONG, HAWAIISAM ERVIN, JR. N.C.HUGH SCOTT, PA.PHILIP A. HART, MICH.STRUM THURMOND, S.C.EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASS.MARLOW W. COOK, KY.BIRCH BAYH, IND.CHARLES MCC. MATHIAS, JR., MD.QUENTIN N. BURDICK, N. DAK.EDWARD J. GURNEY, FLA.ROBERT C. BYRD, W. VA.JOHN V. TUNNEY, CALIF.PETER M. STOCKETT, JR.CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTORSUBCOMMITTEE:ARD M. KENNEDY, MASS., CHAIRMANPHILIP A. HART, MICH.STROM THURMOND, S.C.BIRCH BAYH, IND.CHARLES MCC. MATHIAS. JR., MD.QUENTIN N. BURDICK, N. DAK.EDWARD J. GURNEY, FLAJOHN V. TUNNEY, CALIF.NATHAN LEVENTHAL, CHIEF COUNSEL# 2lnited States SenateCOMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARYSUBCOMMITTEE ONADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE(PURSUANT TO SEC, 3, S. RES, 55, 83D CONGRESS)WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510April 10, 1975Honorable Edward H. LeviAttorney GeneralDepartment of JusticeWashington, D.C.Dear Mr. Attorney General:A newspaper report in today's Washington Post has raised serious questions as to how many federal agencies engage in electronic surveillance and the extent of such surveillance.At a hearing on May 23, 1974, before the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure, Attorney General Saxbe testified on this subject. I asked him: "Can you tell us about any other organizations or government departments that are involved in any wiretapping at all today?" The Attorney General replied: "We do not believe that there is anyone else and the penalties are rather severe." (p. 495) I am enclosing a copy of the hearings for your convenience.The recent reports raise questions concerning the completeness and clarity of Attorney General Saxbe's earlier testimony. President Johnson's executive memorandum of June 30, 1965, requires that federal agencies engage in wiretapping only with the prior approval of the Attorney General. In order to fully answer the questions that have been raised, I request that you provide the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure with the following information by April 16:1.  A list of all federal departments, agencies, bureaus, divisions, and other units that conduct, have conducted, or have authority to conduct electronic surveillance of any type (including wiretaps, bugs, and other uses of any device or apparatus which can be used to intercept a wire or oral communication).NW 88296 DocId:32989532 Page 172.
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 172]
Honorable Edward H. LeviApril 10, 1975Page 22. For each agency listed under #1 above, the specific statutory or other authority for the agency's conduct of electronic surveillance.3. For each agency listed under #1 above, all guidelines, procedures, rules and regulations relating to the conduct of electronic surveillance.4. For each agency listed under #1 above, a specification of whether the agency's conduct, or authority to conduct, electronic surveillance includes:a. Electronic surveillance conducted pursuant to a court warrant obtained under the provisions of sections 2516 and 2518 of title 18, United States Code;b. Electronic surveillance conducted without a court order obtained under the provisions of sections 2516 and 2518 of title 18, United States Code;c. Electronic surveillance conducted within the United States;d. Electronic surveillance conducted in foreign countries.5. For each agency listed under #1 above, the number of electronic surveillances in place on April 1, 1975, and the number of electronic surveillances in place at any time during the calendar years 1970 through 1974 (with a description of the method used in computing these figures).I am sure you appreciate the need for the questions raised by Attorney General Saxbe's testimony to be answered as quickly and definitively as possible. These questions demonstrate once again the need for close cooperation between the Department of Justice and the Congress.Many of the questions posed in this letter were originally raised in my letter of October 10, 1973, to Attorney General Richardson. The Subcommittee requested additional information on April 16, 1974, and at the hearing on May 23, 1974. Attorney General Saxbe indicated a willingness at the hearing to provide this information in the near future, but none of this information has been provided. I am enclosing copies of the October 10, 1973, and April 16, 1974 correspondenceNW 88296 Docld:32989532 Page 173
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 173]
Honorable Edward H. LeviApril 10, 1975Page 3for your convenience, and would appreciate your letting meknow by when the information requested in these letters andat the hearing will be made available.With best wishes.Sincerely,![Signature of Edward M. Kennedy]Edward M. KennedyChairmanSubcommittee on AdministrativePractice and ProcedureNW 88296 Docld:32989532 Page 174
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 176]
JAMES O. EASTLAND, MISS., CHAIRMANICCLELLAN, AΗΚ.(VII, I., N.C.HATIT, MIC-1.MAKENNEDY, MASSYH, IND.NICK, N. DAK.DYAD, W.۷۸۰UNNCY, CALIF.ROMAN 1.. ΗΠΟ988, EDR.HIRAM L. FONS, HAWAIHuse scor٢,٢٨.STROM THMMOD, S.C.MARLOW W. COCK,KY,CHARLIES AIC C. MATHIAS, JR., MD.EDVARD J. GURNEY, FLA.JOHN H. HOLLOMAN IIICHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOREDWARD M. KENNEDY, MATS., CHAIRMANPHILIP A, HART, MICH.BIRCH FIAYH, IND.QUENTIN N. BURDICK, N. CAK.JOHN V. TUNNCY, CALIF.STROM THURMONO. 3.С.CHARLES MCC. MATILLAS, JR., MD.EDWARD J. GURNEY, FLA.JAMES F. FLUO, CHIEP COUNSEL# United States SenateCOMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARYSUBCOMMITTEE ONADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE(PURSUANT TO SEC 3, S. RCS. 55, BID CONGRESS)WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510![stamp #MOR16 ALL FBI INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS UNCLACATI DATE 1-19-01 DYSP-2ALM/ITE]October 10, 1973The Honorable Elliot L. RichardsonOffice of the Attorney GeneralDepartment of JusticeWashington, D.C. 20530Dear Mr. Attorney General:As you know, the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure has played an active role in the area of electronic surveillance over the past several years, including its role in the development and processing of the legislation which eventually became Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. and its hearings on warrantless wiretapping last year.-On February 5, 1971, I wrote Attorney General John Mitchell seeking certain information about electronic surveillance installations without court orders. The Department was good enough to provide me with most of the information I sought. The information extended by the Department was extremely useful in enlightening both the Committee and the public about the extent and significance of such surveillance.The information sought and supplied dealt only with the period June 19, 1968 through calendar year 1970. Since then, of course, the United States Supreme Court has held that domestic security surveillance without a court order is unconstitutional, United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 29/ (1972). Shortly after the Supreme Court decision, our Subcommittee held hearings on warrantless wiretapping, during which a detailed inquiry was made into the Justice Department's practices and procedures in implementing the decision. At the -hearings, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kevin Maroney testified that in response to the Supreme Court ruling, a certain number of installations "in cases involving domestic security," to use the description in Mr. Kleindienst's statement of June 19, 1972, were terminated. In a letter dated August 2, 1972, Mr. Maroney indicated the numbers of surveillances in place onNW 88296 Docld:32989532 Page 177
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 177]
The Honorable Elliot L. RichardsonOctober 10, 1973Page 2June 29, 1972 in each of the five statutory categories contained in Section 2511(3) of Title 18, United States Code. Also, on May.14, 1973, Acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation William D. Ruckleshaus disclosed information concerning some 17 wiretaps that had been placed on the telephones of newsmen and government officials.In order to keep this Subcommittee and the public fully informed about this extremely significant aspect of your practices and procedures, would you kindly provide the following information as soon as possible, sending us immediately those items of information which are readily available, and the remainder when obtained. As I indicated in my February 5, 1971 letter, I recognize that some of the statistics will be based on documents which are classified, but, as earlier, the requests have been framed so as to admit of answers which should be able to be unclassified. As previously indicated, if you nevertheless see a need to classify any particular answer, please provide it separately, and it will be handled on a classified basis.As used in the following questions, the term "electronic surveillance" includes interceptions of both wire and oral communications. The questions refer only to warrantless electronic surveillances.A. For each of the periods calendar year 1971, calendar year 1972, and January 1, 1973 to September 30, 1973, please provide:1.  The number of electronic surveillance installations placed in operation or continuing in operation at any time during the period, in terms of the number of "premises of organizations or individuals without regard to the number of instruments which may be involved in effectuating the surveillances," to use the description in Mr. Maroney's letter' of August 2, 1972. I assume that this is the same method of computation used by Mr. Mardian in his letter of March 1,. 1971; if it is not, please indicate the method of computation used by him and provide comparable figures for the time periods specified.2. Of these, please provide:a. The number of electronic surveillance installations newly placed in operation during the period;b. The number of electronic surveillance installations continuing in operation at any time during the period but placed in operation during a prior period.3. The number of each type of installation, i.e., telephone surveillances, microphone surveillances, combination surveillances, or other.   NW 88296 DocId:32989532 Page 178:
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 178]
The Honorable Ellt RichardsonOctober 10, 1973Page 34. The number of surveillances installed during each period which continued for each of the following time categories: under one week, one week to one month, one month to six months, over six months.5. The numbers of electronic surveillances in which:   a. One electronic surveillance device was installed;   b. Two electronic surveillance devices were installed;   c. Three to five electronic surveillance devices were installed;   d. Six to ten electronic surveillance devices were installed;   e. More than ten electronic surveillance devices were installed.6. The total maximum number of surveillances in operation at any one time during each period, as referred to in Mr. Mardian's letter of March 1, 1971.7. The number of electronic surveillances installed, conducted, maintained or monitored by any person or organization, or by any unit or employee of any state or local government, that were directed, supervised, made at the request of, made with the knowledge of, or connected in any way with any agency or other unit of the United States government.8. The number of wiretaps or other electronic surveillances conducted in a foreign country in which the object or target of the surveillance was a United States citizen and which were directed, conducted, supervised, made at the request of, made with the knowledge of, or connected in any way with any agency or other unit of the United States government.B. For each of the periods calendar year 1971, January 1, 1972 to June 19, 1972, June 20, 1972 to December 31, 1972, and January 1, 1973 to September 30, 1973, please provide:9. a. The number of electronic surveillances that were installed in cases involving domestic security, as defined in *United States v. United States District Court* and as referred to in Mr. Kleindienst's statement of June 19, 1972.   b. The number of electronic surveillances that were installed with respect to activities of a foreign power or foreign agents as described in *United States v. United States District Court*, 407 U.S. at 322.   c. The number of electronic surveillances that were installed on domestic organizations and individuals with a "significant connection with a foreign power, its agents or
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 179]
Page 4agencies," as delineated in United States v. United States District Court, 40/ U.S. at 309 n.8, and discussed in the testimony of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Maroney before this Subcommittee. The above 3 categories are intended to be mutually exclusive.10. a. The particular United States government departments, agencies, bureaus, divisions and other United States government entities that engaged in electronic surveillance of domestic organizations and individuals, as described in Question 9a above.b. The particular United States government departments, agencies, bureaus, divisions and other United States government entities that engaged in electronic surveillance within the continental United States on a foreign power or foreign agents as described in Question 9b above.c. The particular United States government departments, agencies, bureaus, divisions and other United States government entities that engaged in electronic surveillance of domestic organizations and individuals with significant connection with a foreign power, its agents or agencies, as described in Question 9c above.With respect to each such department, agency, bureau, division, or other government entity, please provide the numbers of electronic surveillances installed or in operation during each time period.11. a. Please indicate whether the figures provided in Mr. Mardian's letter of March 1, 1971 included the wiretaps of 17 newsmen and government officials disclosed by Acting FBI Director Ruckleshaus on May 14, 1973.b. For each period, please indicate the total number of other electronic surveillances conducted, directed, supervised, made at the request of, made with the knowledge of, or connected in any way with the FBI or the Department of Justice that were not included in the figures provided in Mr. Mardian's letter of March 1, 1971.c. 12. On June 5, 1973, the White House released figures on the number of national security wiretaps installed since 1945, reported at page H 4343 of the Congressional Record. These figures seem inconsistent with those supplied to me by the Department on March 1, 1971. In addition, the figures are unclear in certain key respects. I would therefore appreciate your supplying the following information with respect to the figures released by the White House:a. Do the years indicated refer to fiscal or to calendar years?b. Do the totals include interceptions other than by telephone wiretaps--e.g., microphone surveillances, etc.?c. Do the figures refer to the sum of all interceptions in operation during the year, or only to those in operation as of a certain date--e.g., December 31st?NW 88296 DocId:32989532 Page 180
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 180]
The Honorable Elliot L. RicharsonOctober 10, 1973Page 5d. Do the figures refer to the number of premises at which interceptions were made, the number of persons who were the primary targets of such interceptions, the number of listening devices installed, or some other number?e. For each of the years involved, do the figures refer to wiretapping by all governmental agencies or only by the Federal Bureau of Investigation? If the reference is to agencies other than the F.B.I., please indicate which agencies. How many of the interceptions referred to related to organized crime investigations?f. If the answers to the above questions do not explain the inconsistencies between the figures released by the White House and those supplied to me, please indicate any other explanation that may account for the differences.13. a. Please provide the number, names, and the present status of all criminal prosecutions in which electronic surveillance was used in any way in cases involving domestic security, as described in Question 9a above.b. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Maroney testified before this Subcommittee that in "practically all cases" in which a criminal derendant was overheard without a warrant, the government disclosed the surveillance to the trial court. Please indicate the number, names, and the present status of any cases in which an electronic surveillance of a criminal defendant was made but in which such a disclosure was not made to the trial court. Please also specify the nature of any standards and procedures adopted by the Department to ascertain and review such cases.14. With respect to all electronic surveillances newly installed between January 1, 1973, and September 30, 1973, please indicate the number of surveillances authorized under each of the five statutory categories contained in Section 251l(3) of Title 18, United States Code. Please also provide the same information with respect to all electronic surveillances in place on September 30, 1973, regardless of when they were installed.15. a. Please set forth the standards and procedures that the Department has adopted with respect to assuring compliance with the Supreme Court decision in United States v. United States District Court. Please also indicate the nature and timing of any changes in the Department's practices and procedures in this respect.b. Please indicate the nature of any standards or procedures adopted by any other department, agency, bureau, division, or any other entity of the United States government to assure compliance with the Supreme Court decision.