Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[157-10014-10121.pdf — page 52]
1 Senator Hart. If it's happening, I don't think it should.2 If we have to sacrifice *some* human intelligence, I don't think3 we ought to have a CIA guy tugging on somebody's sleeve who's4 filling out his immigration forms because it is a very subtle5 and very powerful form of coercion.6 I don't think it should go on if it is going on but7 I think the oversight committee should find out.8 Mr. Bader. It's my personal position on this that9 we don't have the evidence. We have not taken it through to10 come to a conclusion on this ;11 I personally think that it's a problem that should be12 pointed out, and I think perhaps my own view is that the13 formulation of a recommendation to look into this as a possible,14 as a problem would be my recommendation.15 I don't believe that is David's recommendation.16 Senator Mathias. I would think that you might as you17 contemplate this thing. there are all types of opportunities18 for this and I don't have any idea whether it's been done or not,19 but I would think an illegal alien, for example, would be a20 tremendous target.21 Mr. Aaron. I might just say --22 Senator Mathias. It's a different problem.23 Mr. Aaron. It's a subtle problem because abroad I personally24 was involved in a case in which someone seeking to emigrate to25 the United States. his desire to do that was exploited abroad
[157-10014-10121.pdf — page 53]
for the purpose of gettion him into the Agency.Senator Mathias. This is the kind of situation I'm thinking of, perhaps not an illegal alien. But someone who is in this country in some sort of legal status but which is of temporary duration and he wants to change his status.Senator Huddleston. I can see that. Of course you're not going to get one unless there's something he wants. Most of them, it's either money or some change in his status.Mr. Aaron. We drafted this language to make clear that they were really immigrants and they were not illegal aliens or people here changing their status or people outside trying to get in, but people who are inside applying for their citizenship.Senator Hart. We could offer an option to have the Statue of Liberty say give us your huddled masses if you work for the CIA.Senator Huddleston, I think there's a legitimate concern and that exploiting people who legitimately want to be United States citizens.I also believe that, particularly anyone from the Soviet Union over here trving to become an American citizen, it's going to pretty well diminish his chances if he does go back to the Soviet Union that he's going to be taken into the confidence of very many people over there.Mr. Kirbow. This is not an uncommon practice for the
[157-10014-10121.pdf — page 54]
1 United States. We've been doing it in the United Statesmilitary for generations in giving earlier consideration forcitizenship if he serves on active duty as an alien in the4 United States armed forces.5 It's been done as long as I can remember and I was in6 the military over 25 years.7 Mr. Maxwell. I think the only question is if we m8 recommend against this practice if we don't even know --9 Senator Huddleston. It bothers me that we would indict10 the Agency with such scant evidence we have.11 Mr. Aaron. My recommendation is that we get the Agency12 on record as to whether this is the practice or not.13 Mr. Kirbow. I recommend it be dropped from this if14 we had only one witness and we've not heard the Agency or15 that we develop a record to support both that and the same16 part of that first paragraph, which I don't think we have a17 record on either.18 Mr. Aaron. We do have a record on that. It's an19 interview record, it's not a sworn testimony record. But the20 first sentence, there is an interview to support that.21 Mr. Kirhow. Mr. Chairman. I think the subcommittee then22 should carefully consider whether or not it is concerned about23 the use of American companies in the pursuit of foreign24 intelligence and 'f so, how this impacts on anybody's rights25 or otherwise.
[157-10014-10121.pdf — page 55]
We just went throwth this the other day with the labor unions. The whole paragraph.Senator Huddleston. I have some concern with that too.When we talk about expressly prohibiting penetration of American companies, it seems to me that the question is whether or not we're penetrating those companies with company executives being unwitting or whether --Mr. Aaron. That's the point.Senator Huddleston. It seems to me the real problem is when we were doing it secretly.Mr. Aaron. And that's the point.Senator Huddleston. The company ought to have the right to make a determination as to whether or not its interest would be severely jeopardized if this were to happen.Mr. Treverton. I think this language probably isn't clear enough. If we did human penetration without the knowledge of the company on the operation of the company primarily --Mr. Kirbow. We're talking about a corporate operation against a U.S. company in the United States?Mr. Treverton. Presumably it would not be in the U.S.Mr. Kirbow. If that's what's intended, it does not convey it to even an informed reader:Senator Huddleston. Well. we say foreign intelligence collection.
[157-10014-10121.pdf — page 56]
## LOREL1 Mr. diGenova. May I ask in this regard, it ends up2 by saying, although according to CIA officials such activity3 has not taken place -- what's the other evidence that it has4 which created the sentence?End 21. b 255 Mr. Aaron. In looking at what the foreign resources6 division does in the way of penetration of businesses as7 opposed to collecting agents on campuses or in some other8 walk of life, we found that the FRD actually runs agents in9 only a few cases.10 The cases are Americans employed by local industries in11 the United States or consulates.12 In other words, in diplomat consulate establishments13 in which there are few cases in which indeed the Americans14 working for those diplomatic establishments are agents of the15 CIA through the foreign resources division, and the Americans16 are not officers of the CIA but they were agents of the CIA17 in that respect.18 Mr. Kirbow. They work in the embassies as you say?19 Mr. Aaron. Yes, here in the United States, and this20 is talking about domestic impact. This is not the foreign21 situation.22 There has been at least one case and I belive there are23 two but only one I can specify. in which the FRD had an24 American agent in a foretan company. a foreign-based company.25 It was very unambiguous that the company was a forelon companyNW 50955 DocId:32423509 Page 57
[157-10014-10121.pdf — page 57]
because in effect it was a public company of a country whose most business enterprises are owned by the government. But it's a company and it's business and it was a foreign company and the question was, and it related toMr. Kirbow. And this agent was apparently here in the United States?Mr. Aaron. Collecting intelligence on the activities of that company because that company had foreign policy implications for us.The next question that was put to, I believe, the chief of the FRD was do you have any regulations that prohibited you from doing the same thing with an American company? And the answer was no, we don't, although we don't do that or we haven't done that or something to that effect.That is essentially the story and how it came to pass.Mr. Maxwell. There's some question on both of these whether there are ways of saving things that are important as recommendations without implying that A, these had gone on and B, that we have a record to support that.There's also. I guess, a slight question in my mind as to the order of magnitude of the recommendations that flow from this in the promulgation of a specific directive.That's slightly out of synch with the order of some of the other recommendations. The Committee might want to choose to drop that to a footnote or to do it in some other way.
[157-10014-10121.pdf — page 58]
ash 36TOP SECRET561 Mr. Aaron. The recommendation that relates to that is2 where?3 Mr. Maxwell. I thought that we had made a finding. It4 was number 25 on 39. That's a somewhat different order.5 Mr. Aaron. Do I take it that --6 Senator Huddleston. Is this penetration always in thecontext that it's unwitting?8 Mr. Aaron. Yes. If it's witting, it's really collaboratio9 which is another matter.10 Senator Huddleston. So although you could be witting --11 Mr. Aaron. Well. the penetrating also applies and12 maybe we should also make this clear, but for the purposes of13 conducting some operation with regard to the organization,14 whether to make it do something in the covert action sense15 which collect information on it.16 If it were simply unwitting cover, that's a different17 thing.18 Mr. Maxwell. I don't think, David, that penetration was19 used in a context in the agency in the NH/BOUND --20 Mr. diGenova. Penetration was for security purposes.21 It's to discover whether or not there is in fact a fly in the22 ointment with regard to the security of an American company.23 That's the way it was used in MH/BOUND.24 Senator Huddleston. That's putting a spy in the25 organization.NW 50955 DocId:32423509 Page 59TOP SECRETWARD & PAUL
[157-10014-10121.pdf — page 59]
57Mr. diGenova. Well, ves. In this case they penetratedBurbank, California and other companies, mostly defensecontractors building planes in order to find out they hadsecurity risks, a laborer or an executive inside.Mr. Maxwell. It was witting to a certain extent.Mr. Bader. I think one of the problems we have here isthis question of whether in our formal recommendations that weshould enjoin the agency from doing things that they don't do.And where there's no evidence they have any intentionMr. Kirbow. The '47 Act prohibits this kind of conductwithin the United States.Mr. Bader. And I think that that should be carefullyconsidered. We have no evidence that the Central IntelligenceAgency penetrates Congressional staff, but we have not put itin as a recommendation that they should not penetrateCongressional staffs.I think the other matter that has been raised about theoperational exploitation of recruiting individuals who are inan immigrant status and seeking a change a change in status,we do at least have what I hold to be a responsible sourcesaving that this practice, he has seen this in practice.I think we should separate the two issues and on thesecond one it seems to me that if we could frame some languageithat is language of caution and concern. or we should move veryquickly. it seems to me. to take some testimony from the Agency
[157-10014-10121.pdf — page 60]
1 on that matter before we can talk about the matter of the2 practice of recruiting because I don't think we can use the3 word practice until such time as we have --4 Mr. diGenova. I didn't mean to impugn the integrity5 of your source.6 The question is if the Committee gets asked a question7 about it later on and someone comes back and reviews these8 records and sees one person was spoken to or something. I9 don't really think that's much of a record to go around making10 findings and conclusions in a final report.11 It has nothing to do with the integrity of the man from12 whom the information came. He's probably right.13 Mr. Aaron. I'd like to recommend that on that particular14 coint we tried to nail down with the Agency a little more15 carefully what the current policy or practice is and on the16 question -- but I still stand with the view, I might say, on17 the second one of expressing concern if indeed there is a18 practice and we do know that some of it has taken place in the19 past, if there's still no quard against it, then I think perhaps20 Senator Hart's recommendation about how the oversight committee21 should pursue this question further would be sufficient.22 Senator Huddleston. Well, paragraph 22 over on 39.23 if applied to the FRD. would be a pretty good approach, I think.24 Mr. Aaron. That could not necessarily rule out -- it25 would not step up to this question. This really is aimed abroad> [Figure: Text "TOP SECRET WARD & PAUL"]NW 50955 DocId:32423509 Page 61
[157-10014-10121.pdf — page 61]
at the question of duplication with overt reporting by the military attaches or by the foreign service or whomever. In other words, it's trying to establish a standard.Senator Huddleston. Okay, so where are we?Mr. Aaron. I think we're at the following point that as far as the bracketed sentence is concerned, we'll go back to the Agency and establish what the practice is when review is necessary of including the paragraph along the lines suggested by Senator Hart saying the oversight committee should look into this particular practice if indeed it is a practice with the absence of policy on this point.As to the question of American companies, I think I still need to be directed as to how to deal with that. I think when in doubt, delete.Senator Hart. Can we just commend them for that? Can we say it's a good practice?Mr. Aaron. Well, the Committee notes that it's been the practice not to do this and that that should continue as a part of their standard procedures.Senator Mathias. Have we ever commended them?Mr. Bader. There is much text here which talks about sensible, responsible practices.Senator Mathias. I do think you should mention that we're talking about their domestic operations of American companies.Mr. Aaron. Yes... FRD is supposed to tell you that but:> [Figure: Text "TOP SECRET" with the name WIPDR PAUL written underneath]
[157-10014-10121.pdf — page 62]
it doesn't.Senator Mathias. I think on page 36 and 39 it ought to refer to domestic operations.Mr. Kirbow. I think we might want to consider too that there's an extensive section of the domestic activities of the CIA coming into the domestic task force report, the subcommittee's report. And if don't put in a comment like this, it'll probably 'all go in that other section. Whereas here we're dealing with an apparent possibility that sometime in the remote future there could be an abuse and there dealing with the abuse section and this kind of departs from what you'v done otherwise.Mr. Bader. I would say on that score that this is a foreign intelligence matter. That is the objective. And I think if it's going to be mentioned, it should be mentioned here.Mr. Kirbow. It is on the immigrants, but I don't think whether or not you're penetrating an American company to illegally or anything else, if there's any way you can get around the 1947 Act which prohibits that kind of activity by the CIA in the United States for whatever purpose, to penetrate them other than security of your own facility:Mr. Maxwell. One thing that might make this easier is I think that if weeypressed and concern in that directica exista in regard to this practice. we would get one promulgated quite
[157-10014-10121.pdf — page 63]
quickly.Mr. Aaron. I would recommend that we accept the suggestion that we put this in a positive sense and proceed on that basis and clarify the word penetrate and the fact that it is the domestic aspect.Mr. Kirbow. Could we ask the Agency to comment in some way so that at least we don't recommend to you that you --Mr. Aaron. I'd be happy to do that again.Senator Huddleston. Well, now it's 12:00. I hope there's some way we can get through this today, which would include of course a night session which Senator Mathias and I are available for.We've done 38 pages out of 160.Mr. Aaron. I think it will give focus essentially on the recommendations and the bracketed portions that that should prove possible to at least break the back of it.Senator Huddleston. We can at least try.Mr. Aaron. If we come back at 2:00, I think we could probably have cleared away a couple of the other sections and then we will be really ready. We will have the full book here and we can go at it.Senator Mathias. 2:00, I think, would be better for me.Let's say 2:00.Senator Huddleston. We'll adjourn until 2:00.(Whereupon. at 12:00 o'clock noon, the hearing in![TOP SECRET]
[157-10014-10121.pdf — page 64]
1 the above-mentioned matter was recessed, to reconvene at2 2.00 o'clock of the same day.).345678910111213141516171819202122232425NW 50955 DocId:32423509 Page 65**TOP SECRET**WARD & PAUL
[157-10014-10121.pdf — page 65]
62aAFTERNOON SESSION (2:20 p.m.)Mr. BAder. Mr. Chairman, before you begin I might mention that tomorrow morning at either 9 or 10:00, depending upon whether this subcommittee meets tomorrow morning, we've arranged for representatives of the FRD, the Foreign Resources Division of the Central Intelligence Agency, to give us testimony on some of these issues that have been raised, such as the use of immigrants, some of the figures that they've given us, and this question of penetration of American businesses.That will be scheduled, as I say, at either 9 or 10:00 depending on whether the subcommittee meets tomorrow morning.We would like to have a Senator swear those witnesses and then obviously any Senator who would like to attend is invited.
[157-10014-10121.pdf — page 66]
Senator Huddleston. My thinking now is that we would meet probably at 10:00.Mr. Bader. We could certainly do it in an hour's time.Senator Huddleston. I would like to attend that session.Mr. Bader. So we'll start at 9:00 promptly:Senator Huddleston. Senator Mathias had the suggestion that in view of the fact that there is specific legislation relating to that subject and that's in the Immigration Act --Mr. Bader. I've asked them to be prepared to speak to their interpretation of the provisions and restrictions in the Immigration Act.Senator Huddleston. But our recommendation is that we would review the act and the practices.Mr. Bader. If we have this room, as I hope we do, we would take the testimony right here and if need be, move it to another room.Senator Mathias. In the event that I should not be able to be here, and I hope I will, I think we ought to look at this thing pretty closely.As Senator Huddleston said earlier, you don't recruit these people just out of the blue unless there's some reason for them to sign up, and I don't think we want to be too critical of recruiting procedures; to revert to the phrase that we used yesterday, there are consenting adults.
[157-10014-10121.pdf — page 67]
I think what we have to look at is the degree of coercion which is implied here, the kind of bind that you get these people in where they really are perhans totally alienated from wherever they came from, and what sort of a crack do you put them in and that not only goes to the humanitarian aspect of it but to questions over liability and the rest.Senator Huddleston. I think they could be very helpful to us.Mr. Bader. Senator. I could also try to adjust the timeSenator Mathias. It could be before or after our afternoon meeting, if that would be more in your reach.Senator Mathias. Well, I haven't gotten my walking papers for the morning yet.Mr. Inderfurth. It's interesting in this respect to th about Lee Harvey Oswald, about his being over there, and we're talking about immigrants coming here and defectors and so on.Senator Mathias. It's the other side of the coin.Senator Huddleston. There's a question of how many doors we ought to close.Senator Mathias. Mr. Chairman. I regret to raise a further complication. There's a meeting that I had for 6:00 that's now been postponed to 6:30. So it would probably mean I can't get here until 7:30.Senator Huddleston. Maybe 7:30 would be a better time:I don't know. These people need to get out and get some fresh
[157-10014-10121.pdf — page 68]
air too, I would expect.Before we get into the substance here, I understand that our new mandate is if possible to complete ours no later than Friday. So we're going to try to shoot for tomorrow. What the Chairman would like to do would be for us to have our report in some kind of form that we can give to the Full Committee by Friday so that they can review it over the weekend and the Full Committee can start on it on Monday.Now how do you think you would stand on that proposition?Mr. Bader. This is the principle findings, conclusions and recommendations?Senator Huddleston. Yes, which would mean that whatever changes we are making here in phraseology and so forth. should be incorporated and retyped.We have that problem..Mr. Aaron. I would think that that's do-able. I mean it remains to be seen how extensively you would want to debate some issues and the extent to which you will simply want to bracket them or identify them and have the principal discussion take place in the Full Committee.But I would think that that's feasible.Senator Huddleston. To delay it past Friday, of course, would delay the time that the Full Committee could consider it because they need to have it in their hands at least one day.It might go fast in the Full Committee. I have no way of
[157-10014-10121.pdf — page 69]
56knowing.Mr. Kirbow. Bill, because you and I both know Senator Mathias's previous intentions stated in the letter to the Chairman, was there somewhere a discussion about releasing this piecemeal ahead of time that might. that should go on the record here?Mr. Miller. If it's agreeable to the Subcommittee, to get it done by the weekend, he proposes that they take up in Full Committee the findings and recommendations of the foreign groun.The domestic group is much further behind, so they would not take it up until about the 24th.The question of whether to release any information or any report that may be decided by the Committee ---Senator Huddleston. We'll let the Full Committee decide that when they get the report.Now where are we then on the report part?Mr. Aaron. We have, we're in an extensive program of trying to get the Agency's views as to what information is sources and methods and what is classified for other reasons and what have you.We have. I believe, all but four papers have been read by the Agency in one form or another and are in the process of going out there. The four that are hot are the Congressior oversight and the CIA budget paper, although the budget section![TOP SECRET VARD & FAUL]NW 50955 DocId: 32423509 Page 70
[157-10014-10121.pdf — page 70]
of the defense report, which is the substance of that has been discussed at great length with the Defense Department and they are happy with it except -- well, happy with it may be an exaggeration but they have no problems with it except for the numbers and the Committee itself will have to step up to the question of whether the large number or any subsets of numbers will be released.The internal oversight. the Office of General Counsel and Inspector General has not been.Is that right?Mr. Maxwell. That's right. No material that was ed there was derived from classified material.Mr. Aaron. So that shouldn't be a problem. The general papers on covert action and espionage have not been given to them. They are just being completed by the staff essentially. All the others, and the chemical and biological one has not been shared with them.Now beyond that all the others, I believe, have now gone out to the Agency in one form or another. The only one that seems to be approved, or at least we've gotten the go- ahead on. is the Department of State's paper and the Department requested one deletion, which we are prepared to make.Senator Huddleston. All right, then. As I understand it. the Chairman. if we are able to get ours to him so the Full Committee can begin on findings and recommendations on