2.00000
104-10337-10002
2025 RELEASE UNDER THE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS ACT OF 1992
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
25 August 1993
NOTE FOR: All HRG Members
SUBJECT:
Briefing of HPSCI on Denied JFK Documents
This is to let everyone know that HRG has been asked to
brief the HPSCI staff on the 10,000 pages of JFK materials
that we have denied in full (so far).
The request came from HPSCI Chairman Dan Glickman, who
apparently anticipates questions from others in Congress
about the denied documents.
Among the questions we are asked to address in the
briefing are the following:
-
How many documents are involved (as opposed to
pages)?
What specific types of sources and methods are
we protecting?
-
What is the review process?
-
-
Who made the judgments to deny the documents?
Are there provisions for continuing review of the
denied documents?
We've asked that the briefing not take place until the
week of 30 August, but HPSCI may want it sooner.
John B.
John F. Pereira
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
13-00000
753°
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
HPSCI BRIEFING OUTLINE
I.
II.
26 August 1993
CIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONS
RELEASE IN FULL
2000
JFK ASSASSINATION RECORDS
Overview: CIA declassification program for JFK records
-
Sequestered files and Oswald 201 file
Total JFK records:
Hardcopy documents: 162,000 pages
Microfilm: 73 reels, 150,000 pages
(HSCA material Axelated
Resources devoted to JFK
Number of people: 15 HRG (9 staffers, 6 retirees)
25 indexers (overtime, weekends)
10 DO for coordination
III. Documents Released:
Oswald
35,000 pages
Sequestered files
90,000 pages
Total 125,000 pages
ކ
Indexing and identification forms for each document
Show example of iden form
Withheld temporarily:
HSCA-originated:
Third Agency
Denied-in-full·
-
20,000 pages
7,000 pages
Continuing review of the DIF documents by HRG
Likelihood CIA will release a number (many ?) of DIF
Review Board's determination on DIF items
SAN
-
review for Panel
13-00000
IV.
V.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Identification forms provided to NARA for each DIF
Document
Types of information protected in DIF items
Grounds for postponement of information under JFK
Law
VI.
VII.
Who made judgments on withholding documents
-
-
-
15 reviewers
Followed procedures
Senior Reviewers provided guidance
Directorates coordinated
Third agency coordination
Issues for Review Board
LP%RALPs "t,PA" ****°!%P%"""""A"""%!
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
13-00000
#0000h@goooon
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
CIA SPECIAL COLLINS3
RELEASE IN FULL
2000
JFK ASSASSINATION RECORDS
HPSCI BRIEFING OUTLINE
Introduction:
Discuss how CIA fulfilled requirements of the
JFK Act..
.Discuss the withheld documents
General Remarks
1. Every JFK record will be seen by the Review Board.
2. We have followed the JFK Assassination Records Act
in determining which records will be postponed. (Section 6)
-
Our presumption was that a record would be released.
3. We made every effort to meet the 22 August deadline
established by the JFK Act. The Director was committed to
this.
4. This called for a major effort--additional people,
lot of overtime and weekend shifts.
5. We are continuing to review the postponed documents,
and expect to release a high percentage of them.
13-00000
ཀ་་ ་་་་་་་
Memo for Record
Subject:
23 January 1996
CIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONS
RELEASE IN FULL
Status of JFK Records Review 2000
'
:
References: Letter from Marwell to Pereira, dtd 15 Dec 96,
(same subject);
Letter from Pereira to Marwell, dtd 19 Jan 96,
(response to above letter);
Phone Conversation with Marwell, 22 Jan 96,
(same subject).
1. Marwell requested a figure for the number of
records in the sequestered files that contained
postponements. I explained that our review figures were
based on pages and that there was no record count for the
microfilm part of the collection. However, based on the HRG
index unaudited record count (see below) of the Oswald 201
file and the JFK hardcopy boxes, I was able to give
estimate of 28,000 records.
2. Unaudited HRG Index statistics:
Total Records
Records w/Postponements
him an
Oswald
4,349
JFK
(63 boxes) 28,532
32,881 (154,724 pages)
1,871
12,132
14,003
The page count for the hardcopy part of the collection is
within 10,000 pages of the Microfilm (163,500). Given that
the microfilm contains many duplicates and similar records
as the hardcopy, the percentage of sanitized documents
should be close to the same. I estimate the total number of
records with postponements to be approximately 28,000.
13-00000.
CONFIDENTIAL
Richard E. Schroeder
NOTE FOR:
FROM:
John F. Pereira
DATE:
SUBJECT:
03/27/96 05:54:53 PM
Phone Conversation with Susan Oullette, HPSCI
As you requested, I called Susan Oullette, HPSCI Staff today to respond to her questions about JFK Assassination records. She said that
the Committee was interested in the process used for declassifying the records, the status of our review, and what criteria we use for
declassification.
Following are among the main topics we covered during a discussion of about 10 minutes on the STU-III:
-
-
A description of the JFK records held by CIA
Process of declassification (review by retired senior officers, coordination with DO,
OGC, others)
- Criteria for redaction
- Coordination with FBI, other agencies on third agency documents.
· Presidentially-appointed JFK Assassination Records Review Board
..
..
Differences with the Board on release of certain information e.g.,
names of former employees, identification of stations
Current appeal to the White House of decision by Board to release
certain information we redacted.
Efforts of the Board to identify additional records, including in other
countries
Susan said that she may have enough information for now, but she would let me know if more would be needed. I invited her to visit us if
she wanted more details or to look at the records.
CC:
Brian S. Latell, J. Barry Harrelson, Fred Wickham @ DO
CONFIDENTIAL
13-00000
EVENT: QUICK COM
CONFIDENTIAL
PLACE: 7BOO HQS
FOR: HPSCI
-
DATE: 03/27/96 TIME: 1500
STATUS: X
KEY: C/96-05672
SUBJ: JFK ASSASSINATION DOCUMENTS
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: RICHARD SCHROEDER
ASSOC
NAME
--->
(PARTICIPANTS)
STAFF
OUELLETTE, SUSAN MARY (HPSCI)
CIA
PEREIRA, JOHN (DCI/CSI)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
-
SECURE: 3-9940
<---
ROLE
BRFR
In response to a request from HPSCI staffer Susan
Ouellettee, John Pereira, Chief of the Center for the Study
of Intelligence's Historical Review Group, called her to
discuss staff questions. Attached is his memo of that
telecon.
QUOTE:
I called Susan Ouellette, HPSCI Staff today to respond to
her questions about JFK Assassination records. She said
that the Committee was interested in the process used for
declassifying the records, the status of our review, and
what criteria we use for declassification.
Following are among the main topics we covered during a
discussion of about 10 minutes on the STU-III:
CIA
-
A description of the JFK records held by
Process of declassification (review by
retired senior officers, coordination
-
with DO, OGC, others)
Criteria for redaction
Coordination with FBI, other agencies on
third agency documents.
-
Presidentially-appointed JFK Assassination
Records Review Board
Differences with the Board
on release of certain information
employees, identification of stations
-
House of decision by Board to
we redacted.
e.g., names of former
Current appeal to the White
release certain information
13-00000
Efforts of the Board to
identify additional records, including
in other countries
Susan said that she may have enough information for now, but
she would let me know if more would be needed. I invited
her to visit us if she wanted more details or to look at the
records.
END QUOTE
SUPPORTING TEXT:
no further text in this document (U)
(Richard E. Schroeder
DCI/OCA/CLG
28 March 1996
Distribution:
DCI/CSI
wwwww
DO/ORMS
DDI
OGC
OCA
RES chrono
CL BY 620119
CL REASON 1.5C
DECL ON X1
DRV FM HUM 4-82
CONFIDENTIAL
13-00000.
SECRET
From the Desk of Richard E. Schroeder C-
Laurie Goodwin @ DO
NOTE FOR:
John Pereira
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Richard E. Schroeder C-
03/28/96 01:19:41 PM
HPSCI Request for staff brief on JFK assassination
HPSCI staffer Susan Ouellette liked John Pereira's 27 Mar 96 telecon on the JFK assassination issue (see attached note) so much that
she'd like to schedule a staff brief for sometime in the next two weeks. She'd like the brief to concentrate on two issues mentioned by
John in the telecon:
and
--Differences with the Board on release of certain info (names of former employees, identification of stations),
--Current appeal to the White House of decesion of Board to release certain info we redacted.
Defer to John and DO addees to work out who'll brief (see separate note from DO/ORMS Laurie Goodwin re Bill McNair.)
Ouellette suggests c. 1000 either Apr 2, 3, or 4, or Apr 9, 10, 11 since HPSCI recess schedule is pretty open.
John, pls advise your timing preference. Thanks.
W
C9605672.DOC
CC:
Brian Latell
Barry Harrelson
Fred Wickham @ DO
William McNair @ DO
Virginia B. OKUM@ DO
Montgomery Rogers
Charles Boykin
Joyce Woodburn
Jacqueline Mitchell
SECRET
13-00000
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Attendees at the meeting with HPSI Members on Wed:
Mike Sheehy.
Christine Healey
Steve Nelson
Doug Bowman
Bill Lieser
FORM
5.75 101 USE PREVIOUS
EDITIONS
Date
4/96
*U.S. GPO: 1989-253-195/00416

13-00000
SECRET
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
John Pereira
Laurie Goodwin@ DO
Richard E. Schroeder-C-
04/03/96 12:57:18 PM
SUBJECT: Re: HPSCI Request for staff brief on JFK assassination
HPSCI staffer Susan Ouellette liked John Pereira's 27 Mar 96 telecon on the JFK assassination issue (see attached note) so much that
she'd like to schedule a staff brief for sometime in the next two weeks. She'd like the brief to concentrate on two issues mentioned by
John in the telecon:
and
--Differences with the Board on release of certain info (names of former employees, identification of stations),
--Current appeal to the White House of decesion of Board to release certain info we redacted.
Defer to John and DO addees to work out who'll brief (see separate note from DO/ORMS Laurie Goodwin re Bill McNair.)
Ouellette suggests c. 1000 either Apr 2, 3, or 4, or Apr 9, 10, 11 since HPSCI recess schedule is pretty open.
John, pls advise your timing preference. Thanks.
C9605672.DOC
I've now confirmed our briefing for HPSCI at 1030 Weds 10 April. Pls let me know who will attend for CSI and the DO.
Thanks. OCA van will depart from OHB Main Entrance at 1000. RES 1255/3Apr96.
CC:
Brian Latell, Barry Harrelson, Fred Wickham @ DO, William McNair @ DO, Virginia B. OKUM @ DO, Montgomery
Rogers, Charles Boykin Joyce Woodburn, Jacqueline Mitchell
SECRET
13-00000
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
From the Desk of Linda C. Cipriani
SECRET
NOTE FOR:
John F. Pereira
J. Barry Harrelson
FROM:
Linda C. Cipriani
DATE:
SUBJECT:
04/09/96 01:51:24 PM
HPSCI talking points
Thought you may be interested in seeing in advance an outline of what I plan to say at the HPSC briefing. Of course, I will be ready to
alter this according to the circumstances of the meeting!
Talking Points
I.
Statutory Authorities of the JFK Board
1.
The JFK Act states that all government records relating
to the JFK assassination should carry a presumption of immediate
disclosure and that all records will eventually be disclosed.
Although the Act allows for the postponement of release of
certain information, all records will be disclosed in full by
2017 unless the President certifies that protection is still
necessary.
2.
Under the JFK Act, the JFK Board determines what is an
"assassination record" and whether an assassination record
qualifies for postponement. The Board has the power to direct a
government agency to make available to it, not only assassination
records, but additional information which it believes is
necessary to fullfill its duties under the Act. It has has the
power to request the Attorney General to subpoena private
persons, records and other information relevant to its
responsibilities under the Act.
II. Appeal Procedures set out in JFK Act
1. Once Board has determined whether a record shall be
released or postponed, it must send a "Notification Letter" to
the head of the agency (DCI)
2.
Only recourse for an agency that disagrees with Board
determination is to appeal to the President.
3. The President has 30 days from the date of the
Notification Letter to reply to appeal
a. White House asks that agencies submit any
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
ECRET
13-00000
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
SECRET
1
appeals within 7 days of receiving Notification Letter
4. CIA has never before presented an appeal to the
President; FBI presented an appeal last year but the White House
told the parties to work out their difficulties.
III. February 8th Appeal
1. In November and December of 1995, the JFK Board
notified DCI of the release of documents that would:
implicate high-ranking (Mexican officials in a Goint
tel-tap operation against foreign embassies - Mexican liaison
(December 7)
reveal station in Helsinki (December 27)
identify sensitive (unilateral source in the
Nicaraguan service (November 28)
2. On February 8, DCI submitted an appeal to the President
on these issues.
a.
Admittedly, CIA did have problems getting appeal
out on time. The JFK staff was very understanding of our time
problems and arranged to give us more time. They too have
recognized that the time periods set out in the Act are too short
to bring an appeal.
b.
The reason for CIA's delay was simply because the
decision to appeal a Board determination to the President of the
US is very difficult one to make, both on a procedural and a
substantive level. As CIA never did an appeal before, it did not
have an efficient system worked out.
C.
Today, the procedure is as follows: Once HRG is
notified of Board decisions, they immediately pass this on to OGC
and the DO. The appropriate components within DO are asked
whether the release would cause current damage to the national
security or intelligence operations or sources. If so, they are
tasked to provide a written assessment of that damage.
d. An appeal package is then prepared by OGC and the
DO. This package must then be approved by GC, DDO, EXDIR, DDCI
and DCI.
e. Although CIA's turn around time is improving, it
can take several weeks to task the appropriate people, have them
gather the information needed to prepare an appeal and then get
this up to the DCI.
3. Despite our time problems, the JFK Staff was
cooperative in the process of bringing this appeal to the
President:
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
SECRET
13-00000
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
SECRET
a. Before submitting appeal to the President, I faxed
copy of appeal to JFK Board's General Counsel with the idea that
if it presented new and convincing evidence, he would present it
to the Board during its session.
b. Shortly after submitting the appeal to the
President, I spoke with White House Counsel and Counsel to JFK
Board. We agreed to put the appeal on hold until the Board could
review CIA's submission to the White House and possibly
reconsider its determinations in light of additional information
presented in the appeal.
C.
I talked with JFK Board's Counsel and Executive
Director regularly about the best way to handle the appeal. I
arranged with them to have the General Counsel of CIA to come to
the Board's February meeting and present new information
regarding the issues on appeal.
d. On February 29, the General Counsel of CIA and I
met with the JFK Board and their staff. We discussed issues on
appeal as well as 3 other stations recently released (Oslo,
Stockholm, Copenhagen).
e. Based on the information presented by CIA at this
meeting, the Board reconsidered and agreed to protect all of the
issues on appeal as well as 3 other stations.
IV.
Future appeal procedures
1. Both JFK Board and CIA agree that we should never have
to appeal something to the President and we should try to work
out difficult issues on our own.
2. In the last 2 months, when CIA believed that a release
would damage the national security, the Board has invited us to
their meetings to present additional evidence on the issue. In
some cases, they have reconsidered their decision and protected
the information.
3. The Board also recently released Tokyo station we are
arranging to meet with them at the end of this month to present
stronger arguments. for protecting this station.
4. The Board is now considering the release of names of
CIA employees who retired under cover. It is very important for
CIA's mission that the names of its employees, especially those
who remain covert, be protected even after retirement. In the
spirit of cooperation and in the hopes of getting the Board to
understand this, CIA helped arrange a meeting between the JFK
Board's General Counsel and a retired CIA covert employee
SECRET
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
13-00000
PEPS
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
currently living in Europe.
SECRET
CIA hopes that after hearing from
the employee about his objections to having his name released and
the harm that may come to him, the Board will agree to protect
his name, and others like him, from release.
CC:
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
SECRET
13-00000
SECRET
HPSCI BRIEFING
-
JFK DECLASSIFICATION
10 April 1996
1.
2.
3.
4.
need summary
of typess of
records
5.
Nature of the records--Oswald 201, Sequestered (hardly copy/michalm
(63 +72
)
-
-
17
Other records: Minutes of DCI morning meetings; working
files
Third Agency documents: FBI, SSCI, Presidential libraries
Pages released
-
(227,000)
Percentage of pages redacted;
Process of declassification
-
70 %
Former senior officers in HRG review
Coordination with OGC, DO (DO team detailed to HRG)
Standards for review in JFK Assassination Records Collection
Act, 1992
Records related to the assassination or investigation
into the assassination
ค
[Cuban exile activities]
Law provides grounds for postponement of disclosure of
records
"Clear and convincing evidence“ must be pre-
sented to the Board
E.g., Identity of agent currently requiring
protection
-
Source or method currently utilized
Foreign government relationship cur-
rently requiring protection
Board has authority to release records unless it agrees there
is "clear and convincing evidence" to support a postponement
-
-
Board then has to justify on the record each redaction
with which it agrees
Once a determination is made, Board must publish it in
Federal Register within 14 days
13-00000
6.
7.
-
Options available:
European station"
-
substitute language e.g., “Northern
Also, summary of a record
Board has access to every document in full
Issues raised by Board's decisions:
-
*
-
-
Problem: Board has difficulty in linking disclosure of
information that is 30 years old with damage to current
intelligence operations
window
Identification of stations e.g., Helsinki 1961 - Sept 1964
exceptions
Names of former Agency employees who retired under cover
Board guidelines: Protect person if retired under
cover and now residing overseas,
if in US
but
year to provide addition evidence)
Liaison, joint operations in Mexico
Briefing of the Board by Dave Edger, Jeff Smith, Central
Cover, DO desk officers, others
*
Problem of accumulative effect of releases--eroding cover,
ability to conduct operations
Provision for appeal to the White House if we disagree
with Board's determination
President has sole authority to require postponement of
a record or information
--President required to advise the Board within 30 days
of the Board's determination
--
This is published in the Federal Register
8. Current appeal (now resolved)
Issues: identification of Agency asset
liaison relationship
identification of station
Potential appeal: Tokyo station
document examples
9. Additional requests of Board to review other records e.g.,
history of Mexico City station, Intelligence Community Staff
records
Notes: • Board doesn't accept "principle" as justification for
postponement - neguines evidence
• Even if agreement to perfect (in mex) disagreements
over specific / sub language at tinies
• precedent set toy. JFK re FOJA etc...
...
13-00000
SECRET
Page
EVENT: STAFF BRIEFING
PLACE: H-405 CAPITOL
FOR: HPSCI
WTC/Memorandum for the Record
SUBJ: JFK ASSASSINATION DOCUMENTS
DATE: 04/10/96 TIME: 1030
KEY: C/96-05677
STATUS: COMPLETE
ASSOC
· (PARTICIPANTS ) –
-
NAME
ROLE
STAFF
STAFF
BARTON, CHRISTOPHER (HPSCI)
DUPART, LOUIS H. (HPSCI)
STAFF
EBERWEIN, CATHERINE D. (HPSCI)
STAFF
HEALEY, LOUISE CHRISTINE (HPSCI)
STAFF
STAFF
STAFF
CIA
CIA
CIA
CIA
CIA
LOWENTHAL, MARK M. (HPSCI)
OUELLETTE, SUSAN MARY (HPSCI)
CIPRIANI, LINDA (DCI/OGC)
HARRELSON, BARRY (DCI/CSI)
PEREIRA, JOHN (DCI/CSI)
SCHROEDER, RICHARD (DCI/OCA)
WICKHAM, FRED (DO/IMS)
SHEEHY, MICHAEL WILLIAM (HPSCI)
BRFR
BRFR
BRFR
SPRT
BRFR
-
( EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)
:
Following a telephone conversation with HPSCI staff in which HRG/CSI noted a number of JFK assassination
declassification issues (see OCA C/96-05672 of 27 Mar 96,) CSI, DO, and OGC briefed staff on the status of the JFK
declassification effort, the 1992 law which established the JFK Assassination Records Review Board and the scope of the
Board's authority, and the details of some current declassification issues we have been addressing with the Board. We noted
the close working relationship between the Agency and the Board, and said that the Board staff is trying to understand the
Agency's equities and perspectives. Some staff expressed concern about the Board's broad powers and authorities under the
1992 law, particularly regarding declassification of intelligence material bearing on identities, sources, and methods. (S)
-( ADDITIONAL INFORMATION)
1. C/CSI/Historical Review Group Pereira opened by briefly describing the nature of the CIA JFK material. The
open-ended "Oswald 201" also includes material gathered after the assassination, and the "sequestered file" is that material
that was assembled for the JFK assassination investigations. The material was originally sanitized and released to the
National Archives in 1993. We are now reviewing the 227,000 pages and attempting to justify the material we withheld. Some
seventy percent of the released material contains redactions, although later in the briefing we noted that as our experience has
grown the redaction standards have evolved and now most material (up to eighty percent) is being released whole. Some 25
senior annuitants, working closely with a DO team led by Wickham, have been performing the initial review. Pereira pointed
out that we are not only reviewing the assassination records, but those records bearing on the House Assassinations
Committee's investigation of the assassination. Pereira identified the five academic historians who make up the Board, and
said they are supported by 30 full-time Board staffers headed by former Berlin Documentation Center chief David Marwell.
CL BY
620119
CL REASON 1.5C
DECL ON
DRV FM
X1
HUM 4-82
SECRET
13-00000
SECRET
Page
WTC/Memorandum for the Record
KEY: C/96-05677
Pereira said that the 1992 Act specifies that the Board must have "clear and convincing evidence" if we want to postpone
release, and said that the Board requires "current justification" if we want to protect agent identities, sources and methods, or
liaison identities. Under the law, the Board has the authority to release all information, and must justify in the Federal Register
within 14 days any redactions. The Board sees the full text of all documents. Pereira said that we negotiate with the Board
the use of summaries or generic descriptions (such as substituting "a northern European station" for Helsinki) and that the
Board is making an "honest effort" to see the connection between 30 year old information and current damage to Agency
equities. Dupart asked rhetorically whether the Board understood the concept of ongoing liaison, with Wickham saying that
the Board clearly had a different perspective from the DO, and that the ADDO, General Counsel, Cover Staff and others have
briefed the Board in detail to address this "problem." Harrelson pointed out that our joint teltaps had recorded Oswald himself,
although we assured the clearly unhappy Dupart that we are trying to protect the fact that liaison cooperated in the teltaps. We
also noted our effort to protect the identities of covert Agency employees, although we are working particularly hard in cases
where the Agency employees now reside overseas. Pereira said we are concerned about the cumulative erosive effect on our
cover and our ability to conduct operations. He noted that the Board tends to focus on individual specific cases without always
focusing on the broader cumulative impact of their discrete decisions. (S)
2. Cipriani described the appeals process specified in the 1992 JFK Act. She also lent Sheehy a copy of the act, which he
studied carefully during the briefing. Under the 1992 act, documents related to JFK carry the "presumption of release," with the
Board defining which records fall under the act. We have to justify any redactions or postponements, and Board decisions can
only be appealed to the President himself (which, as Cipriani dryly noted, tends to inhibit appeals.) The act also specifics very
short deadlines, with only 30 days for the President to make his decision. (This means we have only about seven days to get
our appeals out of Hqs and to the White House--a practical impossibility.) Our only appeal to date involved three issues: (i) a
cable implicating senior Mexican officials in our joint teltaps, (ii) the identification of the very sensitive Helsinki Station, and (iii)
the identity of a Nicaraguan source. In fact our appeal took several months, with the Board being very accommodating about
the delay, and we finally were able to give the Board enough justification and explanation that they changed their position and
spared the White House the decision. Healey noted that the Agency declassification team includes a DO team (as noted
above,) and asked why we hadn't been able to head off the problem. Cipriani responded that new information arises for the
Board to consider in making its determination, and Wickham elaborated by noting that the DO is reluctant to reveal sensitive
current information to protect old material. He characterized this as a problem of "DO culture." At the same time, he cited the
specific example of the Mexicans declining to meet the DCI on his recent Latin American trip as illustrative of Mexican
sensitivity to the liaison issue. We later noted that the only other appeal thus far involves the FBI, and the White House has
told the Bureau to resolve the matter with the Board. (S)
3. Pereira noted to the staffers that we're dealing with very short deadlines involving enormous volumes of material, and
illustrated by showing the staff a bulky recent Board declassification notification which we must review to confirm we have no
problem with the material involved. In response to a Sheehy question, Harrelson reminded staff that the original redaction and
submission to the Board took place in 1992-3, and as noted above, our redaction standards and judgements have evolved
since then. Further, we have to double-check each release to confirm we concur, and in some cases compare substitute
language. Sheehy asked why we would object to such a thing as the acknowledgment of Tokyo Station, and seemed
impressed and persuaded when Wickham patiently explained that both the Japanese and Ambassador Mondale have strongly
recommended against confirming the existence of the Station. The Japanese are very sensitive to any public
acknowledgment of our liaison relationship. Wickham noted that the Board is trying to document Oswald's travels, and wants
to identify stations reporting such travel. Pereira said that we recognize the need to report the facts, but want to protect details
SECRET
13-00000
SECRET
Page
WTC/Memorandum for the Record
KEY: C/96-05677
that do not add to the story but harm our equities. In response to a Healey question, Pereira said we are making progress in
giving the Board staff the context and framework necessary to appreciate and support our concerns. He said the staff tries
very hard to give the Board necessary background, and Wickham seconded Pereira's assessment that we have a very good
working relationship with the staff. Under the provisions of the Act, the Board will be working until October 1997, dealing with
CIA, FBI, DepState, as well as private individuals and even foreign governments. They are interviewing people, and as
Pereira noted, "getting theories." (S)
4. Staff, even those who asked pointed questions like Healey and Sheehy, seemed satisfied. Majority Staffer Eberwein,
perhaps reflecting concerns voiced by Deputy Majority Director Dupart about protecting Agency sources and methods,
however, expressed concern later about possibly amending the '92 act to moderate the act's bias toward release. Indeed, she
contacted OCA lawyer Cindy Ellis and asked her to draft language amending the act. It had not been my impression during
the briefing that staff had been especially concerned about the act to the point of intending to modify it, and its also unclear
whether Eberwein was acting on behalf of senior majority staff or the membership in asking OCA to suggest modifications to
the act. (S)
DCI/OCA/CLG/RESchroeder dms/39940 (15 Apr 96)
Distribution:
Original - OCA Records
1 - D/OCA
1 - DCI/CSI
1 - DO/IMS
1 - DO/ORMS/CAG
1 - DCI/OGC
1 - RESchroeder Chrono
____
Richard E. Schroeder,
CIA Liaison Group
Office of Congressional Affairs
(FOLLOW-UP ACTION ITEMS).
There were no Action Items on file for this event.
SECRET

13-00000
EVENT: STAFF BRIEFING
PLACE: H-405 CAPITOL
FOR: HPSCI
SECRET
DATE: 04/10/96
STATUS: X
KEY:
SUBJ: JFK ASSASSINATION DOCUMENTS
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: RICHARD SCHROEDER
-> (PARTICIPANTS)
TIME: 1030
: C/96-05677
SECURE: 3-9940
--->
ASSOC
NAME
ROLE
STAFF
STAFF
STAFF
STAFF
STAFF
BARTON, CHRISTOPHER (HPSCI)
DUPART, LOUIS H. (HPSCI)
EBERWEIN, CATHERINE D. (HPSCI)
HEALEY, LOUISE CHRISTINE (HPSCI)
LOWENTHAL, MARK M. (HPSCI)
STAFF
STAFF
OUELLETTE, SUSAN MARY (HPSCI)
SHEEHY, MICHAEL WILLIAM (HPSCI)
CIA
CIPRIANI, LINDA (DCI/OGC)
BRFR
CIA
HARRELSON, BARRY (DCI/CSI).
BRFR
CIA
PEREIRA, JOHN (DCI/CSI)
BRFR
CIA
(SCHROEDER, RICHARD (DCI/OCA)
SPRT
CIA
WICKHAM, FRED (DO/IMS)
BRFR
13-00000
www.
EVENT: STAFF BRIEFING
PLACE: H-405 CAPITOL
FOR: HPSCI
SECRET
DATE: 04/10/96
STATUS: X
SUBJ: JFK ASSASSINATION DOCUMENTS
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: RICHARD SCHROEDER
-
TIME: 1030
KEY: C/96-05677
-
SECURE: 3-9940
ASSOC
NAME
(PARTICIPANTS)
<---
ROLE
STAFF
STAFF
STAFF
BARTON, CHRISTOPHER (HPSCI)
DUPART, LOUIS H. (HPSCI)
STAFF
STAFF
STAFF
STAFF
EBERWEIN, CATHERINE D. (HPSCI)
HEALEY, LOUISE CHRISTINE (HPSCI)
LOWENTHAL, MARK M. (HPSCI)
OUELLETTE, SUSAN MARY (HPSCI)
SHEEHY, MICHAEL WILLIAM (HPSCI)
CIA
CIPRIANI, LINDA (DCI/OGC)
BRFR
CIA
HARRELSON, BARRY (DCI/CSI)
BRFR
CIA
PEREIRA, JOHN (DCI/CSI)
BRFR
CIA
CIA
SCHROEDER, RICHARD (DCI/OCA)
WICKHAM, FRED (DO/IMS)
SPRT
BRFR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Following a telephone conversation with HPSCI staff in which
HRG/CSI noted a number of JFK assassination declassification
issues (see OCA C/96-05672 of 27 Mar 96,) CSI, DO, and OGC
briefed staff on the status of the JFK declassification
effort, the 1992 law which established the JFK Assassination
Records Review Board and the scope of the Board's authority,
and the details of some current declassification issues we
have been addressing with the Board. We noted the close
working relationship between the Agency and the Board, and
said that the Board staff is trying to understand the
Agency's equities and perspectives. Some staff expressed
concern about the Board's broad powers and authorities under
the 1992 law, particularly regarding declassification of
intelligence material bearing on identities, sources, and
methods. (S)
SUPPORTING TEXT:
C/CSI/Historical Review Group Pereira opened by briefly
describing the nature of the CIA JFK material.
The open-
ended "Oswald 201" also includes material gathered later,
and the "sequestered file" is that material that was
1.
སཱ*སྙམ བསྟ": ཉི【 PFF;" -
13-00000
assembled for the JFK assassination investigations. All is
being processed for declassification, with some 227,000
pages already released. Some seventy percent of the
released material contains redactions, although later in the
briefing we noted that as our experience has grown the
redaction standards have evolved and now most material (up
to eighty percent) is being released whole. Some 25 senior
annuitants, working closely with a DO team led by Wickham,
have been performing the initial review. Pereira pointed
out that we are not only reviewing the assassination
records, but those records bearing on our own investigation
of the assassination. Pereira identified the five academic
historians who make up the Board, and said they are
supported by thirty full-time Board staffers headed by
former Berlin Documentation Center chief David Marwell.
Pereira said that the 1992 Act specifies that the Board must
have "clear and convincing evidence" if we want to postpone
release, and said that the Board requires "current
justification" if we want to protect agent identities,
sources and methods, or liaison identities. Under the law,
the Board has the authority to release all information, and
must justify in the Federal Register within fourteen days
any redactions. The Board sees the full text of all
documents.
Pereira said that we negotiate with the Board
the use of summaries or generic descriptions (such as
substituting "a northern European station" for Helsinki) and
that the Board is making an
11
"honest effort" to see the connection between thirty year
old information and current damage to Agency equities.
Dupart asked rhetorically whether the Board understood the
concept of ongoing liaison, with Wickham saying that the
Board clearly had a different perspective from the DO, and
that the ADDO, General Counsel, Cover Staff and others have
briefed the Board in detail to address this "problem.
Harrelson pointed out that our joint teltaps had recorded]
(Oswald himself), although we assured the clearly unhappy
Dupart that we are trying to protect the fact that liaison
(cooperated in the teltaps]. We also noted our effort to
protect the identities of covert Agency employees, although
we are working particularly hard in cases where the Agency
employees now reside overseas. Pereira said we are
concerned about the cumulative erosive effect on our cover
and our ability to conduct operations. He noted that the
Boards tends to focus on individual specific cases without
recognizing the broader cumulative impact of their discrete
decisions.
2.
(S) .
Cipriani described the appeals process specified in the
1992 JKF Act. She also lent Sheehy a copy of the act, which
he studied carefully during the briefing. Under the 1992
act, documents related to JFK carry the "presumption of
release," with the Board defining which records fall under
the act. We have to justify any redactions or
postponements, and Board decisions can only be appealed to
13-00000
the President himself (which, as Cipriani dryly noted, tends
to inhibit appeals.) The act also specifics very short
deadlines, with only 30 days for the President to make his
decision. (This means we have only about seven days to get
our appeals out of Hqs and to the White House--a practical
impossibility.) Our only appeal to date involved three
issues: (i) a cable implicating senior Mexican officials in
(our joint teltaps), (ii) the identification of the very
sensitive Helsinki Station, and (iii) the identity of a
Nicaraguan source. In fact our appeal took several months,
with the Board being very accommodating about the delay, and
we finally were able to give the Board enough justification
and explanation that they changed their position and spared
the White House the decision. Healey noted that the Agency
declassification team includes a DO team (as noted above,)
and asked why we hadn't been able to head off the problem.
Cipriani responded that new information arises for the Board
to consider in making its determination, and Wickham
elaborated by noting that the DO is reluctant to reveal
sensitive current information to protect old material.
characterized this as a problem of "DO culture." At the
same time, he cited the specific example of the Mexicans
declining to meet the DCI on his recent Latin American trip
(as illustrative of Mexican sensitivity to the liaison issue.
We later noted that the only other appeal thus far involves
the FBI, and the White House has told the Bureau to resolve
the matter with the Board. (S)
3.
He
In
Pereira noted to the staffers that we're dealing with
very short deadlines involving enormous volumes of material,
and illustrated by showing the staff a bulky recent Board
declassification notification which we must review to
confirm we have no problem with the material involved.
response to a Sheehy question, Harrelson reminded staff that
the original redaction and submission to the Board took
place in 1992-3, and as noted above, our redaction standards
and judgements have evolved since then. Further, we have to
double-check each release to confirm we concur, and in some
cases compare substitute language. Sheehy asked why we
would object to such a thing as the acknowledgement of (Tokyo,
station, and seemed impressed and persuaded when Wickham
patiently explained that both the Japanese and Ambassador
(Mondale have strongly recommended against confirming the
existence of the station. The Japanese are very sensitive
to any public acknowledgement of our liaison relationship.
Wickham noted that the Board is trying to document Oswald's
travels, and wants to identify stations reporting such
travel. Pereira said that we recognize the need to report
the facts, but want to protect details that do not add to
the story but harm our equities. In response to a Healey
question, Pereira said we are making progress in giving the
Board staff the context and framework necessary to
appreciate and support our concerns. He said the staff
tries very hard to give the Board necessary background, and
13-00000
Wickham seconded Pereira's assessment that we have a very
good working relationship with the staff. Under the
provisions of the act, the Board will be working until
October 1997, dealing with CIA, FBI, DepState, as well as
private individuals and even foreign governments. They are
interviewing people, and as Pereira noted, "getting
theories." (S)
4. Staff, even those who asked pointed questions like
Healey and Sheehy, seemed satisfied. Majority staffer
Eberwein, perhaps reflecting concerns voiced by deputy
majority director Dupart about protecting Agency sources and
methods, however, expressed concern later about possibly
amending the 192 act to moderate the act's bias toward
release. Indeed, she contacted OCA lawyer Cindy Ellis and
asked her to draft language amending the act. It had not
been my impression during the briefing that staff had been
especially concerned about the act to the point of intending
to modify it, and its also unclear whether Eberwein was
acting on behalf of senior majority staff or the membership
in asking OCA to suggest modifications to the act. (S)
(Richard E. Schroeder
DCI/OCA/CLG
15 April 1996
Distribution:
DCI/CSI
DO/ORMS
DO/IMS
OCA
OGC
RES chrono
CL BY (620119
CL REASON 1.5C
DECL ON X1
DRV FM HUM 4-82
SECRET
13-00000
SECRET
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Richard E. Schroeder C-
Linda C. Cipriani
---
04/15/96 05:30:04 PM
SUBJECT: Re: DRAFT--OCA MFR on 10 Apr 96 HPSCI JFK Docs Brief
Looks OK to me - I was especially pleased to read that the staff was concerned about the the presumption for release in the Act and
asked Cindy Ellis to draft language modifying the act. If Cindy needs any help, I would be very happy to give her some suggestions!!
I would greatly appreciate being kept informed as this progresses.
Thanks Linda
CC:
John Pereira, J. Barry Harrelson, Fred Wickham @ DO, Linda Cipriani
SECRET
13-00000
SECRET
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Richard E. Schroeder-C-
John F. Pereira
04/16/96 02:40:06 PM
SUBJECT: Re: DRAFT--OCA MFR on 10 Apr 96 HPSCI JFK Docs Brief
The MFR looks basically fine.
Two minor suggestions:
Par 1. change "our own investigation" to the House Assassinations Committee's investigation
Par 1, last sent. - change last part of sent to read without always focusing on the broader cumulative impact of their discrete
decisions.
CC:
J. Barry Harrelson
SECRET