Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 13]
# TOP SECRET1 academic, like you say, that teaches the student directly,2 but a businessman who happens to have elected going into the3 business of running a newspaper or a magazine, to be singled4 out and say you as a patriotic American are proscribed against5 doing any business, and if you are going to do it with an agency,6 you should do it with the whole United States Government. I7 don't see how we can single out the CIA and not single out8 military or FBI.9 Mr. Aaron. Well, I think the domestic group will have --10 may well have some recommendations regarding the FBI's covert11 use of American media.12 Mr. Kirbow. Well, domestic media, obviously.13 Mr. Aaron. I would like to say, to take Charles'14 example of an American working for a foreign press, and what15 the problem is. I think the problem is that you have two16 kinds of problems with the press. One is the fact, if it is17 operating domestically, if it is working for American media18 institutions, it is clear that they are subject to some19 manipulation or at least questionable manipulation, and there20 are issues in people's minds as to its integrity.21 Now, the question goes beyond that to what about people22 who might be working for some foreign -- American journalists,23 American writers or what have you, working for foreign media24 institutions. There you have a somewhat more extended25 situation. But it seems to me that what you have is the
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 14]
TOP SECRET121 possibility of the American press getting discredited, having2 problems of being able to perform its normal functions in the3 world and performing in the United States because it is part4 of a clandestine intelligence organization.5 Mr. Kirbow. Don't you think that's an individual right6 that a person has the right to exercise both ways, instead of7 one way?8 Mr. Aaron. Charles, what I think I have told the9 Committee, I have a real problem with the concept of the10 American people having the right to spy, somehow, and these11 prohibitions don't go to what people are allowed to do on12 the outset. They go to what the Government is allowed to do.13 Mr. Maxwell. Well, let's take a different kind of14 example.15 What would happen if in some way and it's not, I think,16 impossible to imagine -- an American citizen was writing full17 time for the Communist Party paper in Italy or Portugal or18 France.19 Now, that obviously would be covered by the example that20 Bill has provided as a prohibition.21 There are two questions. One is whether the person has22 any real operational use that you want to preserve, and second,23 whether it goes to the question that David presents, which is24 the possible contamination of the American press, which seems25 a difficult extension in that example, as well as the possibility
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 15]
TOP SECRET1 of distortion, the flowback problem in America.2 And the second problem seems to be, with an example like3 that, is that it seems to -- there is very little stock in the4 argument, because the argument about distortion of what goes5 on in foreign countries and people's perceptions is at the heart6 of the question of whether the CIA or any government agency7 should be engaged in- propaganda, because it is quite possible8 the propaganda gets picked up in the same way, and the question9 is obviously of line drawing: how do you want to draw the10 line.11 It strikes me that there may be better ways to draw the12 line than the suggested prohibition that Bill has for any13 American, regardless of status, or who they write for or what they are doing.14 Mr. Kirbow. By having citizenship as an American --15 Mr. Bader. Well, you misunderstood me. I was putting out16 the various possibilities.17 Let's turn to the text for just a moment and maybe that18 will help.19 First turn to 61. Let's try to get some idea of what the20 problem is before we get to the semantics of it. All right,21 just let me go through this, then we'll see what is actually22 being recommended here.23 I have confused you, obviously, by giving a series of24 possibilities, not what the recommendations are.
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 16]
TOP SECRET14"Ten U.S. news organizations and five U.S. publishing houses provide cover for CIA agents abroad. Four of the organizations do not know that they provide this cover."Then there are some examples.Mr. Kirbow. Meaning management or individual?Mr. Bader. Management.Mr. Kirbow. At any level.Mr. Bader. At any level.Mr. Kirbow. All right.Mr. Bader. Then there are some examples of the kinds of relationships that the CIA officer engages in intelligencecollection under cover as a roving international news correspondent, a CIA officer under cover as a European representative of an American company while working as a stringer for a United States publication engages in intelligence collection and covert action. In this case the company is aware of the CIA relationship while the publication is not. Bona fide journalists who regularly provide the CIA with intelligence, some are paid regularly while others are not. In one case the journalist is apparently not aware that the U.S. embassy official to whom he is providing information is actually a CIA officer.Now, what the recommendation here on 64, or the bracketed recommendations -- and I'm sorry I created this situation by giving various options -- by statute the CIA should be
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 17]
# TOP SECRET1 prohibited from using American media organizations for2 cover. That is the extent of it.3 What is the trouble, Joe?4 Mr. diGenova. That seems to be somewhat -- that seems5 to be a back-off from what the Agency prohibits as well. I mean6 do you want to make a recommendation saying that the Agency's7 prohibition against using Americans who are accredited --8 Mr. Bader. No.9 This is the additive. The recommendation here is to10 take the Agency's prohibitions which go to the question of,11 American and foreign journalists, accredited to American12 media organizations, and extend it to what is not covered under13 those prohibitions, which is the use of these American media14 organizations for cover purposes.15 Mr. Maxwell. Is it clear that people who are in media16 organizations are not accredited to those organizations?17 Mr. Aaron. If they were, then they would be covered.18 If they are accredited journalists, then they would not.19 Mr. Maxwell. So the issue is whether individuals who20 don't write --21 Mr. Aaron. But may edit.22 Mr. Maxwell. But may edit.23 Ms. Culbreath. Or may type it up.24 Mr. Aaron. Or may type it up.25 Mr. Kirbow. Well, is this the same point that we're
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 18]
TOP SECRET 161 talking about less than 25 people, where you are going to make2 a statutory prohibition against use of all people in that3 category because on page 61 it says, "of the 65 Americans4 employed by the CIA in the media field, only a little over5 one third are journalists; another third are CIA agents operat-6 ing under media cover, and the remaining individuals are either7 employed as CIA media proprietaries abroad or are propaganda8 writers and consultants."9 So we are really talking about making a major prohibition10 against a segment of our society where at the present time there11 is less than 25 people who have any direct contact with the12 reading mind, apparently.13 Senator Hart of Colordado. I think, Charlie, it's called14 a principle. If it was only one person, you've still got the15 problem. I don't think it is the quantity.16 Ms. Davis. Bill, in your examples on 61, the first one17 at the bottom, would that now be covered under your prohibition?18 CIA officer engages in intelligence collection under cover as a19 roving international news correspondent?20 Mr. Bader. I can't remember from the text here whether21 the man is accredited or not.22 If he is accredited, it would be covered.23 Ms. Davis. If not, he is not additionally covered by your24 prohibition.25 Senator Huddleston. This does not extend to the exampleTOP SECRETNW 50955 DocId:32423513 Page 19
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 19]
TOP SECRET171 that you gave, Charlie.2 Mr. Kirbow. No, sir, it doesn't here.3 Mr. Bader. Only if he is affiliated with that group.4 Mr. Kirbow. His affiliation covers anybody who is an5 American citizen is forever and hereafter would be prohibited, if6 it goes into the statute, from dealing.7 Mr. diGenova. That's only one of the possibilities.8 Mr. Kirbow. That's one of those recommendations based9 on investigation.10 Mr. Bader. I wasn't recommending that. I was saying that11 was one of the possibilities of the whole list.12 Senator Huddleston. But the recommendation at the top13 of 64 doesn't cover an American citizen who is using the14 foreign media as cover.15 Mr. Bader. This would not cover an American citizen who16 is, let's say, is working for Stompe, or Le Monde, and who is17 not accredited, and at the same time is not accredited to18 an American media organization.19 It does not cover an American citizen who is a stringer to20 a Latin American newspaper unless he is accredited to an American21 media organization.22 Mr. Kirbow. Let me try one more time, then, to state the23 position of not Senator Tower in this case, but another Senator,24 as I indicated, spoke to me on this very subject,and indicate25 to you that we not do to harm or to prevent the use by the
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 20]
TOP SECRET181 agency of certain people unless in some way that use affects2 the rights and/or in some vague way affects the mental processes3 to the detriment of the American citizenry, that we don't4 concern ourselves with passing laws to protect the person who5 reads something that these people do. If you do this, you open6 that can of worms which gets you into a prohibition against any7 work in the press or elsewhere in a propaganda fashion.8 Now, the Committee may decide that propaganda is in fact9 something that we should prohibit by law, but doing this10 piecemeal like this, it does just exactly that. I see nothing11 in our record that indicates that the use of certain of these12 people overseas or for cover in any way -- there is not13 any evidence that it has adversely affected the rights of the14 citizens of the United States. There is a potential for15 abuse in practically anything secret and covert.16 Senator Huddleston. I don't believe the recommendation17 at the top of page 64 violates what you have just said.18 Mr. Maxwell. I would not think that --19 Mr. Kirbow.. Well, it says, Mr. Chairman, that by statute,20 by statute, which means by law, the CIA should be prohibited21 from using American media organizations for cover. We apparently22 have 65 people, a portion of which are being used for cover,23 and apparently they consider them to be an essential asset, or24 they wouldn't be using them.25 Is that correct, Mr. Bader?
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 21]
# TOP SECRET191 Mr. Bader. The CIA?2 Mr. Kirbow. Yes.3 Mr. Bader. I would assume that they would have extended4 their prohibition to this, or on the other hand one could argue5 I don't know what their motives were. It could have been they:6 felt that this, the first step they took was the one that was7 dealing with what the public was demanding.8 Mr. Kirbow. Well, I really don't see anything in our9 record or any evidence that they have given us or anything10 other than a staff position on this which we are trying to|11 sell the Committee that this is a harmful procedure.12 Senator Huddleston. What this does is extends beyond13 the practice of journalists to any other person, be it an14 executive or clerk or typist or whatever, on the assumption15 that you can't be a little bit pregnant. If the agency is16 going to be subverted anywhere, not the agency, if the insti-17 tution of the press is, that it is going to be subverted.18 Mr. Bader. Mr. Chairman, the Agency has accepted the19 basic principle, because it has removed from its list of20 operational assets a rather larger number than this would21 call for.22 Mr. Kirbow. But if I hear correctly what you are saying23 then, we are out to protect the American media from being made:24 pregnant by the CIA and not worrying at all about the reading25 public or the other, but just the media.NW 50955 DocId: 32423513 Page 22
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 22]
# TOP SECRETSenator Huddleston. The assumption is if the media of the press is subverted, that it will affect the citizens, or they will suffer.Senator Hart of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of expedition, I move the passage of these three recommendations.Senator Huddleston. All right. Let's see what the three are.Mr. Aaron. Well, let me summarize the first one. I think we have agreed the first is that the prohibition on distribu- tion of CIA funded, supported, subsidized and so forth, that that be prohibited within the United States.Mr. Inderfurth. Printed.Mr. Kirbow. Excuse me. Not printed.Mr. Aaron. The word "printed" dropped out for the following reason. One, it makes it easier to prohibit the distribution if you don't identify where the printing is taking place, and secondly, while there is no printing going on here, the question really goes to distribution. I think that was the concurrence of the Committee.The second point is that the prohibitions of that the Agency now has upon itself, be made law.Mr. diGenova. On the use of media personnel and institutions?Mr. Aaron. On the use of media personnel and institutions, and the third point is that it be extended to say by statute
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 23]
TOP SECRET211 the CIA should be prohibited from using American media organiza-2 tions for cover.3 Senator Huddleston. Well, the style of this ought to4 be changed, it seems to me, because one of the recommendations,5 instead of listed under recommendations, is the last paragraph6 on 63, is that correct?7 Mr. Aaron. Yes, that would be picked up as a recommenda-8 tion, that is correct.9 Mr. diGenova. Plus the other one, which is not on 64.10 Mr. Aaron. Well, the one on 64, the bottom one comes out.11 Senator Huddleston. Right.12 Senator Mathias. Before you leave that, as a matter of13 record, I am requested to note an exception on behalf of14 minority.15 Mr. Aaron. The second section was the covert use of16 American clergy and laity. This is on Page 64.17 Senator Huddleston. Was that included in your motion?18 Senator Hart of Colorado. No.19 Mr. Aaron. I think that covers the recommendation.20 Mr. Maxwell. They hadn't discussed whether it21 should be made public.22 Senator Huddleston. Well, if it becomes a statute, it23 becomes public .24 Mr. Inderfurth. But the statute will remain secret.25 Mr. Aaron. No, we are ready to move on it, to covert
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 24]
# TOP SECRET221 use of American clergy and laity.2 Senator Huddleston. Well, the covert action is3 with the noted exception, those recommendations go before4 the Committee.5 Senator Hart of Colorado. Just for clarification, Mac, is6 that the entire minority or what?7 Senator Mathias. No, it's only one member.8 Senator Huddleston. Now we are ready to deal with the9 clergy.10 Mr. Aaron. The point here is, I think, the CIA takes11 the position that it has no covert arrangements with American12 clergy and laity, and that this will continue as policy, but13 they have relationship of a clandestine character which don't14 involve remuneration.15 Senator Huddleston. Incidentally, is that a new policy?16 Mr. Bader. Yes, as of February 10, 1976.17 Mr. Aaron. It's pretty short. This is the sum total of18 our findings, and it explains it better than I can.19 Mr. Bader. This has not been, obviously you can see,20 Senator and members of the Committee, from the text that the21 Committee has found the CIA has a total of 14 covert arrangements22 involving direct operational use of 21, that should be religious23 persons, and I found it very difficult in this to properly or24 respectively address the category here, whether they are American25 clergy, regligious persons, or what. It is a term of art I
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 25]
TOP SECRET                                                                                                 231   really haven't quite been able to deal with.2   As of February 10th, the CIA announced that the CIA has3   not secret paid or contractual relationships with an American4   clergyman or missionary. This practice will be continued as a5   matter of policy.6   Senator Huddleston. I think we ought to clarify that7   religious persons. That would include Chuck Colson.8   Mr. Bader. The issue here is, we are saying in the first9   instance, we welcome this policy which they intend to put into10  their operational prohibitions, and the recommendation that11  we bring to you is a very simple one, in addition to that is12  that it be extended from contractual to all operational relation-13  ships, paid and unpaid.14  Senator Huddleston. By statute.15  Mr. Bader. By statute.16  Mr. Inderfurth. May I ask a question here?17  How does this conform to Senator Hatfield's bill on this?18  Mr. Bader. I don't know.19  Mr.Inderfurth. I don't know. I'll get a copy of it,20  but I think to the degree possible, if the committee21  recommends by statute a prohibition, it should be made to conform22  to that because he has put in a great deal of work on that, or23  without knowing the facts, I might add.24  Mr. Kirbow. The other thing is the Committee may want25  to support legislation that is already pending.
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 26]
# TOP SECRETMr. Maxwell. What is the nature of the covert relationship with religious persons now in effect?Senator Mathias. A few patriotic volunteers.Mr. Bader. Patriotic volunteers, at least one of them, from the operational records.I think, too, they have what is called a memorandum of agreement which is not contractual in the sense that it involves paid or unpaid.Mr. Maxwell. What are they doing?Mr. Bader. They collect intelligence information.Mr. Kirbow. What is a religious person, Mr. Bader, as they use it or as you use it here?Would that mean the organ player that is a civilian who travels with a preacher and plays the organ?Mr. Bader. No. It is intended to be the American clergy, although I certainly would lean on whoever can tell me what a proper term is to define American clergy.Senator Mathias. What about this fellow around, Maharaja Rani?Senator Huddleston. I'll think on your defintion.Mr. Bader. I think we'll have to have a footnote as to what American clergy may be.Mr. diGenova. American clergy or missionaries, certainly.Senator Huddleston. Well, missionary gets a little fuzzy.
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 27]
TOP SECRET                                                                    25Mr. Bader. The Agency uses "American clergy or missionary.'Senator Huddleston. It has to be a person whose primary occupation is for a religious order or sect or something, it seems to me.Mr. Kirbow. How about the Mormon youth who do their things overseas?Would this take care of them and prevent them from getting gobbled up?Senator Huddleston. I think that's a good question. They receive no pay.Mr. Kirbow. They are not church people, per se. It is part of their religion, doing the service. You see, this gets tobe a rather broad extension, or you leave out certain things if you are not careful with your definition.Senator Huddleston. I think there may be somewhere in our litany a definition. I am not sure.Mr. Inderfurth. I would imagine that Senator Hatfield's bill, a definition of what clergy -- that would be spelled out.There are copies coming over now.Mr. Bader. Well, I think maybe we will get a copy of the definition of clergy or missionary. Maybe that will clear that up.Senator Huddleston. Well, I think, you know, some churches send people over for a very short period of time. They are lay people, really, but while they are there, they are
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 28]
# TOP SECRET26there more or less under the auspices of the church group.Mr. Kirbow. At least a local church frequently sponsored them.Senator Huddleston. I don't think you can prohibit all those kinds of people. I think some kind of definition should include the primary occupation of clergy, clergy itself.Senator Mathias. Well, why don't we commit to staff for the moment the question of definition?Senator Huddleston. I think we will have to do that.Okay. Are we ready to move on that?Mr. Aaron. The recommendation is that whomever or however we define them -- and that's obviously an important question, that they either be prohibited by statute. The other alternative is to simply prohibit any further or recommend the prohibition of any further CIA recruitment in this field.Ms. Culbreath. The way this is worded, this would get anybody who is a lay member of a church. You have got recruitments of American clergy or laity.If I am a member of the Methodist church, I am in the laity of the church.Mr. Miller. You have raised a question. There are people who are not priests in the religious hierarchy in a particular sect who may devote their entire lives to that particular church.Senator Mathias. Well, I think the word "a religious"
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 29]
TOP SECRET271 I'm serious here -- should be considered.2 Mr. Aaron. "A religious?"3 Mr. Bader. We'll have to obviously work on that. Laity4 was not meant here to be a member of a church, for technical5 terms, the technical terms Mr. Miller mentioned.6 Mr. Miller. As distinct from the congregation, it was7 meant to deal with the administrators in a religious order.8 Senator Huddleston. Well, some sects have lay preachers and9 lay clergy.10 Mr. Kirbow. Senator Hart, do you want each of these11 categories like this examined in the light of the constitutional12 question that you raised earlier?13 Senator Hart of Colorado. I just raised the issue where14 the academics were concerned to resolve it, so I'm sure it15 should be raised by somebody.16 Senator Huddleston. Are you ready to go on the religious17 insofar as what is the definition? Then that will be --18 Senator Hart of Colorado. Yes, sir.19 Senator Huddleston. Then that will be moved up, I assume,20 with exceptions noted?21 Mr. Kirbow. I don't have any exception to that one, sir.22 Mr. Inderfurth. That is by statute, right?23 Senator Huddleston. Pardon?24 Mr. Inderfurth. Is that by statute?25 Senator Huddleston. Right.
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 30]
TOP SECRETMr. Maxwell. There may be a First Amendment argument here, particularly in fundamentalist groups whose religious beliefs are committed, are directed toward opposition toward Godless atheism.Mr. diGenova. Except that the control of religious organization has historically been subject to governmental regulation in this sense: the Supreme Court in light of Senator Hart's question last night, I did a little bit of research. The example, the prime example of regulation doesn't deal so much with prohibition of the Government dealing with someone, although there are vast areas where the government is not permitted to get into. The question is, for years the Supreme Court has ruled that there are certain health regulations of states that religious sects must comply with, and they have to comply with it even if it conflicts with their basic religious belief, that they have to comply with it, like quarantines or things of that nature.So there is clearly an area where the First Amendment of religious freedom concept falls in the face of a greater good, the need of the general public, and that has generally been in the health area, where there is some practice of the religion which conflicts with some standard which has been set in the community at large, and that generally has dealt with health.Mr. Kirbow. Maybe the HEW Act can bring the CIA under one