157-10008-10297 ; VEY? Me a Y, MEV p NI ; 6b pate: 10/05/92 Page: Gt . JFK ASSASSINATION SYSTEM v ‘4 , Wes a IDENTIFICATION FORM AGENCY INFORMA? Ok AGENCY : SSCIA RECORD NUMBER : 157-10005-10297 _ CIA HAS NO OBJECTION TO wee 0008-10297. DECLASSIFICATION AND/OR RECORDS SERIES : ae RELEASE OF CIA INFORMATION - iN THIS DOCUMENT AS SANITIZED AGENCY FILE NUMBER : noe oS a ON DOCUMENT INFORMATION” =SSSS™O*C*~CS<CS ORIGINATOR : SSCIA FROM : TO : TITLE : SELECT COMMITTEE - ASSASSINATION REPORT (UPDATED OCT 16, 1975). DATE : 09/01/75 PAGES : 678 SUBJECTS : SELECT COMMITTEE ASSASSINATION REPORT (CLASSIFIED) TABS AJ { “AB A: PROLOGUE : “=~ TAB B: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY TAB C: COVERT ACTION o TAB 0: CUBA 7 TAB E: CONGO TAB F: EXECUTIVE ACTION CAPABILITY TAB G: DOMINICAN REPUBLIC TAB H: CHILE TAB I: SOUTH VIETNAM TAB J: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS =: TAB K: RECOMMENDATIONS TAB L: EPILOGUE DOCUMENT TYPE : PAPER, TEXTUAL DOCUMENT CLASSIFICATION : T RESTRICTIONS : REFERRED | CURRENT STATUS : PO : 4 DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 10/05/93 | OPENING CRITERIA : COMMENTS : | COMMITTEE'S DRAFT REPORT | (UPDATED OCTOBER 16, 1975) ER A Re ny AO A SN OE EO Gr GEE EE ED GE GE UE ED oh oe i aes wet eh a em oe ee De aw ca? a wen ne ee [R] - ITEM IS RESTRICTED _ HW 50955 Docld:32202487 Page 1
Date: 10/05/93 Page:2 JFK ASSASSINATION SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION FORM eas tan se sam) ans as tam inst n> ane nm cae ani ans ene Mab aw Oy he cme Ak ED a ED EDD EE ee oes car aE eh EE ED ED ED AD OR Ow Om owe wee we we om wth Oh Oh am Ont tne mes ae ae ae > DR Ee Ee mc eee om [R] - ITEM IS RESTRICTED HW 50955 Docld:32202487 Page 2
Vy (update) October 16, 1975 C SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE - ASSASSINATION REPORT So EE ADA OD ENALLUN REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS TAB A: Prologue TAB B: Introduction and Summary TAB C: Covert Action as Vehicle for Foreign Policy Implementation TAB OD: Cuba l. Introduction 2. At What Level Were the Castro Plots Authorized or ' Known About Within the CIA 3. The Nuestion of Authorization Outside the Central Intelligence Agency in the Eisenhower Administration 4. The Question of Authorization During the Kennedy Administration, Pre-Bay of Pigs 9. The Question of Authorization During the Kennedy Administration, Post-Bay of Pigs . the Quinte df Coder ir tor fer [te 6963 PP 5 0cy Piet 7. The Question of Authorization in che Johnson Administratio ON TAB E: Congo TAB F: Executive Action Capability TAB G: Dominican Republic TAB H: Chile TAB L: South Vietnam preset TAB J: Findings and Conclusions po TAB K: Recommendations & we nn a TAB L: Epilogue . (1) A oN a CA N\ HYW 50955 Docld: 32202467 Page 3 -
CC taken during the Bay of Pigs operation) present Castro with a contaminated diving suit* (Colby, 5/21, pp. 38-39). The Inspector General's Report dates this operation in January 1963, when Fitzgerald replaced Harvey as Chief of Task Force W, although it is unclear whether Harvey or Fitzgerald conceived of the plan (I.G., p. 75). It is likely that the activity took place earlier, since Donovan had completed his negotiations by the middle of January 1963. Helms characterized the plan as "cockeyed" (Helms, 6/13, p. 135). TSD bought a diving suit, dusted the inside with a fungus that would produce a chronic skin disease (Madura foot), and contaminated the breathing apparatus with a tubercule bacillus (I.G., p. 75). The Inspector General's Report states (_ that the plan was abandoned because Donovan gave Castro a different diving suit on his own initiative (I.G., p. 75). Helms testified . - that the diving suit never left the laboratory (Helms, 6/13, p. a (e) AMLASE (1) Origin of the Project In March 1961, an officer of the Mexico City CIA station met with a highly-placed Cuban official to determine if he would cooperate in efforts against the Castro regime (I.G., p. 78). The Cuban, referred to by the cryptonym AMLASH-1, had been eee *Donovan was not aware of the plan. oo, HY 50955 Docld: 32202467 Page 4
39 iy ah re LPF pee, Ps CTA cables wictied ypu if 1965, statea that B-l had given AMLASH-1 a Silencer and that AMLASH-1 had vsmall, highly concentrated explosives." On February 11, 1965 the Station cabled that AMLASH-1 would soon receive "one ‘pistol with silencer and one FAL rifle with a silencer from B-l's secretary" (I.G., p. 103). A subsequent cable reported that "B-l had three packages of special items made up by his technical people and delivered to AMLASH-1| i.c., Pp. 103 In June 1965, Ci# terminated all contact with AMLASH-1 and his associates because of reports that his activities were widely known (I.G., pp. 104-105). as, ae "4, Bel is to be in Cuba one week before the elimination of Fidel, but no one, including AM/LASH-1 will know B-l's location. "S. B-l is to arrange for recongition by at least five Latin American countries as soon as Fidel is neutralized and a junta is formed. This junta will be established even though Raul Castro and Che Guevara may still be alive and may still be in control of the part of the country. This is the reason AM/LASH~1 requested that B-1 be able to establish some control over one of the provinces so that the junta can be formed in that location. "6. One month to the day before the neutralization of Fidel, B-l will increase the number of commando attacks to a maximum in order to raise the spirit and morale of the people inside Cuba. In all communiques, in all radio messages, in all propaganda put out by B-1 he must relate that the raid was possible thanks to the information received from clandestine sources inside Cuba and from the clandestine underground apparatus directed by "PR", This will be AM/LASH~l's war name." HY 50955 Docld: 32202487 Page 5
tor vee u 2 wee OEE ky LU LD Pending (1)~ Rewrite per Subcommitte. Editing and (2) Insertion of Gottlieb and Tweedy Testimony TABLE OF CONTENTS -- ~ D. CONGO l. Introduction 2. Dulles Cablei Leopoldville That "Removal" of Lumumba is an Urgent Objective in "High Quarters" Soe ee eee ee CIA Encouraged Congolese Efforts to "Eliminate" Lumumba, Who Was Viewed as a "Grave Danger" Even After Being Deposed 2 and Placed in U.N. Protective Custody . . i The Plot to Assassinate Lumumba .€a) Dulles Cabled Again for "Elimination" of Lumumba, and a Messenger Was Sent to Congo With a Highly Sensitive ASsignment . (b) [cote1ieb\perivered Lethal Substance to Hedgman in the Congo for the Assassi- nation of Lumumba: September 1960 (c) Hedgman Testified That (Gottlieb Told Him That President Eisenhower Had Ordered the Assassination of Lumumba (d) Headquarters Makes the Assassination Plot “Highest Priority" and Authorizes Steps in Furtherance of It . soe Ce) The [Chief of \Station Moves Forward With Assassination Plot , . (i) The ‘Chief of) Station t Testified That He Requested and Received Confirmation of the Assassination Plan from Headquarters (ii) The/Chief of |Station Took "Explora- tory Steps"-in Furtherance of the Assassination Plot and Testified That He Destroyed Cable Traffic Related to the Plot oe HW 50955 Docld:3s2202487 Page 6 Page Ll L 14 15 18 22 24 31 31 34
~ii- Page (£) Testimony of Bisseil and Tweedy About the Degree of Support for and Perpetration of the Assassination Plot... 2... 4h (i) Tweedy Had No Recollection of the Operation To Poison Lumumba ............2.2.~,.., 4l (ii) Tweedy Testified That He Discussed With Bissell the Feasibility of Assassinating Lumumba and lle Cabled Hedgman About Gaining Access to Lumumba for the Purpose of Assassination... .... el, 44 (iii) Bissell Testified That le Did Not Recall Whether the Assassination Operation Had ifoved from Planning to Implementation But it Was Not Against Agency Policy to Send Poisons to the Congo .......2.2.2.2.., 48 >. The Question of a Connection Between the Assassination Plot and Other Actions of CIA Officers and Operatives in the Congo. ........,.~, oe we ee Lo 52 (a) 0'Donnel's )Operations in the Congo ........, 53 ( (i) Tweedy and the Chief of Station Agreed That sean a Senior Case Officer Should be Sent to the Congo to Concentrate on the Assassi- nation Operation a 53 (ii) Bissell Discussed Assassination of Lumumba With (O'Donnell) and Sent Him to Congo: October-November 1960 ......... 54 (iii) Bissell Testified That He Asked (0'Donnel1) to Plan and Prepare for an Assassination Operation a 59 Civ) O'Donnell) Arrived in the Congo and earned That a Virus Was in the Station Safe ......4..,.,..., eee eel 60 (v) (o'Donnell) Planned to "Neutralize" _ Lumumba by Turning Him Over to Congolese Authorities and Requested the Assignment of Agent QJWIN to ‘Leopoldville as His Alter Ego Coe ee ee 65 (b) Agent QJWIN's Mission in the Congo: November- December 1960 ... 67 oon, HW 50955 Docld:32202487 Page 7
DRAFT: OCTOBER 6, 1975 TOP SECRET Frederick D. Baron oe For Internal Committee Use Only D. CONGO 1. Introduction The Committee has received solid evidence of a CIA plot to assassinate Patrice Lumumba. The plot proceeded to the point where lethal substances and instruments specifically intended for use in an assassination were placed in the hands of the CIA bniet of |Station in Leopoldville by an Agency scientist. | Although these instruments of assassination were never used, a number of questions are presented by the Lumumba case which reflect general issues that run throughout the Committee's assassination inquiry. First, did CIA officers and operatives in the Congo take steps to attempt the assassination of Lumumba? Second, how high in the United States government was the source of authorization for the CIA assassination plot? Finally, was the CIA connected in any way to the events that actually led to the death of Lumumba while in Congolese custody? A thread of historical background is necessary to weave these broad questions together with the documents and testimony re- ceived by the Committee. HW 50955 Docld:32202487 Page &
seme HYW 50955 Stanleyville, and he was imprisoned. The central government of the Congo transferred Lumumba on January 17, 1961 to the custody of authorities in the province of Katanga, which was asserting its own independence at that time. Several weeks later, the Katangese authorities announced Lumumba's death. There are various accounts of the circumstances and timing of Lumumba's death. The United Nations investigation of the inci- dent concluded that Lumumba was killed on January 17.%* 2. Dulles Cables Leopoldville That "Removal" of Lumumba ig an Urgent Objective in "Hist Quspessg oem ' Shortly after the Congolese declaration of independence from Belgium on June 30, 1960, the CIA assigned a new Chief of | . D Station to the Congo. The [chief of| Station said that the briefings ——s he received at CIA headquarters in preparation for his departure contained no discussion of the possibility of assassinating Patrice Lumumba (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 8). On his brief return to head- quarters in connection with Lumumba's visit to Washington in late July, the thief of\Station again heard no discussion of assassi- nating Lumumba (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 9). During August, great concern about Lumumba's political strength in the Congo was growing among the foreign policy-makers of the Eisenhower Administration.** This concern Was nurtured * Report of the Commission of Investigation, 11/61, UN Security Council, Official Records, Supplement for October, November, and December. ** See Section 5, infra, for full discussion of the prevailing anti-Lumumba attitude In the United States government as shown by minutes of the National Security Council and Special Group and the testimony of high Administration officials, Docla: 32202487 Page 9 ; _
“ by intelligence reports such as that cabled to CIA headquarters by the new phiet of\Station: . aed EMBASSY AND STATION BELIEVE CONGO EXPERIENCING CLASSIC COMMUNIST EFFORT TAKEOVER GOVERNMENT. MANY FORCES AT WORK HERE: SOVIETS ... COMMUNIST PARTY, ETC. ALTHOUGH DIFFICULT DETERMINE MAJOR INFLUENCING FACTORS TO PREDICT OUTCOME STRUGGLE FOR POWER, DECISIVE PERIOD NOT FAR OFF, WHETHER OR NOT LUMUMBA ACTUALLY COMMIE OR JUST PLAYING COMMIE GAME TO ASSIST HIS SOLIDIFYING POWER, ANTI- WEST FORCES RAPIDLY INCREASING POWER CONGO AND THERE MAY BE LITTLE TIME LEFT IN WHICH TAKE ACTION TO AVOID ANOTHER CUBA.... (CIA Cable(IN 39709, Leopoldville to Director, 8/18/60.) This cable also stated the (Chief o£| Station's operational "OBJECTIVE {OF] REPLACING LUMUMBA WITH PRO WESTERN GROUP" (CIA Cable, 8/18/60). Bronson Tweedy, then Chief of the Africa Division of CIA's clan- destine services, replied the same day that he was seeking State Department approval for the proposed operation based upon "OUR BELIEF LUMUMBA MUST BE REMOVED IF POSSIBLE" (CIA cable(out 59741), Tweedy to Leopoldville, 8/18/60). On August 19, Richard Bissell, Director of CIA's covert operations branch, signed a follow-up cable to Leopoldville: "YOU ARE AUTHORIZED PROCEED WITH OPERATION" (CIA Cable OUT 59959, Director to Leopoldville, 8/19/60). Several days later, the bnies of| Station reported that a plan to assassinate Lumumba had been proposed to President Kasavubu by Congolese leaders: ANTIL-LUMUMBA LEADERS APPROACHED KASAVUBU _ WITH PLAN ASSASSINATE LUMUMBA ... KASAVUBU REFUSED AGREE SAYING HE RELUCTANT RESORT VIOLENCE AND NO OTHER LEADER SUFFICIENT . STATURE REPLACE LUMUMBA. (CLA Cable (iN a276y), f Leopoldville to Director, 8/24/60.) = HY 50955 Docld: 322027487 Page 10 ; _-
The next day, Allen Dulles personally Signed a cable* to the Leopoldville iChief of| Station which stressed the urgency of + "removing" Lumumba: IN HIGH QUARTERS** HERE IT IS THE CLEAR- CUT CONCLUSION THAT IF LLL [LUMUMBA] CON- TINUES TO HOLD HIGH OFFICE, THE INEVITABLE RESULT WILL AT BEST BE CHAOS AND AT WORST PAVE THE WAY TO COMMUNIST TAKEOVER OF THE CONGO WITH DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES FOR THE PRESTIGE OF THE UN AND FOR THE INTERESTS OF THE FREE WORLD GENERALLY. CONSEQUENTLY WE CONCLUDE THAT HIS REMOVAL MUST BE AN URGENT AND PRIME OBJECTIVE THAT UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS THIS SHOULD BE A HIGH PRIORITY OF OUR COVERT ACTION. (CIA Cable, COUT 62966), Director to Leopoldville, 8/26/60.) Dulles cabled that the (Chief of] Station was to be given "WIDER AUTHORITY" -- along the lines of the previously authorized opera- tion to replace Lumumba with a pro-Western group -- “INCLUDING EVEN MORE AGGRESSIVE ACTION IF IT CAN REMAIN COVERT" (CIA Cable, 8/26/60). WE REALIZE THAT TARGETS OF OPPORTUNITY MAY PRESENT THEMSELVES TO YOU," the cable continued (CIA Cable, 8/26/60). * Cables issued under the personal signature of the DCI are a relative rarity in CIA communitations and call attention to the importance and sensitivity of the matter discussed. ** As discussed in Section 5(c), infra, Richard Bisell testified that Allen Dulles would have used the phrase "higher quarters" to refer to the President (Bissell, 9/10/75, p. 48). HY 503955 Docld: 32202467 Page 11
SHG Dulles also authorized the expenditure of up to $100,000 "TO CARRY OUT ANY CRASH PROGRAMS ON WHICH YOU DO NOT HAVE THE OPPOR- TUNITY TO CONSULT HQS" (CIA Cable, 8/26/60). He assured the chief of\Station that the message had been "SEEN AND APPROVED AT COMPETENT LEVEL" in the State Department (CIA Cable, 8/26/60). But the Director of Central Intelligence made a special point of assuring the (Chief of\ Station that he was authorized to act unilaterally in a case where the United States Ambassador to the Congo would prefer to remain uninformed: TO THE EXTENT THAT AMBASSADOR MAY DESIRE TO BE CONSULTED, YOU SHOULD SEEK. HIS CON- CURRENCE. IF IN ANY PARTICULAR CASE, HE DOES NOT WISH TO BE CONSULTED YOU CAN ACT ON YOUR OWN AUTHORITY WHERE TIME DOES NOT PERMIT REFERRAL HERE (CIA Cable, 8/26/60). This mandate raises a question as to whether the DCI was contem- plating a particular form of action against Lumumba which the Ambassador would want to be in a position to “plausibly deny” United States involvement. DDP Richard Bissell testified that he was “almost certain" that he was informed about the Dulles cable shortly after its transmission and that it was his "belief" that the cable was a circumlocutious means of indicating that the President wanted Lumumba to be killed (Bissell, 9/10/75, pp. 33,. 64-65) .* * See Section 5(c), infra, for additional testimony by Bissell on the question of authorization for the assassination effort against Lumumba. HY 50955 Docld: 32202467 Page 12 , : -
a to a remark by the Chief of Station that implied that he might assassinate Lumumba: TO COS COMMENT THAT LUMUMBA IN OPPOSITION IS ALMOST AS DANGEROUS AS IN OFFICE, [ THE CONGOLESE POLITICIAN] INDICATED UNDERSTOOD AND IMPLIED MIGHT PHYSICALLY ELIMINATE LUMUMBA. (CIA Cable, (IN 49679) Leopoldville to Director, 9/7/60.) ; - The cable continued to report that the Chief of Station had offered to assist this politician "IN PREPARATION NEW GOVERNMENT PROGRAM" and assured him that the United States would supply technicians (CIA Cable, 9/7/60). As the chaotic struggle for power raged, the Chief of Gon” the Africa Division succinctly summarized the prevalent U. §, apprehension about Lumumba's ability to influence events in the “Ss” -» Congo by virtue of personality, irrespective of his official position: | LUMUMBA TALENTS AND DYNAMISM APPEAR OVER- RIDING FACTOR IN REESTABLISHING HIS POSITION EACH TIME IT SEEMS HALF LOST. IN OTHER WORDS EACH TIME LUMUMBA HAS OPPORTUNITY HAVE LAST WORD HE CAN SWAY EVENTS TO HIS ADVANTAGE. (CIA Cable, (OUT 69233,) Director to Leopoldville, 9/13/60). The day after Mobutu's coup, the Chief of Station reported that he was serving as an advisor to a Congolese effort to "elimi- nate'' Lumumba due to his "fear" that Lumumba might, in fact, have ~ been strengthened by placing himself in UN custody, which afforded a safe base of operations: HY 50955 Docld: 322027467 Page 13 . -
-10- - ' STILL DIFFICULT DETERMINE WHETHER MOBUTU HAS ( SUFFICIENT CONTROL ARMY TO ENFORCE DECISIONS ANNOUNCED NIGHT 14 SEPTEMBER. STATION ADVISED [TWO MODERATE CONGOLESE POLITICIANS] TRY WORK WITH [KEY CONGOLESE CONTACT] IN EFFORT ELIMI~ NATE LUMUMBA. FEAR UN PROTECTION WILL GIVE LUMUMBA OPPORTUNITY ORGANIZE COUNTER ATTACK. ONLY SOLUTION IS REMOVE HIM FROM SCENE SOONEST. (CIA Cable, (IN 13374,) Leopoldville to Director, 9/15/60.) , On September 17, another CIA operative in the Congo met with a leading Congolese senator. At this meeting, the senator requested a clandestine supply of small arms to equip some Congolese Army troops. The cable to CIA headquarters concerning the meeting reported: [CONGOLESE SENATOR] REQUESTED CLANDESTINE SUPPLY SMALL ARMS TO EQUIP ... TROOPS . RECENTLY ARRIVED LEOP[OLDVILLE] AREA ... [THE SENATOR] SAYS THIS WOULD PROVIDE CORE ‘oe ARMED MEN WILLING AND ABLE TAKE DIRECT ACTION ... [SENATOR] RELUCTANTLY AGREES LUMUMBA MUST GO PERMANENTLY. DISTRUSTS [ANOTHER CONGOLESE LEADER] BUT WILLING MAKE . PEACE WITH HIM FOR PURPOSES ELIMINATION LUMUMBA. (CIA cable, (Ti 14228,) Leopoldville. to Director, 9/17/60.) The CIA operative told the Congolese senator that "HE WOULD EXPLORE POSSIBILITY OBTAINING ARMS" and recommended to CIA headquarters that they should HAVE [ARMS] SUPPLIES READY TO GO AT NEAREST BASE PENDING [UNITED STATES] DECISION THAT SUPPLY WARRANTED AND NECES- SARY (CIA Cable, 9/17/60) .* * This recommendation proved to be in Line with large scale planning at CIA headquarters for clandestine paramilitary support (~ .£0 anti-Lumumba elements. On October 6, 1960, Richard Bissell and - Bronson Tweedy signed a cable concerning plans which the |Chief of~ Station was instructed not to discuss with State Department repre- sentatives or operational contacts: footnote continued on next page - \ HY 50955 (Footnote, 593 Page Gy Pag ) . ;
-~ile- 4 Several days Later, while warning a key Congolese leader about coup plots led by Lumumba and two of his supporters, the Chief of Station URGED ARREST OR OTHER MORE PERMANENT DISPOSAL OF LUMUMBA, GIZENGA, AND MULELE (CIA Cable, (IN 15643;) Leopoldville to Director, 9/20/61). Gizenga and Mulele were Lumumba's lieutenants who were leading his supporters while Lumumba was in UN custody. “wages? (Footnote continued from previous page) [IN] VIEW UNCERTAIN OUTCOME CURRENT DEVELOP- MENTS [CIA] CONDUCTING CONTINGENCY PLANNING FOR CONGO AT REQUEST POLICY ECHELONS. THIS PLANNING DESIGNED TO PREPARE FOR SITUATION IN WAY [UNITED STATES] WOULD PROVIDE CLAN- DESTINE SUPPORT TO ELEMENTS IN ARMED OPPOSITION TO LUMUMBA. CONTEMPLATED ACTION INCLUDES PROVISION ARMS , SUPPLIES AND PERHAPS SOME TRAINING TO ANTI- LUMUMBA RESISTANCE GROUPS. (CIA cable (our 04697,) Director to Leopoldville, 10/6/60.) : HW 50955 Docla: 32202467 Page 15
~L4- 4. The Plot to Assassinate Lumumba In the Fall of 1960, a scientist from CIA headquarters delivered to the bhiet of \Station in Leopoldville lethal bio- logical substances to be used to assassinate Patrice Lumumba. The Chief of Station testified that after requesting and receiving confirmation from CIA headquarters that he was to carry out the scientist's instructions, he proceeded to take "exploratory steps" in furtherance of the assassination plot. the [cniet of |Station testified that in the course of his discussion with the CIA scientist, taney Cortlied| he was informed that President Eisenhower had ordered the assassination mission against Patrice Lumumba. cottrietl mission to the Congo was both preceded and followed by ‘general cables urging the "elimination" of Lumumba sent from CIA headquarters in an extraordinarily restricted "Eves Oniv" channel -- including two messages under the personal Signature of Allen Dulles. The lethal substances were never used by the (Chief of! Station. But despite the fact that Lumumba had placed himself in the protective custody of the UN peace-keeping force shortly before the poisons were delivered to the Chief of| Station, there is no clear evidence that the assassination operation was termi- nated before Lumumba's death. There is, however, no direct evidence of a connection between the CIA assassination plot and the events which actually led to Lumumba's death.* * See Section 6, infra, for a discussion of the evidence about the circumstances that led to Lumumba's death in Katanga. HY 50955 Docld: 32202467 Page 16 . -
-15- (a) Dulles Cables Again for "Elimination" of Lumumba, and a Messenger is Sent to Congo With a Highly Sensitive Assignment On September 19, 1960, several days after Lumumba placed him- self in the protective custody of the United Nations peacekeeping force in Leopoldville, Richard Bissell and Bronson Tweedy signed a cryptic cable to Leopoldville to arrange a clandestine meeting between the(chies of) Station and "€idney) Braun," who was traveling to the Congo on an unspecified assignment: . | (ér "] SHOULD ARRILVE-APPROX 27 SEPT. . . WILL ANNOUNCE HIMSELF AS '[SID} FROM PARIS". . . IT ‘URGENT YOU SHOULD SEE ['fSID"] SOONEST POSSIBLE AFTER HE PHONES YOU. HE WILL FULLY IDENTIFY HIMSELF AND EXPLAIN HIS ASSIGNMENT TO YOU. (CIA Cable, (QUT 71464) Bissell/Tweedy to Chief of Station, 9/19/60.) - The cable bore a highly unusual sensitivity indicator -- “PROP" -- that restricted circulation at CIA headquarters to the Chief of the Africa Division.* * In a letter of September 23, 1975, the Chief of the CIA Review Staff informed the Committee that "PROP" was normally used "to denote sensitive personnel matters" (Seymour R. Bolton to Frederick A. 0. Schwarz and Frederick D. Baron, 9/23/75. It appears that this sensitivity indicator, while created for other purposes, was utilized by Bissell, Tweedy, and the Chief of Station to restrict distribution of their communications about an assassination operation. The cable traffic cited in this report that was sent through the PROP channel did net touch upon personnel matters except in terms of recruiting additional CIA officers and agents for the assassination operation. HY 50955 Docld: 32202467 Page 1? , a
a Ps . é oo HW 50955 ~1l6- The Bissell/Tweedy cable informed the Chief of station that he was to continue to use this indicator for ALL [CABLE] TRAFFIC THIS OP, WHICH YoU INSTRUCTED HOLD ENTIRELY TO YOURSELF. (CIA Cable, 9/19/60.) The Chief of)Station -- referred to herein as “Hedgman"* -- testified to a clear, independent recollection of receiving such a cable. Hedgman stated that in September of 1960 he received a "most unusual" cable from CIA headquarters (Hedgman, 8/21/75, pp. 43). The cable advised, in his words, that: someone who I would have recognized would arrive with instructions for me.... I: believe the message was also marked for my eyes only ... and contained instructions that I was not to discuss the message with anyone. (Hedgman, 8/21/75, pp. 12-13.) Hedgman said that the cable did not specify the kind of instruc- tions he was to receive, and it "did not refer to Lumumba in any way" (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 12). | Three days after the Bissell/Tweedy message that Hedgman was to meet Sid" in Leopoldville, Bronson Tweedy uses the same sensi- tivity indicator on a cable sent to Hedgman on an “Eyes Only" basis (CIA Cable, our 74837, tweedy to Leopoldville, 9/22/60). * Due to fear of reprisal from Lumumba's followers, the( Chief of)Station for the Congo from mid-summer 1960 through 1961 testi- fied under the alias "Hedgman" (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 2; 8/25/75, p. 4). , Docld: 322027487 Page 18 ll,
-l7- C Tweedy's cable indicated that a third country national would be required as an agent in the PROP operation: IF DECIDED SUPPORT FOR PROP OBJECTIVES, BELIEVE ESSENTIAL SUCH BE PROVIDED THROUGH THIRD NATIONAL CHANNEL WITH [AMERICAN] ROLE COMPLETELY CONCEALED. (CIA Cable, 9/22/60.) Tweedy expressed reservations about two agents that the station was using for other operations and said "WE ARE CONSIDERING A THIRD NATIONAL CUTOUT CONTACT CANDIDATE AVAILABLE HERE WHO MIGHT FILL BILL"* (CIA Cable, 9/22/60). Despite Tweedy's concern about the two existing station contacts, he indicated that the (Chief of ) station and his "colleague" -- presumably the man identified as . ("sia") who was to arrive in the Congo shortly to explain the PROP operation to Hedgman -- were to be afforded considerable latitude in exercising their judgment on the conduct of the operation: YOU AND COLLEAGUE UNDERSTAND WE CANNOT READ OVER YOUR SHOULDER AS YOU PLAN AND ASSESS OPPORTUNITIES. OUR PRIMARY CONCERN MUST BE CONCEALMENT [AMERICAN] ROLE, UNLESS OUT- STANDING OPPORTUNITY EMERGES WHICH MAKES CALCULATED RISK FIRST CLASS BET. READY ENTERTAIN ANY SERIOUS PROPOSALS YOU MAKE BASED OUR HIGH REGARD BOTH YOUR PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS. (CIA Cable, 9/22/60.) i . _ _ * This is probably a reference to agent QJWIN, who was later dispatched to the Congo. His mission is discussed in Sections , and , infra. HY 50955 Docld: 32202467 Page 19 ; . -
-18- On September 24, Allen Dulles personally issued a cable to Leopoldville expressing in absolute terms his desire to “eliminate” Lumumba: WE WISH GIVE EVERY POSSIBLE SUPPORT IN ELIMINATING LUMUMBA FROM ANY POSSIBILITY RESUMING GOVERNMENTAL POSITION OR IF HE FAILS IN LEOP({OLDVILLE], SETTING HIMSELF ; IN STANLEYVILLE OR ELSEWHERE. (CIA Cable, ( our 73573), Dulles to Leopoldville, 9/24/60.) Dulles had expressed a similar view three days before in the , v4 presence of the President at an NSC meetings stating: ) “ Mobutu appeared to be the effective power in \, { the Congo for the moment but Lumumba was not \ | yet disposed of and remained a grave danger / \ as long as he was not disposed of. (NSC é \ Minutes, 9/21/60) (b) (Gottlieb Delivers Lethal Substances to the (Chief of) station “in the Congo for the Assassination of Lumumba the (Chief of) Station reported through the PROP channel to Bronson Tweedy that he had made contact with the man dispatched to Leopoldville with a highly sensitive assignment on September 26. (CIA Cable (in 18989), Leopoldville to Tweedy, 9/27/60) This was the same . week in which Dulles cabled about the "elimination" of Lumumba and made his statement to the NSC about the "grave danger" that existed as long as Lumumba was not ‘disposed of". | Hedgman testified about the identity os("stp") -- the messenger referred to in the first cable through the PROP channel: Q: ‘Who was the messenger who arrived? Hedgman; Mr. (Sidney Govtlieb \ HY 50955 Docld:32202467 Page 20 ; a
(- Qs And at that time, you knew who he was? Hedgman, I recognized him as an officer of the gency... . I believe he referred to the fact that I had received a message and that he was the person concerned. (Hedgman, 8/21/75, pp. 15-16) 4 The message carried by (Gottlieb, then Science Advisor to DDP Richard Bissell,) was unmistakeably clear according to Hedgman: Hedeman: It is my recollection that he advised me, or my instructions were, to eliminate Lumumba. Q: By eliminate, do you mean assassinate? Hedgman: Yes. I would say that was . . . my under- standing of the primary means. I don't think it was probably limited to that, if there was some other way of doing it. Q:. Of doing what? ee Hedgman: Of removing him from a position of political cr threat. (Hedgman, 8/21/75, pp. 17-18.) Hedgman said that he and (Gottlieb) also may have discussed non- lethal means of removing Lumumba as a "political threat", but he said, "TI cannot recall with certainty on that" (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 28). He clearly recalled the discussion of assassination, however: . Q: And what did Mr. (Gottlieb) indicate with regard to thé possibility of physically ‘eliminating him? Hedgman: It was my understanding that that was probably expected of me. (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 18.) And again: Q: I take it that once you started discussing these lethal agents, there was no doubt in your. mind that oe the kind of elimination he was there particularly to Cae discuss was killing Lumumba? ‘ HY 50955 Docld: 32202467 Page 21
a7 -29- Hedgman: There was no doubt in hy mind that this was one of the way{s], and probably what they thought was the only way that would work (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 25). . e bee i" ™ Hedgman explained Gottlieb provided him with poisons as a means of assassination: | 2: And what did he tell you with regard to ow that might be accomplished? Hedgman: ... He brought some biological agents. I assume that that's the correct word. But in any case, poisonous agent with him, which he passed to me.... “ Q: These were lethal biological substances? Hedgman: Yes. That was ny understanding as. a non-expert. (ledgman, 8/21/75, pp. 18-19.) Hedgman testified that he received "rubber gloves, a mask, and a - syringe" along with the poisons and that Gottlieb jinstructed him Sa in their use (Hedgman, 8/21/75, pp. 20-21). Hedgman indicated that _this paraphernalia was for administering the poisons to Lumumba: -¢ . Q: [When ne ({Gottlieb]) came to the Congo to give you lethal biological agents for the assassination of Lumumba, was it clear at that time that the means for administering those biological agents was to inject them”: ~ into a substance that was to be ingested by Lumumba, whether it be food, or drink, or toothpaste or any other substance that was to be ingested? Hedgman: That's my recollection, yes. (Hetenan, 8/21/75, p. 82; accord. p. 24.) Hedgman said that the means of assassination was not restricted to use of the poisons provided by (Gottlied): This was not a sine qua non that I employ this. | ‘aa If there were another method, another way, it — would have been acceptable. (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 19.) HW 50955 Decld: 32202487 Page 22
-21- ‘For example, Hedgman testified that he may have “suggested" shooting Lumumba (co Gottlieb) as an alternative to poisoning (Hedgman, 8/21/75, pp. 27-29). . . There was a firm requirement, however, that the means of assassi- nation should not be traceable to the United States: The biological substance, or specimens, what have you, I think it was up to my judgment, and if there was a better Way ~- certainly. [T]he point I now recall was in no way, if I implemented these instructions, no way could it be traced back to the United States. Tt had to be a way which could not be traced back ... either to an American or the United States government. (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 19.) cry A ¢ Hedgman said Gottlieb] assured him that.the poisons were pro- duced to meet this requirement: fo ' I believe I raised the point that poisons left ence ' traces in the human body, which could be found on autopsy ... I believe that I was assured that these ... lethal agents would [leave] normal traces found in people that die of certain diseases, (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 23.) Hedgman said that he had an “emotional reaction of great sur- prise" when it first became clear that Gottlieb) was there to discuss an assassination plan (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 30). But the (chief of ) Station said that he did not give any indication that he would not carry out the instructions (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 46). Instead, he told Gottlieb jhe “would explore this" (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 46) and left him with the following impression: {I think it would be a fair impression that he would take away the thought that I was going to look into it and try and figure if there was a way ... I beljeve I fo. HY 50955 Docld: 32202467 Page 23 . a
~22- ( stressed the difficulty of trying to carry cts out such an operation. (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 47.) The cable that Hedgman sent to headquarters reporting his initial contact with (Gottlieb was clearly an affirmative response to the assignment. The( Chief of) Station said that he and (Gott Lieb) were "ON SAME WAVELENGTH ."' (CIA Cable IN 18939, Leopoldville to Tweedy, 9/27/60.) Hedgman’ was "afraid" that [Mobutu''s |government was "weakening under" foreign pressure to effect a reconciliation with Lumumba, and said: HENCE BELIEVE MOST RAPID ACTION CONSISTENT WITH SECURITY INDICATED. (CIA Cable, 9/27/60.) ao. (c) Hedgman Testified That (Gottlieb Told Him That President Eisenhower Had Ordered the Assassination of Lumumba ape Hedgman testified that in the course of their meeting in~ a Leopoldvilie, (Dr. Gottlieb) informed him that President Eisenhower had authorized the assassination of Lumumba: Q: Did you raise with him the question of authori- zation of such instructions to you? Hedgman: Yes, I did. That's my quite strong recolléction, that I did. Q: What do you recall in essence was what you said to him? Hedeman: In essence, I think I must have ... pointed out that this was not a common or usual Agency tactic, and I may have probably said that I never heard of _ it being done, which I had not, never in my training or previous work in the Agency had I ever heard any references to such, in my recollection at least, such methods. And it is my recollection I asked on whose authority these instructions were issued. Q: And what did Mr. Gorttied) reply? HW 50955 Docld: 32202467 Page 24 .
~24- ( Hedgman cautioned that he was recalling events long past: Hedgman: Gentlemen, after fifteen years, I cannot be 100 per cent certain, but I have always, since that date, had the impression in my mind that these orders had come from the President, (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 34.) But he left no doubt about the strength of his "impression": : fou have a very firm recollection that he (Téoretieb represented to you that the President of the United States directed the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, is that correct? Hedeman: That's my recollection. Yes. (Hedgman, 42, p. 102; accord, p. 34.) (d) Head uarters Makes the Assassination Plot "Highest Pelority" and Authorizes Stage te Forth eee ( On the basis of his talks wien("sid," Hedgman listed a number of "possibilities" for covert action against Lumumba. At the top of the List was the suggestion that a particular agent be used in the following manner: “HAVE HIM TAKE REFUGE WITH BIG BROTHER. WOULD THUS ACT AS INSIDE MAN TO BRUSH UP DETAILS TO RAZOR EDGE. (CIA Cable, 9/27/60.) Hedgman indicated that he would begin to follow this course by re- calling the agent to Leopoldville. (CIA Cable, 9/27/60.) le in- formed headquarters: ''PLAN PROCEED ON BASIS PRIORITIES AS LISTED ABOVE, UNLESS INSTRUCTED TO CONTRARY" (CIA Cable, 9/27/60) « ~ On September 30, the Chiet of) Station urged that head- quarters authorize “exploratory conversations" with this agent. so HY 50955 Docld: 32202467 Page 25 . eo
~26- The same day, through the PROP channel, Hedgeman received authorization from headquarters to proceed with his top priority plan: ol YOU D HAVE EXPLORATORY TALKS WITH 0 ASSESS HIS ATTITUDE TOWA 0 'ACTIVE AGENT OR CUTOUT ROLE. ... APPRECIATE MANNER YOUR APPROACH TO PROBLEM. (CIA Cable, (OUT 75900,{Fields to Leopoldville, 9/30/60.) In this cable, (Glenn Fields,) Assistant Chief of the Africa Division, expressed a "HOPE ... FOR MODERATE HASTE" (CIA Cable (ovr 75900,) Fields to Leopoldville, 9/30/60.) ; | According to the report of the Chief of) Station, (Gottlieb) left the Congo to return to headquarters on October 5 in view of the "EXPIRATION DATE HIS MATERIALS" (CIA Cable (IN 24171) Leopold- ( ville to Tweedy, 10/7/60). The “expiration” of Gotttieb's) “materials probably refers to the date beyond which the substances would no longer have lethal strength. Although the relation of the "expiration date" to (Gortlieb's) departure is unclear from the cables, it probably signifies that some of the biological substances had lost their toxicity. Nonetheless, the Chief of) Station indi- cated that (Gottlieb) left some biological substances that were still lethal and that he intended to proceed with the assassination operation: ULNESS. ((CHIEF OF STATION] PLANS CONTINUE TRY IMPLEMENT OP. (CIA Cable (IN 24171, ) Leopoldville to Tweedy, 10/7/6 .) ‘ oy ry cere ITEMS OF. CONTINUING USE- Becld: 32202467 Page 26 . Lo.
aa ~27- By this point, Hedgman had conducted his “exploratory con- versation' with the agent who was his best candidate for gaining access to Lumumba (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 60). HNedgman testified that the subject he "explored" was the agent's ability to find a means to inject poison into Lumumba's food or toothpaste (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 60): I believe that I queried the agent who had access to Lumumba, and his entourage, in detail about just what that access, what access he actually had, as opposed to speak- ing to people. In other words, did he have access to the bathroom, did he have access to the kitchen, things of that sort. I have a recollection of having queried him on that without specifying why I wanted to know this. (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 48.) On October 7, the hier of \Station reported to headquarters a on this meeting: CONDUCTED EXPLORATORY CONVERSATION WITH [AGENT] ... AFTER EXPLORING ALL POSSIBILITIES [AGENT] SUGGESTED SOLUTION RECOMMENDED BY HQS. ALTHOUGH DID NOT PICK UP BALL, BELIEVE HE PREPARED TAKE ANY ROLE NECESSARY WITHIN LIMITS SECURITY ACCOMPLISH OBJECTIVE. Hedgman testified that his exploratory steps left him with doubts about the wisdom or practicality of the assassination plot: [Clertainly I looked on it as a pretty wild scheme professionally. I did not think that it ... was practical professionally. — Certainly ... to keep the U.S. out of it.... I explored it, but I doubt that I ever really expected to carry it out. (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 111.) HY 50955 Docld:32202487 Page 27 . .
-~28- However, his cables indicate that he was planning to con- tinue to implement the operation and sought the resources to do it successfully. He urged headquarters to send him an alternate operative for the assassination mission in ‘the event that they found his first choice unacceptable: IF HQS BELIEVE [AGENT'S CIRCUMSTANCES J BAR HIS PARTICIPATION, WISH STRESS NECES- SITY PROVIDE STATION WITH QUALIFIED THIRD COUNTRY NATIONAL. (CIA CablefIN 24171, Leopoldville to Tweedy, 10/7/60.) Tweedy cabled the (chiet of )Station the same day that he "HAD GOOD DISCUSSION. YOUR COLLEAGUE 7 OCT" -- presumably referring to a de-briefing of(Gottlieb)upon his return to the United States. (CIA Cable (out 78336), Tweedy to Leopoldville, 10/7/60.) ‘Tweedy indicated that he was CONSIDERING DISPATCHING THIRD COUNTRY. NATIONAL OPERATOR WHO, WHEN HE ARRIVES, SHOULD THEN BE ASSESSED BY YOU OVER PERIOD TO SEE WHETHER HE MIGHT PLAY ACTIVE OR CUTOUT ROLE ON FULL TIME BASIS. (CIA Cable OUT 78336, Tweedy to (Chief of ) Station, 10/7/60.) 7 This expression of support for the operation was followed by an extraordinary pair of cables from headquarters on October 15, 1960. One of these cables was issued by a desk officer in CIA's Africa Division and released under Bronson Tweedy's signature, as Division Chief, and sent to Leopoldville through standard CIA channels, which would allow for distribution of the message to HW 50955 Docld: 32202467 Page 26
~29— appropriate personnel in thé CIA station and the United States embassy. This cable ... generally discussed the possibility of covertly supplying certain Congolese leaders with funds and military aid (CIA Cable bur 81476) Director to Leopoldville, \ 10/15/60). This cable also delimited the kind of action against Lumumba that would be authorized: ONLY DIRECT ACTION WE CAN NOW STAND BEHIND IS TO SUPPORT IMMOBILIZING OR ARRESTING [LUMUMBA], DESIRABLE AS MORE DEFINITIVE ACTION MIGHT BE. ANY ACTION TAKEN WOULD HAVE TO BE ENTIRELY CONGOLESE. (CIA Cable (OUT 81476,) Director to Leopoldville, 10/15/60.) On the same day that this message was dispatched, a second cable was sent to Leopoldville. This cable was issued personally by Bronson Tweedy and sent in the special PROP channel for \ Hedgman's "EYES ONLY" (CIA Cable our 81396] Tweedy to Chief of ) Station, 10/15/60). YOU WILL NOTE FROM CABLE THROUGH NORMAL CHANNEL CURRENTLY BEING TRANSMITTED A PARA[GRAPH] ON PROP TYPE SUGGESTIONS. YOU WILL PROBABLY RE- CEIVE MORE ALONG THESE LINES AS STUMBLING BLOC {LUMUMBA] REPRESENTS INCREASINGLY APPARENT ALL STUDYING CONGO SITUATION CLOSELY AND HIS DIS- POSITION SPONTANEOUSLY BECOMES NUMBER ONE CON- SIDERATION. RAISE ABOVE SO YOU NOT CONFUSED BY ANY APPARENT DUPLICATION. THIS CHANNEL REMAINS FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE YOU DISCUSSED WITH COLLEAGUE AND ALSO REMAINS HIGHEST PRIORITY. (CIA Cable [ovr 81396} Tweedy to(Chief of) Station, 10/15/60) Thus, Tweedy resolved the apparent duplication of cables by indi- cating that communications about the assassination mission were HY 50955 Docld: 32202467 Page 29 . oo.
HY 50955 Bocld: 322302487 Page 36 ~3Q- restricted to the PROP channel and that the assassination mission was to move forward. He went on to request Hedgman's reaction to the prospect of sending a senior CIA case officer to the Congo on a "DIRECTED ASSIGNMENT ... TO CONCENTRATE ENTIRELY THIS ASPECT" (CIA cable our $1396} Tweedy to Chief of} Station, 10/15/60). This referred to CIA officer/Justin 0'DonnelL] who testified that in late October he was asked by Richard Bissell to undertake the mission of assassinating Lumumba.* In the course of suggesting the assignment of an additional officer to the Congo, the cable provided insight into the reason that the assassination mission had not progressed more rapidly under the Chief of )Station: SEEMS TO US YOUR OTHER COMMITMENTS TOO HEAVY GIVE NECESSARY CONCENTRATION PROP. | (CIA Cable (UT 81396), Tweedy to {Chief of) Station, 10/15/60.) ' ‘ ; Again, in contradiction of the limitations on anti-Lumumba activity outlined in the cable sent through normal channels, Tweedy's cable also proposed a plan to kidnap Lumumba: POSSIBILITY USE COMMANDO TYPE GROUP FOR ABDUCTION [LUMUMBA], EITHER VIA ASSAULT ON HOUSE UP CLIFF FROM RIVER OR, MORE PROBABLY, IF [LUMUMBA] ATTEMPTS ANOTHER BREAKOUT INTO TOWN ... REQUEST (chi VIEWS. Cc (CIA Cable OUT 81396, Tweedy to (Chief of ) Station, 10/15/60.) ; / Sa as * For a full account, of the meeting between Bissell and (9' Donnell and O'Donnell 's) subsequent activities in the Congo, see ection 5(a), infra.
-3L- This series of cables sent during, and after oN (Gottiied) s visit to the Congo demonstrated a clear intent at CIA headquarters to authorize and support rapid progress on the assassi- nation mission. The cables also show an intent to severely re- strict knowledge of the assassination operation among officers in CIA's Africa Division and among United States personnel in the Congo, including those who were aware of and involved in other covert activities. Ce) The (Chief of }Station Moves Forward With Assassination . PIot* The testimony of the Chieg of) Station, taken fifteen years after the events in question and without benefit of review of the cables discussed above, was compatible with the picture derived from the cables of a fully authorized and tightly restricted assassination operation. Hedgman's testimony is at variance from the cables only with respect to the lack of. vigor with which he claims to have pursued the assignment which he dealt with in an affirmative, aggressive manner in the cables, (i) ghe Chief of Station Testified That He Requested ecelive onlirmation of the Assassination Pian from Hea quarters Hedgman testified that, after receiving Gottlie))'s instructions, he cabled CIA headquarters seeking confirmation that he was to carry out Gocetie)s instructions (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 36). Hedgman did not recall whether he identified GoteLiet) by _ name, and he doubted that he "would have'' mentioned the President in such a cable (Hedgman, 8/21/75, pp. 36, 43). i HY 50955 Docld: 32202487 Page 31 ; ; a
ai -32- Hedgman described the extraordinary Security precautions he took cabling his request for confirmation of the assassination in- structions: There was some special channel ... because it was handled differently than any other normal message. For example, it was not puc on a regular cable form, which, you know, you have several copies for your various files. And it was my recolléction that I personally carried the message to the communicator to encrypt, and that was worded in a doublt-talk way that even the communicator would not necessarily know what it was about." (Hedgman, 8/21/75, pp. 42-43.) This description approximates the PROP channel that was used for all cables relating to the assassination mission. Hedgman testified that soon after cabling his request for con- firmation that he was to carry out the assassination assignment, he received an affirmative reply from headquarters: I believe I received a reply which I interpreted to mean yes, that he was the messenger and his instructions were ... duly. authorized. (Hedgman, 8/21/75, pp. 37-38.) Despite the cryptic nature of the cables, Hedgman said "I was con- vinced that yes, it was right." (Hedgman, 8/21/75, pp. 44, 50.) Hedgman did not recall receiving any indication, either from ottlieb jor by cable, that he was to await further authorization before using the poisons (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 38). Hedgman ex- pressed some uncertainty about whether he “had an absolute free hand" to proceed with an assassination attempt without receiving "final confirmation" (Hedgman, 8/21/75, pp. 38, 47, 53), HY 50955 Docld: 32202467 Page 32 ; : os
-33- ( Hedgman summarized his testimony on this question in his second appearance: I probably had authority to act on my own but... it was possible that I had to go back and get clearance for my action. (Hedgman, 8/25/75, p. Ll; see also 8/21/75, p. 39.) Hedgman testified, however, that a “policy decision" had been made -- that assassination had been "approved" as “one means" of eliminating Lumumba as a political threat (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 52). I thought the policy decision had been made in the White House, not in the Agency, and that the Agency had been selected as the Executive Agent, if you will, to carry out a political decision. (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 52.) ( Although Hedgman assumed that the President had not personally selected the means of assassination, he testified that he was under the impression that the President had authorized the CIA to do so and to proceed to take action: Hedgman: ... I doubt that I thought the Président had said, you use this system. But “my understanding is the President had made a decision that an act should take place, but then put that into the hands of the Agency to carry out his decision. a Whatever that act was to be, it was c early to be assassination or the death of the foreign political leader? Hedgman: Yes. . . Q: Instigated by the CIA, initiated by the CIA? Hedgman: Certainly if those -- if (Dr. Gottlieb|'s (Pe, lethal agents were employed, that would have been = the result, yes. (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 104.) © ‘HW 50955 Docla:32202487 Page 33
ae Pas rd HW 50955 ~34- Nonetheless, Hedgman said he had no "desire to carry out: these instructions" (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 106). Whether or not he felt there was authority to attempt an assassination without seeking final confirmation, he said that he would have checked with headquarters before taking action: I think probably that I would have gone back and advised that I intended to carry out and sought final approval before carrying it out had I been going to do it, had there been a way to do it. I did not see it as ... a matter which could be accomplished practically certainly. (Hedgman, 8/21/75, pp. 51-52.) He proceeded to affirm that his reason for seeking a final approval would have been to receive assurances about the practicality of the specific mode of assassination that he planned to use (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 53). | (ii) The [Chief of /Station Took "Exploratory Steps" in Furtherance ; the Assassination Plot and Testified That He Destroyed Cable Traffic Relate to the ot Hedgman testified that after Gottlieb's) visit, he locked the lethal substances in the bottom drawer of his safe, "probably" sealed in an envelope marked "Eyes Only" with his name on it (Hedgman, 8/21/75, pp. 48-49). He said that his secretary was the only other person with access to the safe and that she would not have examined a package marked in this fashion (Hedgman, 3/21/75 p. 49). Hedgman testified that it was "possible" that he pre- served the poisons in his safe until after Lumumba's death; at any Docld: 32202487 Page 34 . _ $
-36- The cable traffic conforms to Hedgman's recollection. For two months after (cotelieb's arrival in the Congo, a regular stream of messages flowed between the Leopoldville Chief off Station and headquarters through the PROP channel. In late September and early October the cables concerned the initiation of Hedgman's top priority | plan -- recruiting the aid of a particular agent thought to have sufficient access to Lumumba's entourage to be able to poison Lumumba.* In mid-October, Tweedy notified the Chief of) Station that the assassination mission remained “HIGHEST PRIORITY", and he suggested sending additional personnel to Leopoldville to in- .tensify "CONCENTRATION" on this operation (CIA Cable OUT 81396, Tweedy to Chief of Station, 10/15/60) , *%* These cables were followed by Hedgman's report to Tweedy on se October 17 that the agent he had picked for the assassination mission CIA Cable (IN 20857,(Chief of)Statioh to Tweedy, 9/30/60. CIA Cable OUT 75900, Fields to(Chief of)Station, 9/30/60; CIA Cable @N 24171) gniet of Station to Tweedy, 10/7/60. See Section , supra, for ull trea ~~ * CIA Cable (IN 18989, ists of )Station to Tweedy, 9/27/60; tment of these cables. ** See Section , supra, for more complete text of this cable. HY 503955 Docld: 32202467 Page 35
sae HY 5039355 Docld: 32202467 Page 36 -~37- HAS NOT BEEN ABLE PENETRATE ENTOURAGE, THUS HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE PROVIDE OPS INTEL NEEDED THIS JOB. (CIA Cable (IN 28936,)\(Chief of)Station to Tweedy, ) * ‘10/17/60. Hedpman testified that this Operative left Leopoldville “sometime in October" which terminated their discussions about gaining access Co Lumumba for the purpose of assassinating him (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 61). the (Chief of) Station continued to communicate with head- quarters about finding a means to move forward with the assassina- tion operation and securing the hecessary manpower to do so. Hedgman confirmed Tweedy's view that although the assassination Operation was still his highest priority, he was overburdened with responsibility for other operations so that he could not concentrate on the progress of the assassination mission: ALTHOUGH MAINTAINING PRIORITY INTEREST THIS OP, ABLE DEVOTE ONLY LIMITED AMOUNT TIME , VIEW MULTIPLE OPS COMMITMENTS. (CIA Cable, (IN 28936, 10/17/60.) Due to his workload, the Chief of) Station responded enthusiastically to Tweedy's suggestion of an additional case officer: BELIEVE EARLY ASSIGNMENT SENIOR CASE OFFICER HANDLE PROP OPS EXCELLENT IDEA ... IF CASE OFFICER AVAILABLE [CHIEF of) station] WOULD DEVOTE AS MUCH TIME AS POSSIBLE TO ASSISTING D DIRECTING HIS EFFORTS. (CIA Cable ff 28936, 10/17/60.)
=33- The (chiet of) Station concluded this cable with the following cryptic recommendation, reminiscent of his testimony that he may have "Suggested" shooting Lumumba to Gottliel) as an alternative to poisoning (liedgman, 8/21/75, pp. 27-29): IF CASE OFFICER SENT, RECOMMEND HQS POUCH SOONEST HIGH POWERED FOREIGN MAKE RIFLE WITH TELESCOPIC SCOPE AND SILENCER, HUNTING GOOD HERE WHEN LIGHTS RIGHT. HOWEVER AS HUNTING RIFLES NOW FORBIDDEN, - WOULD KEEP RIFLE IN OFFICE PENDING OPENING OF HUNTING SEASON. (CIA Cable (IN 28936 ,) 10/17/60.) ; The first sentence of Hedgman's recommendation clearly refers to sending a sniper rifle to the Congo via diplomatic pouch. The vest of the message is probably an oblique reference to the possibility of shooting Lumumba at the “OPENING OF HUNTING SEASON" -- al in other words, at the first opportunity to find Lumumba outside the residence where he remained in UN protective custody. This interpretation is bolstered by a report sent the next month by the (Chies of Station through the PROP channel for Tweedy's "EYES ALONE." Hedgman's cable described the stalemate which prevailed from mid-September until Lumumba's departure for Stanleyville on November 27; Lumumba was virtually a prisoner in UN custody, but inaccessible to CIA agents and the Congolese: TARGET HAS NOT LEFT BUILDING IN SEVERAL WEEKS. HOUSE GUARDED DAY AND NIGHT BY CONGOLESE AND UN TROOP.... CONGOLESE ~ TROOPS ARE THERE TO PREVENT TARGET'S ESCAPE AND TO ARREST HIM IF HE ATTEMPTS . UN TROOPS THERE TO PREVENT STORMING OF ee PALACE BY CONGOLESE. CONCENTRIC RINGS (0. OF DEFENSE MAKE ESTABLISHMENT OF OBSER- Me VATION POST IMPOSSIBLE. ATTEMPTING GET HWO50955 Docld:322027487 Page 37 ; _
-39. COVERAGE OF ANY MOVEMENT INTO OR OUT OF HOUSE BY CONGOLESE.... TARGET HAS DISMISSED MOST OF SERVANTS SO ENTRY THIS, MEANS SEEMS REMOTE. (CIA Cable an 42478) (Chief. of Station to Tweedy.) : 4 Hedgman testified that all of his cable traffic about the assassination question would have been sent with the same extraordinarily stringent security precautions -- presumably re- ferring to the PROP channel ~- which concerned Gottlieb’ visit and the confirmation of authorization for his instructions: ? I would have sent in a special channel anything dealing with Lumumba, at least that would touch upon his removal’ in one way or another. (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 62.) The Chie of Station also testified that sometime before leaving the Station, he destroyed all cable traffic relating to the assassination mission (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 89). Hedgman's best recollection was that he had received instructions to destroy those cables (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 96). Hedgman said he had never before in his tenure as Chief of Station in the Congo destroyed cable traffic because of its sensitivity (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 91). But he stated that the cables relating to assassination were destroyed because of their extremely sensitive nature.* He said * It is possible that copies of cables dealing with such a sensitive operation were also destroyed at CIA headquarters. HY 50955 Doecld: 32202467 Page 36
“ ™ -40- that eventually I destroyed a great deal of traffic, because the Congo was a highly sensitive area in which -- at one period I recall we had ali of our files in the burn barrels. I mean, when you wanted a file, you went over and dug it out of the burn barrell. (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 91.) At the conclusion of his testimony about the assassination plot, the bhies of) Station was asked to give a general characteri- zation of the advisability of the plot and the tenor of the times in which it took place. His response indicated that although he was willing to carry out what he considered a duly authorized order, he was not convinced of the necessity of assassinating Lumumba: t I looked upon the Agency-as an executive arm of the Presidency.... Therefore, I suppose I thought that it was an order issued in due form from an authorized authority. On the other hand, I looked at.it as a kind of operation that I could do without, that I thought that probably the Agency’ and the U.S. government could get along without. I didn't regard Lumumba as the kind of person who was going to bring on World War III or something. I might have had a somewhat different attitude if I thought that one man could bring on World War III and result in the deaths of millions of people or something, but I didn't see him in that light. I saw him’as a danger to the political position of the United States in Africa, but nothing more than that. (Hedgman, 8/21/75, pp. 110-111.) HY 50955 Doecld: 32202467 Page 39 . -
~4i- (£) Testimony of Bissell and Tweedy About the Depree . OF Support for and Térpetration of the Assassination PIOt There is a great variance between the testimony of Richard Bissell and Bronson Tweedy and the picture of the assassination plot presented by the (Chiet of\ Station and the cable traffic from - the period. While the weight of the evidence demonstrates that the assassination effort was the “highest priority" at CIA head- quarters among operations in the Congo, Bissell has no direct recollection of GoreLieb's) mission to the Congo and Tweedy can recall nothing more than consideration of the feasibility of an assassination attempt. . (i) Tweedy Had No Recollection of the Operation ( To Porson Lumumba As Chief of the Africa Division, Bronson Tweedy was the principal liaison at CIA headquarters with the nies of) Station in Leopoldville for all instructions, plans, and progress reports concerning the effort to assassinate Lumumba, which were communicated through the special PROP channel. Most of the reports and recommendations cabled to headquarters by the Chief of) Station on the assassination operation were marked for Tweedy's "Eyes Only." Tweedy personally signed both the cable which initially informed the hier of) Station that "SID") would arrive in Leopoldville, with | an assignment (CIA Cable our 71464, Bissell/Tweedv to Chief of) : \ HY 50955 Docld: 322027467 Page 40
Hy 50955 -42- Station, 9/19/60) and the cable of October 7 indicating that he had debriefed Gote1ied) upon his return from the Congo (CIA Cable ur 78339), Tweedy to Chies of) Station, (10/7/60). Tweedy was also the “Eyes Only" recipient of Hedgman's reports on (Gortlieb' s) arrival in the Congo (CIA Cable (IN 18989} (Chief of)Station to Tweedy, 9/27/60) and the subsequent communications about the plan which emerged from the discussions between Gort1iet) and Hedgman as the top priority -- infiltration of an agent into Lumumba's en- tourage to administer a lethal poison to the Congolese leader (CIA Cable Gn 20857 /chies of) Station to Tweedy, 9/30/60; CIA Cable, (Chief of) Station to Tweedy, 10/7/60; CIA Cable, (Chies of) Station to Tweedy, 10/17/60). Tweedy testified, however, without benefit of reviewing these cables, that he had no knowledge of the plot to poison Lumumba: . %. Do. you have any knowledge of a messenger from CIA headquarters having to go to the Congo to provide the Chief of Station in the Congo with instructions to carry out the assassination of Lumumba, if possible, and also provide him with the tools to carry out such an assassination, namely, poisons and medical equipment for admin- istering them? Mr. Tweedy. No, I do not. (Tweedy, 9/9/75, pp. 30-31) SELES EETENARAAG ARARARARnRenR tA Tn EEE Fanaa Gere * See Sections 4{a) - 4(e) for full treatment of the cables sent in the PROP channel between Tweedy and. the Chief of) Station in Leopoldville. . Docldad: 323027467 Page 41
-43- t When asked his opinion about the truth of the testimony received by the Committee that poisons were delivered to the Congo by (cottlieb), who carried instructions that they were to be used in the assassination of Lumumba, Tweedy replied: There is nothing in my experience with the Agency which would really bear on that point whatsoever. (Tweedy, 9/9, pp. 39-39) Tweedy added that if Gottlieb) went to the Congo as a courier, "I will bet I knew it, but I don't recall it" (Tweedy, 9/9, p. 35). Tweedy testified that it was “perfectly possible" for lethal bio- logical substances to have been sent to the Congo, “but I don't recall it" (Tweedy, 9/9, p. 30). In response to a question about whether he knew about a cable ( from headquarters informing Hedgman that a messenger was to come to the Congo with instructions for him, Iweedy said that he would be “very surprised if I didn't [know], but I certainly have no recoll- ection of it whatsoever (Tweedy, 9/9, p. 31). Tweedy said that he “was not going to gainsay" the testimony of the Chieé of) Station that a cable was sent to headquarters through a special channel requesting confirmation that the instructions were to be carried out but he did not recall it (Tweedy, 9/9, pp. 32-33). Tweedy commented that rather than questioning the truth of the testimony of the (Chief of) Station, * the discrepancies in their a x Tweedy expressed a high regard for the general credibility of the Chief of} Station. Tweedy said that he never had occasion to doubt ( Hedgman's veracity or integrity, adding, “I would trust his memory . and I certainly trust his integrity." (Tweedy, 9/9, p. 36) HW 50955 Declad: 32202467 Page 42
-~44- testimony could be attributed to his own lack of recall. I’really am having trouble with this. I had to be reminded of so many things. . .[T]he things that I recall the most vividly about all my African experiences were. . . the things I was basically concerned with all the time, which was putting this division together and the rest of it. When it comes to operational detail I start fuzzy and you would have thought with something like thinking about Mr. Lumumba in these terms, that I would have gone to bed and got up thinking about Lumumba, I can assure you this wasn't the case. (Tweedy, 9/9, p. 34) eo ay Tweedy was firm, however, in his disbelief that "Gort lied would have left instructions with the Chief of) Station which would have empowered [him]. . . to go out and assassinate Lumumba, without any further recourse or reference to headquarters" (Tweedy, 9/9, pp. 32, 36). Tweedy said: In such a matter of this kind, headquarters would have wanted to have a last.word up to the last minute. (Tweedy, 9/9, p. 36) (ii) Tweedy Testified That He Discussed With Bissell the Feasibility of Assassinating Lumumba and He Cabled Hedgman About Gaining Access to Lumumba For the Purpose of Assassination Despite Tweedy's lack of recollection about the actual plot to poison Lumumba, he did recall exploring the feasibility of an assass- - ination attempt. Tweedy testified that he had discussed the subject of assassinat in: Lumumba ‘more than once" with Richard Bissell in the fall of 1960 (Tweedy, 9/9, pp. 14-15). Tweedy stated that he did not know HW 50955 Docla: 32202467 Page 43 ; .
HYW 50955 -45- whether Bissell had consulted with any “higher authority" about exploring the possibilities for assassinating Lumumba (Tweedy, 9/9, p. 28). Generally, Tweedy said, when he received an instruc- tion from Bissell he would proceed to implement it on the assump- tion that it was fully authorized above the level of DDP: I would proceed with it on the basis that he was authorized to give me instructions and it was up to him to bloody well know what he was empowered to tell me to do. (Tweedy, 9/9, p.13) Tweedy characterized his discussions with Bissell about assass- inating Lumumba as "contingency planning" (Tweedy, 9/9/75, p. 28): Tweedy. . . .I think it came up in the sense that Dick would have said we probably better be thinking about whether it might ever be necessary or desirable to get rid of Lumumba, in which case we presumably should be in position to assess whether we could do it or not successfully. — Q. Do it, meaning carry off an assassination? Tweedy. Yes, but it was never discussed with him in any other sense but a planning exercise, . never were we instructed to do anything of this kind. We were instructed to ask whether. such a thing would be feasible and to have the (Chief of Station be thinking along those lines as well. (Tweedy, 9/9, p. 15) Tweedy said that the planning that he undertook pursuant to his con- versation with Bissell included "a few" cables that he remembers sending to the Chief of) Station asking him to keep in mind what sort of access one might ever have had to Lumumba. . .[in] the eventuality that we might wish to get rid of Mr. Lumumba personally. (Tweedy, 9/9, pp. 19-21) Docla: 32202457 Page 44
-46- Tweedy did not recall inquiring about gaining access to Lumumba for the purpose of abducting him from UN custody (Tweedy, 9/9, p. 24); rather he "supposed" that various means of assassination were being explored: QO. Would this be access to shoot him or would this be access to his personal food or drink or toiletries? Tweedy. I suppose all those types of things might have been considered. (Tweedy, 9/9, p. 23) Q. In your discussions with Bissell, about the feasibility of an assassination operation, did poisons come up as one means that was being con- sidered and which the (Chief of) Station should explore? Tweedy. I am sure it must have. After all, there are not many ways of doing it. Shoot a man, poison him, of course you could, I suppose, stab him or something like that. But basically you are talking . about a contingency plan which I assume has the best f- possibility of protecting the involvement of the U.S. “eae Government and if you want to do it in a manner which would be as distant, if that is the right word, as possible, I think poison would then stand high on the list of possibilities. Tweedy did not “recall specifically" the response from the (Chie of )Station, but said he was "sure" that he received "a serious . answer. . . a disciplined reply to an instruction from headquarters" (Tweedy, 9/9, pp. 23,27). Although Tweedy did not recall sending or receiving cables in a special channel concerning the "messenger" to the Congo or confirm- ation of his instructions, he acknowledged that the cables exploring access to Lumumba for the purpose of assassination would have been HW 50955 Docla: 322702467 Page 45 . - oe
sent in a channel that was even more closely restricted than the normal CIA ‘cable traffic (Tweedy, 9/9, pp. 22, 32-33). Tweedy said destruction of such cable traffic would have been left to the discretion of the (Chief of) Station and he did not know whether Hedgman destroyed the Station's copies (Tweedy, 9/9, p. 22). Tweedy said "I would be surprised if I didn't" have a conver- sation with Sidney Gottlieb) about "anything in his inventory that could possibly be used, including lethal biological substances (Tweedy, 9/9, pp. 68-69). Tweedy "suspected" that "the first conversation along these lines would undoubtedly have been held between Dick Bissell and Sidney Gottlieb}," which Tweedy then would have "followed-up" (Tweedy, 9/9, p. 69). Tweedy maintained that the period in which he explored the means of access for assassinating Lumumba remained "a planning interval and at no point can I recall that I ever felt it was im- minent that somebody would say 'go'" (Tweedy, 9/9. pp. 18-19): Tweedy. It was always my assumption that at the time anything like this should occur there would have been some kind of real focus on the problem at probably a very considerable policy level with- in the Agency. . . and it never occurred to me that I would get a call or Bissell would ask me to come down to his office and sya go to it. Nor were we ever in a position where he said that I would merely implement plan so-and-so. We never got that far. Q. You didn't have any action plans for the assassination of Lumumba that you had prepared or were aware of? , HW 50955 Doeclad: 32202467 Page 46 . . ~
~48- Tweedy. No. Planning, yes, but nothing that ever got anywhere. (Tweedy, 9/9, p. 19) It is difficult to reconcile the cable traffic with Tweedy's testimony that no action plans were launched and that no authoriz- ation for implementing the assassination operation, authorization for Hedgman's approach to his agent to explore access to Lumumba's entourage is in accord with Tweedy's description of his inquiries about gaining access to Lumumba. However, the fact that Tweedy was personnaly informed that the (chies of) Station "PLANS CONTINUE TRY IMPLEMENT oP" (CIA Cable {IN 24171)(chies of) Station to Tweedy, 10/7/60) is harder to reconcile with his statements that a “go ahead" on the operation was never ( imminent , especially in light of Tweedy's PROP cable the next week. ~ which told che (Chieg of) Station that Lumumba's DISPOSITION SPONTANEOUSLY BECOMES NUMBER ONE CONSIDERATION. . . THIS CHANNEL REMAINS FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE. YOU DISCUSSED WITH COLLEAGUE AND ALSO REMAINS HIGHEST PRIORITY (CIA Cable OUT 81396) Tweedy to (Chief of)Station, 10/15/60) (iii) Bissell Testified That He Did Not Recall Whether The Assassination Operation Ha Moved From Planning to Implementation But It Was Not Against Agency Policy to Send Poisons to The Congo Richard Bissell testified that he did not remember discussing the feasibility of assassinating Lumumba with Bronson Tweedy, but it seemed “entirely probable" to him that such discussions took place - (Bissell, 9/10, pp. 3-4). HY 50955 Docld: 32202467 Page 47
-49- Bissell said he "may have" given Tweedy specific instructions about steps he was to take to further an assassination plan, but he did not remember to do so (Bissell, 9/10,p.4). Bissell said that exploring access to Lumumba --"almost certainly" seeking information from the Chieé of) Station about access for poisoning ~~ would have been a "key part” of his "planning and preparatory activity" but he had no specific recollection of cable communications on this subject (Bissell, 9/10, pp. 6-8). Bissell remembered that he was aware that the Chief of) Station had an agent thought to have direct access to Lumumba (Bissell, 9/10, p. 80). Bissell testified that he “most certainly" approved any cables that Tweedy sent to the nies of) Station seeking information about { gaining access to Lumumba but it was so sensitive a matter (Bissell, 9/10, p. 8) Bissell added: . I think Mr. Tweedy, on the basis of an oral author- ization from me, would have had the authority to send such a cable without my signing off on it. (Bissell, 9/10, p. 8) © Bissell believed that Tweedy would have known of (Goteliel)'s trip to the Congo, although it was possible that Tweedy was “cut out of knowledge of the specific operation" (Bissell, 9/10, p. 21). Bissell's lack of recollection of discussing his assignment to (Justin O'Donnellf‘with Tweedy was the reason for his speculation that. Pig _ ? Bissell's assignment to(0'Donnel}) is. discussed in Sections 5 (a) (i) and 5(a) (ii), infra. HY 50955 DBocld: 322302487 Page 46 . Le
-50- Tweedy might have been unaware of the true purpose of (Gottlieb )s visit (Bissell, 9/10, pp. 20-22). . Bissell did not recall cables concerning the dispatch of a messenger and subsequently confirming that his instructions were to be followed, but he said "This sounds highly likely. . . I would expect, given the background, that the confirmation would have been forthcoming" (Bissell, 9/10, p. 43). It was “very probable," according to Bissell, that he discussed the assassination of Lumumba with (Sidney Gottliel), who was then r i . {his Science Advisor \(Bissell, 9/10, p. 14). Bissell said that on a number of occasions he discussed with Gottlieb) "the availability of means of incapacitation, including assassination" (Bissell, 9/10, p. 60). Although he had no "specific recollection," Bissell assumed that, if Gottlieb) went to the Congo, he had approved the mission, (which “might very well" have dealt with the assassination of Lumumba) (Bissell, 9/10, pp. 18, 20, 44). Despite his absence of specific recollection of these events, Bissell said, “There is nothing in mind that I remember that would be in conflict" with the testimony of the (Chieg of) Station chat Gottlieb) carried poisons to the Congo (Bissell, 9/10, p. 35). | | Bissell testified that it would not have been against CIA policy in the fall of 1960 to send poisons to the Congo (Bissell, 9/10, p. 35). HY 50955 Docld: 32202487 Page 49
He classified "the act of taking the kit to the Congo. . . as still in the planning stage" (Bissell, 9/10, p. 49). Bissell acknowledged, however, that the dispatch of poisons and paraphernalia with which to administer them was an extraordinary event: It would indeed have been rather unusual to send such materials -- a specific kit. .-. of this - sort -- out to a relatively small station, unless planning for their use were quite far along. (Bissell, 9/10, p. 37). Nonetheless, Bissell said that he "probably believed’ that he had sufficient authority at that point to direct CIA officers to move from the stage of planning to implementation (Bissell, 9/10, pp. 60-61). In light of his absence of a specific recollection of these events, he stated that "if it be taken as established that Mr. (_ Gorerses) took specific instructions ‘to implement,’ " Gort1ie?) would not have been acting beyond the mandate given to him by Bissell and it would show that the assassination plot "had then passed into an implementation phase" and that "authorization was given" (Bissell, 9/10/ pp. 39, 41, 49). HY 50955 Bocld: 32202487 Page 50 . oo.
hase oh. Ant ~52- 4 5. The Question of a Connection Between the Assassination Plot and Other Actions of CIA Officers and Operatives in the Congo (Justin O'Donnel}, a senior CIA officer in the clandestine operations division in 1960, testified that during this period he had been asked by DDP Richard Bissell to go to the Congo to carry out the assassination of Lumumba (Donner) 6/9/75, pp. 11-12). - (o‘Donnet1) said that he refused to participate in an assassination ‘operation, but proceeded to the Congo to attempt to draw Lumumba away from the protective custody of the UN guard and place him in the hands of Congolese authorities (0 ‘Donne1) 6/9/75, pp. 13-14). Shortly after ('Donnel}'s arrival in the Congo he was joined by a CIA agent with a criminal background who was used the following year by the CIA as part of a program to develop a stand-by ( . assassination capability. Late in 1960, one of the operatives of the Chies of)Station in Leopoldville approached this agent of (0'DonnellYs with a proposition to join an "execution squad" (CIA Cable (In 18739) Leopoldville to Director, 12/7/60). Despite the fact that ("Donnel1) was initially approached to be part of the plot to assassinate Patrice Lumumba, it is un- likely that ('Donne1}) was actually involved in the implementation of that plot by the (Chief of) Station. Whether there is any connec- tion between the assassination plot and either of the two operatives 7 QJWIN and WIROGUE -- is less clear. HW 50955 Docld: 32202467 Page 51 . . 8
C, (a) (Q'Donnell\'s Operations in the Congo ~~ (i) Tweedy and the (Chief of |S tation Agreed That a Senior Case Officer Sho e Sent to the Congo to Concentrate on the Assassination Operation In early October, 1960, several cables sent in the specially restricted PROP channel dealt with a plan to send a "senior case officer" to the Congo to aid the Chief of) Station with the assassination operation.* On October -7, Bronson Tweedy informed Hedgman that he "WOULD EXPECT DISPATCH TDY [TEMPORARY DUTY] SENIOR CASE OFFICER RUN THIS OP" by supervising a third country national Operative (CIA cable (our 78336), Tweedy to(chief of) Station, 10/7/60). On October 15, Tweedy requested Hedgman's reaction to the sugges- tion of dispatching the senior case officer as soon as possible to ; concentrate on the assassination operation (CIA Cable our 81396) ( Tweedy to Chief of) Station, 10/15/60). Two days later, the (niet of) Station replied affirmatively: BELIEVE EARLY ASSIGNMENT SENIOR CASE OFFICER HANDLE PROP OPS EXCELLENT IDEA. (CIA Cable (m8 28936), (Chief of) Station to Tweedy). \ , The (Chief of Station advised that his responsibilities for “MULTIPLE OPS" had restricted the amount of time he was able to devote to the assassination operation (CIA Cable, 10/17/60). ‘* See Section &4fe) , supra, for full treatment of these cables. so, HW 50955 Docld:32202487 Page 52
C | (ii) .Bissell Discussed Assassination of Lumumba With (9 Donne and Sent Him to Congo: October-November 1960 O'Donnell jand Sent Him to Congo? October-November 1960 ~ Probably shortly after the (nies of Station's cable of October 1? requesting the assignment of a senior case officer to concentrate on the assassination operation, Richard Bissell broached the subject with CIA officer (Justin O'Donnel J) At that time, (0'Donnell) was the Deputy Chief of a com- ponent of the Directorate of Plans -- the CIA's covert action arm ¢ . (O'Donnell), 6/9/75, p. 8). NX o \ ; (Sustin O'Donnell) testified that in October of 1960, he was asked by Richard Bissell to undertake the mission of assassi- nating Patrice Lumumba (P'Donnell), 6/9/75, pp. 1l-12; 9/11/75, pp. 19, 43): . > . , \ a (0'ponnel!): ile called me in and he told ne ‘he wanted to po down to the Belgian Conpo, the former Belsian Congo, and to eliminate Lumumba Q: What did you understand him to mean by eliminate? (2'vonneL): To kill him and thereby eliminate nis influence. Q: What was the basis for your interpreting his remarks, whatever his precise language, as meaning that he was talking about assassination rather than merely neutralizing him through some other means? (O'Donnel L: [It was not neutralization... ‘Clearly the context of our talk was to kill him, (P'Donnel)), 6/9/75, pp. 11-12.). b' Donnell) reacted strongly to Bissell's instruction: I told him that I would absolutely not ( have any part of killing Lumumba. . le said, I want you to go over and talk to\Sidney — ‘ ‘Gottlieb). (O'Donnel), 6/9/75, p. 12.) HW O50955 Decld: 32202487 Page 53 : -
-55- cc (cottlieb) was a CIA scientist who was at that time the/Science Advisor tol Bissell (Bissell, 9/10/75, p. 14). (0'Donne11) said it.was “inconceivable that Bissell would direct such a mission without the personal permission of Allen Dulles" [Co'Donnet1,| 9/11/75, p: 44). But the question of authorization was never raised by Bissell: _ I assumed that he had authority from Mr. Dulles in such an important issue; but it was not dis- cussed, nor did he purport to have higher authority to do it. (O"Donset 6/9/75, p. 15.) (0'Donnet}) promptly met with (Gottlieb) and testified that he was "sure that Mr. Bissell had called (Gottliel) and told him I was coming over" (O'Donnel), 6/9/75, p. 13; 9/11/75, p. 7). (o'Donneid) said that Gottlieb) told him “that there were four or five ... lethal means of disposing of Lumumba" (O'Donnel), 6/9/75, p. 13). (O'Donnell recalled that "one of the methods was a virus and the others in- . cluded poison" (6'DonnelI, 6/9/75, p. 12; 9/11/75, p. 7). (0'Donne11) said that Gottlieb) “didn't even hint ... that he had been in the Congo and that he had transported any lethal agent to the Congo" (6' Donel), 9/11/75, p. 7-A). After speaking with Gottlieb) (O'Donnell) said: I then left his office, and I went back to Mr. Bissell's office and I told him in no way would I have any part in the assassina- tion of Lumumba ... and reasserted in absolute terms that I would not be involved in a murder attempt. (P"Ponnelt) 9/11/75, p. 43.) HW 50955 Docld: 32202487 Page 54
wih 56 x. (o'Donneli) said that in one of his two conversations with Bissell about Lumumba, he raised the prospect "that conspiracy to commit murder being done in the District of Columbia might be in violation of federal law"! (6 Donne1}), 6/9/75, p. 14). He said that Bissell “airily dismissed" this prospect (P' Donel}, 6/9/75, p. 14). Despite his refusal to participate in assassination, (0'Donnel?) agreed to go to the Congo on a general mission to "neutralize" Lumumba “as a political factor" (© Donel), 9/11/75, pp. 43-44) ; ft said I would ge down and I would have no compunction about operating to draw Lumumba out fof UN custody], to run an operation to neutralize his operations which were against Western interests, against, I thought, American interests. ( ‘Donnel)), 6/9/75, p. 13.) (O'Donnell) added that his objective was to neutralize Lumumba'’s influence ... and his activities against [a Congolese leader}, whom at that time you might say was our close instrument, he was the man we had put our _ chips on. (O'Donnel), 9/11/75, p. 20.) Bissell also recalled that; after their discussions about assassi- nation, (O'Donnell) went to the Congo "with the assignment ... of looking at other ways of neutralizing Lumumba" (Bissell, 9/10/75, p. 53). Although O'Donnel} did not formulate a precise plan until he reached the Congo, he discussed a general strategy with Bissell: HW 50955 Docla: 32202467 Page 55
Sexo ~5]- Me, lo" Donne} I told Mr. Bissell that I wou e willing to go down to neutralize his activities and Operations and try to bring him out [of UN custody] and turn him over to the Congolese authorities, that is correct. Senator Mondale: Was it discussed then that his Tife might be taken by the Congolese authorities? Mr. (O'Donnel): It was, I think, considered im Cne -- not to have him killed, but then it would have been a Congolese being judged by Congolese for Congolese crimes. ..Yes, I think it was discussed. (b'Donnei), 6/9/75, p. 38.) \ There was a "very, very high probability" that Lumumba would re- ceive capital punishment at the hands of the Congolese authorities, \ . according to 0'Donnell (O'Donnel), 9/11/75, p. 24), But (O'Donnell) / . ; ° “had no compunction about bringing him out and then having him tried by a jury of his peers" (0'Donnel1) 6/9/75, p. 14). Although O'Donnel ll had expressed his aversion to assassination Co Bissell and had undertaken a more general mission to “neutralize” Lumumba's influence, it was clear to him that Bissell was still interested in the assassination of Lumumba: in leaving at the conclusion of our second discussion ... he said, well, I wouldn't rule out that possibility -- meaning the possibility of the elimination or the killing of Lumumba -- I wouldn't rule it. In other words, even though you have said this, don't rule it out.... There is no question about it, he said, I wouldn't rule this other out, meaning the elimination or the assassination (O'Donnell) 9/11/75, p. 45). (0'Donne1i} had a distinctive recollection that after his second dis- cussion of Lumumba with Bissell, he met with Richard Helms in order HY 50955 Docld: 32202487 Page 56 . oo.
-58- a to make his opposition to assassinating Lumumba a matter of record (0' Donne11), 9/11/75, pp. 44-45): [I]n the Agency, since you don't have documents, you have to be awfully canny and you have to get things on record, and I went into Mr. Helms' office, and I said, Dick, here is what Mr. Bissell proposed to me, and I told him that I would under no conditions do it, and Helms said you're absolutely right. (O'Donnel), 6/9/75, pp. 15-16). \ / Richard Helms testified that it was “likely” that he had such a conversation with (0'Donnel) and he assumed that (0'Donnel})'s version . / of their conversation was correct (Helms, 9/16/75, pp. 22-23).* William Harvey testified that 0 'Donnel}) had informed him about the conversations with Bissell: — ite. (O'Donnell) came to me and said that he had‘been approached by Richard Bissell to undertake an operation in the Congo, one of the objectives of which was the elimina- tion of Patrice Lumumba. He also told me that he had declined to undertake this assignment. (Harvey, 6/25/75, p. 9.) Harvey said that in a later conversation with Bissell, Bissell told him that he had asked (O'Donnell) to undertake such an operation (Harvey, 6/25/75, p. 9)._ (0'Donneii) said that within forty-eight hours of his second dis- cussion with Bissell, he departed. for the Congo )(0"Donnett, |9/11/75, pp. 45-46). * Helms testified that he did not follow-up n this conversa- wo tion in any way. He did not recall why (O'Donnell) had gone to the ve Congo or what his mission was (lelms, 9/16/75, pp. 32-33). HY 50955 Docld: 322027467 Page 57 ; ; _
a -59- (iii) Bissell Testified That he Asked (0' Donnell) to Plan and Prepare for an Assassination Operation rn rernrweenecranansetat later CFE ere oe ; _ Bissell remembered "very clearly" that he and 6 'Donnel1) discussed the assassination of Lumumba in the fall of 1960 (Bissell, 6/9/75, p. 75) and that (0'Donnel)) reacted negatively (Bissell, 9/11/75, p. 18). According ’to Bissell, 0 'Donnet? said that he thought that assassination "was an inappropriate action and that the desired object could be accomplished better in other ways" (Bissell, 6/11/75, p. 54). Bissell also confirmed the fact that he had asked 6: Donnell to see: (Sidney Gottlieb (Bissell, 9/10/75, p. 44). Bissell differs with (0' DonneLL}'s account on only one important point -- the degree to which Bissell's initial assign- ment to 0" Donnel1)contemplated the mounting of an operation as opposed to contingency planning. @: Donnell) flatly testified that Bissell requested him to attempt to kill Lumumba. [In his first testimony on the subject, Bissell said that he asked pb’ ‘Donne11) "to investigate the possibility of killing Lumumba" (Bissell, : 6/11/75, p. 54; see also pp. 39; 75). Ina later appearance, however, Bissell stated that p" Donnell) “had been asked to plan and prepare: for" the assassination of Lumumba (Bissell, 9/10/75, p. 24). Bissell said that after his conversations with (0 Donel) he felt that it would be necessary to "postpone" the assassination operation because, "given (0 Donel) S$ reaction, there was a risk HY 50955 Docld: 32202487 Page 58 . -
-60~ 6 that the planning of such an operation would be blown" (Bissell, 9/10/75, p. 25). Despite his impression that he might have de- activated assassination operations against Lumumba at that time, Bissell could not preclude the possibility that the Hedgman/ ol ( oa! . . \Gobblieb\ poison plot continued to move foward: {[T]his had been in my mind a very sensitive assignment to him, limited -- with the knowledze of it limited very narrowly even within the Agency. And it is difficult to separate recollection from inference on occasion. But I seem to recollect that after this conversation with him, I wanted this put very much on the back burner and inactivated for quite some time. Wow that doesn't rule out the possibility that some action through completely different channels might have gone forward. But the best of my recollection is, I viewed this not only as terminating the assignment for him, but also as reason for at least postponing any- thing further along that line. (Bissell, 9/10/75, ‘pp. 25-26). In Tweedy's mind, (0*Donne11)'s eventual mission to the Congo was linked to assessing the possibility for assassinating Lumumba rather than to a general plan to draw Lumumba out of UN custody (Tweedy, 9/9173, p. 26). Civ) (o" Donnell) Arrived in the Congo and Learned That Virus Was in the Station Safe On October 29, the Chief of Station + was informed’ through’ the PROP channel that (Justin 0! Donnell) was soon to arrive in Leo- poldville "IN FURTHERANCE THIS PROJECT" (CIA Cable our 86798, Fields) ~ to (chiet of) Station, 10/29/60). On November 3, (0 Donne} arrived HW 50955 Decld: 32202487 Page 59
-6]- in Leopoldville (CIA Cable (tw 38052), Leopoldville to Director, 11/4/60). (chief of) Station Hedgman testified that. he had been made aware by cable that (0' Donnell) was coming to the Congo (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 49). Hedgman said it was "very possible" that as a new Chief of) Station he took the dispatch to the Congo of a senior officer Like (0'Donnel1) as a signal that CIA headquarters was "dissatisfied with my handling" of Gottlieb)'s instructions (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 42). Hedgman had a general picture of (0'Donnel})'s mission: I understood it to be that -- similar to mine, that is, the removal -or neutrali- zation of Lumumba ... I have no clear . recollection of his discussing the assassi- nation. (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 54.) ¥ Hedgman said that he had no recollection of © 'Donnel)) indicating one way or the other whether he was considering assassination as a means of "neutralizing" Lumumba (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 55). Hedgman said, “in view of my instructions, I may have assumed that he was" considering assassination (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 55). Gen- erally, however, Hedgman perceived ©'Donnel) as being unenthusilastic about his mission (Hedgman, 8/21/75, pp. 56, 88-89). wen (O'Donnel) arrived in the Congo, he met with the chiet of) Station, who informed him that there was "a virus in the safe" (O'Donnell, 9/11/75, p. 7-A; 6/9/75, p. 16). O'Donnell) said he assumed it was a ‘lethal agent" (0" Donne1 1 6/9/75, p. 37), although Hedgman was not explicit: I knew it wasn't for somebody to get his polio shot up to date. (O'Donnell), 6/9/75, p. 16.) ¢ HW 50955 Doecld: 32202467 Page 60
HY 50955 Docld: 32202467 Pa ao, ~62- He added that if the virus was to be used for medical purposes, ‘it would have been in the custody of the State Department" personnel, not the CIA station (Q'Donne11) 6/9/75, p. 36). (0'Donnel1) said that he did not recall that Hedgman mentioned the source of the virus (O'Donnel), 9/11/75, p. 8).* But (0'Donnel}) assumed that it had come from(Sidiey Gottliel)'s office: It would have had to have come from Washington, in my estimation, and I would think, since it had been discussed with Gottlie} that it probably would have emanated’ from his office. (O'Donnel L, 6/9/75, p. 28.) . Hedeman did not recall discussing ‘Gottliet)'s trip to the Congo with (O'Donnel), but "assumed" that he did so (Hedgman, 8/21/75, pp. 60-61). @'Donnett was "certain" that the virus had arrived before he did (@'Donne11), 6/9/75, p. 24). He was surprised to learn that such a virus was being held at the Leopoldville station because he had refused an assassination mission before departing for the Congo (P' Donnell), 6/9/75, p. 17). (O'Donnell) stated that he knew of no other instance where a. lethal biological substance was in the possession of a CIA station (6'Donnel) 9/11/75, p. 50). He assumed that its purpose was assassination: %* When 'Donhell)was informed about Hedgman's testimony on the visit of [Gottlieb) to the Congo and the plot to poison Lumumba , he said, "I believe absolutely in its credibility" (O'Donnel), 9/11/75, p. 53). O'Donnell found nothing in the facts as he knew them, nor in Hedgman's character to raise a question about that testimony. (O'Donnell) regarded Hedgman as "an honest and a decent man" (O'Donnel), 9/11/75, p. 19) -- "a totally truthful man" (O'Donnel), 9/41/75, p. 56).
-63- My feeling definitely is that it was for a (“ specific purpose, and was just not an all- ss purpose capability there begin held for tar- gets of opportunity, unspecified targets. (O'Donnell 9/11/75, p. 49.) At several points, (0'Donnel}) stated that he did not think that Lumumba was the target specified for the use of the virus (O'Donnel) 6/9/75, p. 17; 9/11/75, p. 48). But he allowed for that possibility: I supposed it was for a lethal operation, very possibly Lumumba, but very. possibly in connec- tion with other people. (O'Donnel), 6/9/75, p. 24; accord. 6/9/75, p. 17.) His final word on the subject was that he assumed that the “specific f purpose" of the virus was the assassination of Lumumba (0'Donne11) 9/11/75, p. 50). ( | (0"Donnet:) said that the (Chit of\ Station never indicated that } © O'Donnell \was to employ the virus (O'Donnell, 9/11/75, p. 52). In : fact, (0'Donnelt) testified that Hedgman “never discussed his assassi- nation effort, ‘he never even indicated that this was one." (6'Donne13), 9/11/75, p. 54.) a ) While Hedgman has no direct recollection of discussing his assassination operation with-(0'Donne1Y) he "assumed" that he had at least discussed with (O'Donnell) the problem of gaining access to Lumumba for the purpose of assassinating him (Hedgman, 8/21/75, . / 5 pp. 55, 60). \0'Donnell) testified, however, that because he was “morally opposed to assassination" he would “absolutely not" have HY 50955 Bocld: 322302487 Page 62
~64- c explored the means by which such access could be gained, nor would he have undertaken a mission to the Congo if it involved assess- ment of the situation for an assassination operation by someone else (O'Donnel I), 9/11/75, p. 26). (0'Donneii) was “sure” that he "related everything" to Medgman about his conversations with Bissell concerning the assassination f ‘ . of Lumumba (O'Donnell, 9/11/75, p. 46). Hedgman, however, had no recollection of learning this Exon (0' Donnell) (Iedgman, 8/21/75, p. 56). - | Beyond this, O'Donnell) said that his discussions of assassi- nation with Hedgman were general and philosophical, dealing with, “the morality of assassinations" (© Bonnet) 9/11/75, pp. 46, 54) : From my point of view I told him I had moral objections to it, not just qualms, but objections. I didn't think it, was the right thine to do. (9 ‘Donnel), 9/11/75, p. 9). c™, \ When asked to characterize Hedgman's attitude toward assassination based on those discussions, (0'Donnell) said: I will answer your question just as fairly and as scrupulously as I-can. I have a great deal of respect for Hedgeman. And if he said something, I would believe him to be speaking the truth as he knew it without shading it.... The best I could say, I. think, would be this, that he would not have been opposed in principle to assassination in the interests of national security.... I know that he is a man of great moral per- ception and decency and honor, and so forth. And that it would disturb him to be engaged in something like that. But I think I would have to say that in our conversations, my - memory of those, at no time would he rule it: { - ' out as being a possibility. (O'Donnell) * 9/11/75, p. 18.) \ F HW 50955 Docld:32202487 Page 63
=65- - (v) (0'Donne12) Planned to "Neutralize" Lumumba by Turning ( ‘Him Over ‘to Congolese Authorities and Requested the ~ ssignment o gent QJWIN to Leopoldville as His Alter Ego After Gustin O'Donnell) arrived in the Congo, he formu- lated a plan for "neutralizing" Lumumba by drawing him away from the custody of the UN force which was guarding his residence: (0'Donne1)) [W]hat I wanted to do was to “get him out, to trick him out, if I could, and then turn him over ... to the-legal authorities and let him stand trial. Be- cause he had atrocity attributed to him for which he could very well stand trial, Q: And for which he could very well have received capital punishment? (o:DonneL I} Yes. And I am not opposed to capital punishment, (@'Donnel}, 9/11/75, pp. 20-21.)* ed To implement his plan, b'ponne1i) made arrangements to rent “an ob- an servation post over the palace in which Lumumba was safely ensconced" * According to an earlier report from the Cnies of) Station, it was the view of the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations that arrest by Congolese authorities was "JUST A TRICK TO ASSASSINATE LUMUMBA" (CIA Cable Leop _ ° ; (Chief of)Station to Director, 10/11/60). The (Chief of) Station proceeded to recommend Lumumba's arrest in the same cable: ‘ STATION HAS CONSISTENTLY URGED [CONGOLESE] LEADERS ARREST LUMUMBA IN BELIEF LUMUMBA WILL CONTINUE BE THREAT TO STABILITY CONGO UNTIL REMOVED FROM SCENE (CIA Cable, 10/11/60). HW 50955 Doecld: 32202467 Page 64
-66- / : S (O'Donnel 1}, 6/9/75, p. 20).* (0'Donnel1)also "spotted" a member of the UN guard and made his acquaintance to recruit him for an attempt to lure Lumumba outside UN protective custody (6 'Donnel1) 6/9/75, p. 20; 9/11/75, p. 21). (0'Donnet} said that he cabled progress reports on his plan to CIA headquarters (O'Donnel, 9/11/75, p. 26). He also said that , he informed the (Chief of Station about his plan (P'Donnel}), 9/11/75, p. 56). | a | In connection with his effort to draw Lumumba out of UN cus- tody, (0'Donnell )arranged for a CIA agent, whose code name was QIWIN, to come to the Conge to work-with him ('Donnel!), 9/11/75, p. 19): What I wanted to use him for was . counter-espionage[.]... I had to screen the U.S. participation in this ..: by using a foreign national whom we knew, trusted, and had worked with ... the idea was for me to use him as an alter epo. (O'Donnell) Tr., pp. 19-20.) - In mid-November, two cables from Leopoldville urged CIA head- ra quarters to send QJWIN as soon as possible (CIA Cable EN 41261), Leopoldville to Director, 11/11/60) with this message: LOCAL OPERATIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE IMMEDIATE EXPEDITION OF QJWIN TRAVEL TO © LEOPOLDVILLE. (CIA Cable IN 41556), Leopoldville to Director, 11/13/60.) * A cable from the (Chief of Station to Tweedy in mid-November reported that the double guard of United Nations and Congolese Croops around Lumumba's residence thwarted this plan: "CONCENTRIC RINGS OF DEFENSE MAKE ESTABLISHMENT OF OBSERVATION POST IMPOSSIBLE" (CIA Cable (IN 42478), (Chief of) Station to Tweedy, 11/14/60). HW 50955 Doclda: 32202467 Page 65
, \ The cables contained no exploration of this sense of urgency about the “operational circumstances." (b) Agent QJWIN's Mission in the Congo: November-December T QJWIN was a foreign citizen with a criminal background, recruited in Europe (Memorandum to CIA Finance Division, Re: Payments to QJWIN, 1/31/61), and supervised by CIA officer (einen Saladin) In November 1960, at (O'Donnel l|'s request (0'Donne1)), 6/9/75, p. 19), agent QJWIN was dispatched to the Congo by (Gute to under- take a mission that "might involve a large element of personal risk." (CIA Cable{IN 36814, 11/2/60.)* A dispatch from the CIA headquarters on his pending trip to Africa made clear the high degree of sensitivity accorded to his mission: In view of the extreme sensitivity of the ob-' jective for which we want him to perform his task, he was not told precisely what we want him to do.... Instead, he was told ... that we would like to have him spot, assess, and recommend some dependable, quick-witted persons for our use.... It was thought best to withhold our true, specific requirements pending the fina! cision to use [him]. (CIA Dispatch, GRUP 147, 11/2/60.) 22 * Part of the purpose in dispatching QJWIN to Africa was to: send him from the Congo to another African country for an unspeci- fied mission. QJWIN's mission to this country is not explained in the cable traffic between CIA headquarters and the various sta- tions that dealt with him. mt There is no indication in CIA files as to whether QJIWIN com- pleted this mission. (O'Donnell) said he had no knowledge of any mission that would have taken QJWIN to this country ( ‘Donnell, 9/11/75, pp. 32-33). _ 0955 Docla: 32202467 Page 66 . - 8
-~63- ( This message itself was deemed too sensitive to be retained “ at the station: "this dispatch should be reduced to cryptic necessary notes and destroyed after the first reading.” (CIA Dispatch, e147 , 11/2/60.) QJWIN arrived in Leopoldville on November 21, 1960 (CIA Cable (on 49486) 11/29/60) and returned to Europe in late December 1960 (CIA Cable (out 54710), Director to Leopoldville, 12/9/60). The CIA Inspector General's Report said that QJWI o> had been recruited earlier by @Mmroiligspenoens for use in a special operation in the Congo [the assassination of Patrice Lumumba] to be run by(Justin O'Donnel I). (I.G. Report, p. 38.) a i However, both (0' Donnell and Bissell testified that (O'Donnel) re- a fused to be associated with an assassination operation.* Instead, “aie (0’Donnei1) said he went to the Congo to attempt to snatch Lumumba from the protective custody of the U.N. guard and place him in the hands of the Congolese army. @'DonneLy) 6/9/75, pp. 13-14, 37.) | | According to (O'Donnel), QJIWIN was a man who was capable of undertaking an assassination mission: (o'Donneld: ... L would say that he would not ‘be a man of many scruples. Q: So he was a man capable of doing anything? (o'Donnel i): I would think so, yes. Q: “And that would include assassination? (O'Donnel): I would think so. ‘a (O'Donnel), 9/11/75, pp. 35-36.) * See Sections 5(a) (ii) and 5(a) (iii) above. ‘Geos SS = =DPockd: 32202487 Page 67
~69- But (0' Donnell) had no knowledge that QJNIW was ever used for an assassination mission (p' Donnel)), 9/11/75, pp. 36, 42). fo" ‘Donne11) said that, as far as he knew, he was the only CIA officer with supervisory responsibility for QJWIN and QJWIN did not report independently to anyone else (O'Donnel), 9/11/75, p. 28). When asked if it was possible pnas QJWIN had a mission independent of that he was performing for 0" Donnell), he said: him after he got down there, that they wanted him to do something along the lines ‘of assassination. I don' £ know. (o" Donel 9/11/75, p. 29.) But he discounted this possibility as “highly unlikely" because it would be a departure from standard CIA practice -- placing an agent in a position of knowledge superior to that of his supervising = officer 6" ‘Donnell, 9/11/75, p. 29). Despite 0" Donnell''s doubt that QJWIN had an independent line of responsibility to the Chief of) Station, a cable of November 29 shows that Hedgman was aware of WIN's activities. In that cable, the Chief of)Station reported through the PROP channel to Tweedy that QJWIN had begun implementation of a plan to “PIERCE BOTH CONGOLESE AND UN GUARDS" to enter Lumumba 's residence and "PROVIDE ESCORT OUT OF RESIDENCE" (CIA Cable fon 49486) (Chief of) Station to Tweedy, 11/29/60). (O'Donnell) said that he had directed QJWIN to make ‘the acquaintanceship of the member of the UN force whose help he sought for the plan to snatch Lumumba from UN custody HW 50955 Docld: 32202487 Page 68 . .
(Q'Donnel1; 9/11/75, p. 21). But Lumumba had left UN custody at this point to travel toward his stronghold at Stanleyville. This did not deter QJWIN: VIEW CHANGE IN LOCATION TARGET, QJWIN ANXIOUS GO STANLEYVILLE AND EXPRESSED DESIRE EXECUTE PLAN BY HIMSELF WITHOUT USING ANY APPARAT (CIA Cable, 11/29/60). It is unclear whether this latter "plan" contemplated assassina- tion as well as abduction. An affirmative reply from headquarters came through the PROP channel the next day which was also suscep- tible of interpretation as an assassination order: CONCUR QJWIN GO STANLEYVILLE.... WE ARE PREPARED CONSIDER DIRECT ACTION BY QJWIN BUT WOULD LIKE YOUR READING OW SECURITY FACTORS. HOW CLOSE WOULD THIS PLACE [UNITED (ae STATES] TO THE ACTION? (CIA Cable (QUT 98314) " _ Chief of Africa Division to Chief of) Station, 11/30/60.) (0'Donne1}) said that agent QJWIN's stay in the Congo was "co- extensive with my own, allowing for the fact that he came after I did." (6 Donne1)), 6/9/75, p. 19.) (0'Donnely said he left the _Conge around the time of Lumumba's death in Katanga at the hands of Congolese authorities. (6 Donel, p. 20.) QJWIN left in December shortly after Lumumba was captured by the Congolese army. In a memorandum to arrange the accounting for QJWIN's activities in the Congo, William K. Harvey -- under whom ('Donne1}) had worked - before being detached for assignment to the Congo -- noted the success of QJWIN's mission: "QJWIN was sent on this trip for a HY 50955 Bocld: 32202487 Page 69
~ ~7L- ( specific, highly sensitive operational purpose which has been completed'' (Memorandum for Finance Division from William K. Harvey, 1/11/61). (O'Donnel) explained Harvey's reference to the fact that QJWIN's inission had been "completed" by saying that once Lumumba was in the hands of the Congolese authorities "the reason for the mounting of the project ... had become moot" (P' Donne, 9/11/75, p. 35). When asked if he and QJWIN were responsible for Lumumba's departure from UN custody and subsequent capture, (0' Donnell said: “Absolutely not" p" DonnelY, 9/11/75, p. 35). Harvey did not recall the meaning of the memorandum, but he assumed that (0' Donnell) s return from the Congo constituted the "completion" of QJWIN's mission (Harvey, affidavit, p. ). Despite the indication in the Inspector General's Report that eter QJWIN may have been recruited initially for an assassination mission and the suggestive Language of the cables at the end of November, there is no clear evidence that QJWIN was actually involved in any assassination plan or attempt. The CIA officers who were involved in or knowledgeable of an assassination plot against Lumumba gave _ noe testimony that tended to show that QIVIN was related to that plot. the (Chief of \Station had a "vague recollection" that QJWIN was in the Congo working for Gustin 0' Donnell). (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 95.) But Hedgman did not recall why QJWIN was in the Congo. | (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 95.) QJWIN was not a major operative of Hedgman's. (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 95.) Richard Bissell and Bronson Tweedy did not recall anything about QJWIN's mission in the Congo HY 50955 Docld: 32202467 Page 70
ao, P eign” infra; on the "Executive Action Capability." 50955 Docldad: 32202467 Page fil -72- (Bissell, 9/10/75, pp. 54-57; Tweedy, 9/9/75, pp. 54, 61). William Harvey, from whose division QJWIN was on loan for his Congo assignment, had no specific knowledge of WIN's activities in the Congo: I was kept informed of the arrangements for QJWIN's trip to the Congo and, subsequently, of his presence in the Congo. I do not know specifically what QJWIN did in the Congo, . I do not think that I ever had such knowledge.... Tf QJWIN were to be used on an assassination - mission, it would have been cleared with me, I was never informed that he was to be used for such a mission. (Harvey affidavit, p. } He stated that f probably wrote the memoranda con- cerning QJWIN and submitted them for HARVEY's signature (llarvey affidavit, p. >. (c) QJWIN's Connection to Project ZRRIFLE After leaving the Congo in early 1961, QUJWIN was used by CIA officer William Harvey as the principal asset in Project ZRRIFLE , a project which included research into a capability to assassinate foreign leaders.* QJWIN's role in Project ZRRIFLE was to "SPOT" figures of the European underworld who could be utilized as agents by the CIA if required. Harvey stated that before the formation of Project ZRRIFLE: * For a full treatment of Project ZRRIFLE, see Section
-73- (geswkver had not previously used . SWIN as an assassination capability or even viewed him as such. (Harvey affi- davit, p. ) Although Harvey also had discussions with (Sidney Gottlieb) in connec- tion with Project ZRRIFLE, he believed that Gottlieb) never mentioned to him either QJWIN's activities in the Congo or Gottlied)'s own trip to Leopoldville (Harvey affidavit, p. ). Harvey had con- ~ BE eases ieee BETES yD , sulted with Giemolld Siiiweny ' (Harvey, 6/25/75, p. 52). about the initiation of Project ZRRIFLE The Chief of) Station in Leopoldville testified that he had never heard of Project ZRRIFLE, nor was he aware of any CIA project to develop the capability of assassinating. foreign Leaders, (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 93.) Furthermore, Hedgman said that he was (ew “quite certain" that he never discussed assassination capabilities or assets with Harvey at any time. (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 95.) AY oHbiverpcame to the Congo on a counter- Hedgman testified that Amnole intelligence mission during his tenure, but they did not discuss the plan to assassinate Lumumba. (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 92.) An interesting note on the value accorded QsWIN by the CIA and the inherent predicament for an intelligence agency that employs hoodlums is found in a cable from CIA headquarters tof cero’ BATwaey) in 1962, The CIA had learned that QJWIN was about to gO on trial in Europe on smugg Ling charges. The cable suggested: IF ... INFOR TRUE WE MAY WISIl ATTEMPT QUASII CHARGES OR ARRANGE SOMEHOW SALVAGE QJWIN.FOR OUR PURPOSES. (CIA Cable (OUT 73943), 4/18/62.) \ ; aos, B5 Docld: 32202487 Page T2
Ness -74- (d) Agent QJWIN Was Asked By Hedeman's Operative WIROGUE to Join an “Execution Squad"; December 1960 The one incident where there is an explicit reference to assassination in connection with QJWIN involved his contact with "WIROGUE, another asset of the Congo station. . WEROGUE was an "essentially stateless" European) who was "a forger and former bank robber" fang had‘ fought with the French Foreign Legion) (Inspector General Memorandum, 3/14/75.) He was sent to che Congo after being given plastic surgery and a toupee by the CIA so that he would not be recognized by Europeans traveling through the Congo. (1.G. Memorandum, 3/14/75.) WIROGUE was assessed by the CIA as a man who "LEARNS QUICKLY AND CARRIES OUT ANY ASSIGNMENT WITHOUT REGARD FOR DANGER" (CIA Cable (0u7 86554, Africa Division to Leopoldville, 10/27/60). The Chief of) Station described WIROGE as "a man with a rather unsavory reputation, who would try anything once, at least." (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 96.) Hedgman used him as "a general utility agent" because "I felt we needed surveillance capability, develop- ing new contacts, various things.'"' (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 96.) ledgman supervised WEROGUE directly. and did not put WIROGUE in touch with Gustin O'Donnel). (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 97.) A report on agent WIROGUE, prepared for the CIA Inspector General's office in 1975, described the training and tasking he received: HY 50355 Docld: 32202467 Page ?3 : . -
~/5- } } On 19 September 19690 two members of Africa Division met with him to discuss “an opera- tional assignment in Africa Division." ~ connection with this assignment, WIROGUE/1 2 was to be trained in demolitions, small “arms, and medical immunization.... In October 1960 a cable to Leopoldville stated that Headquarters [had] ... intent to use him as utility agent in order to (a) organize and conduct a surveillance team; (b) intercept packages; (c) blow up bridges; and (d) execute - other assignments requiring positive action. His utilization is not to be restricted to Leopoldville." (1.G. Memorandu, 3/14/75.) WIROGUE made his initial contact with Hedgman in Leopoldville on December 2, 1960 (CIA Cable (nN 18739) 12/17/60). He was given two instructions by Hedgman: (1) to "build cover during initial period;" and (2) to “spot persons for [a] surveillance team" of intelligence assets in the province where Lumumba's support was strongest. (CIA Cable fin 18739), 12/17/60.) Soon after receiving these instructions, agent WIROGUE approached QJWIN and asked him to join an "execution squad." This incident is described by Leopoldville (Chief of) Station Hedgman in a cable to CIA headquarters (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 99): JWIN WHO RESIDES SAME HOTEL AS WIROGUE REPORTED | LATTER TOLD HIM HE HAD LIVED ALASKA, AN, SOUTH | AMERICA, GERMANY AND OTHER PARTS EUROP QIWIN SAID WIROGUE SMELLED AS THOUGH HE IN INTEL BUSINESS. STATION DENIED ANY INFO ON WIROGUE. 14 DEC QJIWIN REPORTED WIROGUE HAD OFFERED HIM THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS PER MONTH TO PARTICIPATE IN INTEL WET AND BE MEMBER . "EXECUTION SQUAD." WHEN QJWIN SAID HE NOT INTERESTED, WIROGUE ADDED THERE WOULD BE BONUSES FOR SPECIAL JOBS. UNDER QJWIN QUESTIONING, WIROGUE LATER SAID HE WORK- INF FOR [AMERICAN] SERVICE. .. IN DISCUSSING LOCAL CONTACTS, WLROGUE MENTIONED QJWIN BUT DID NOT ADMIT TO HAVING TRIED RECRUIT HIM. THEN: [CHIEF OF )STATION] TRIED LEARN WHETHER WIROGUE HAD MADE APPROACH LATTER CLAIMED HAD TAKEN NO STEPS. {CHIEF OF) STATION] WAS UNABLE CONTRADICT, AS DID NOT WISH REVEAL QJWIN CONNECTION [CIA]. CIA Cable, NW 50955 Docla:322024e9pe@hgabhle to Director, 12/17, 60.)
HW 50955 Docld: 32202487 Page 75 -76~ The cable also expressed Hedgman's concern about WIROGUE's . LEOP CONCERNED BY WIROGUE FREE WHEELING AND LACK SECURITY. STATION HAS ENOUGH HEAD- ACHES WITHOUT WORRYING ABOUT AGENT WHO HOT ABLE HANDLE FINANCES AND WHO NOT WILLING FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS. IF HQS DESIRES, WILLING KEEP HIM ON PROBATION, BUT IF CONTINUE HAVE - DIFFICULTIES, BELIEVE WIROGUE RECALL BEST SOLUTION. (CIA Cable, Leopoldville to Director, 12/17/60.) WIROGUE's attempt to recruit QJWIN for an execution squad is explained by Hedgman as a mistake and by the actions of QJWIN as an unauthorized, unexpected contact which he did not initiate. The Chies of) Station testified that he had not instructed WIROGUE to make this kind of proposition to QJWIN or anyone else. (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 100.) He added: I would like to stress that I don't know what WIROGUE was talking about as a[n] “execution squad,'’ and I am sure he was never tasked to go out and execute anyone. (iledgman, 8/21/75, p. 100.) Hedgman suggested that WIROGUE may have concocted the idea of an execution squad: His idea of what an intelligence operative should do, I think, had been gathered by reading a few novels or something of the sort. (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 100.) Gustin O'Donnell) had no knowledge of an attempt by anyone connected to the CIA to recruit an execution squad and no recollec-
HW 50955 -]7- tion of WIROGUE 6" bonnet), 9/11/75; pp: 39-42). (0'Donne1t men- tioned that agent QJWIN was considered for use on a "strong arm squad," but said that this was for purposes more general than . . ) assassinatiLons: . surveillance teams where you have to go into crime areas ... where you need a fellow that if he gets in a box can fight his way out of it. (O'Donnel 9/11/75, p. 36). \ / ? Richard Bissell recalled nothing of the WIROUGE approach to QJWIN (Bissell, 9/11/75, p. 71). Bronson Tweedy did recall that WIROGUE was ‘dispatched on a general purpose mission" to the Congo (Tweedy, 9/9/75, p. 63). But Tweedy testified that WIROGUE would “absolutely not" have been used on an assassination mission against Lumumba because "he was basically dispatched, assessed and dealt with by the balance of the Division" rather than by the. two people in the Africa Division -- Tweedy himself and his deputy, Glenn \ Fields ~-; who would have known that the assassination of Lumumba f was being considered (Tweedy, 9/9/75, pp. 64-65). The (Chief. of Station said that if the WIROQGUE incident was connected to an actual assassination plan, he would have transmitted a message in a more narrowly restricted channel than that in which this cable was sent. His cable on WIROGUE's approach to QJWIN was sent to headquarters with a security designation that allowed much wider distribution than the PROP cables that he sent and received concerning the Gott1ies) assassination assignment. (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 102.) In contrast, he limited distribution of the cable about Docld: 3227027467 Page 76
-78- C WIROGUE only as a CIA officer would “normally do ... when you speak in a derogatory manner of an asset." (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 101) The Chief of) Station maintained that WIROGUE's proposition to QUWIN to join an “execution squad" could be attributed to. WIROGUE's "freewheeling" nature. Hedgman said: I had difficulty controlling him in that he was not a professional intelligence officer as such. He seemed to act on his own without seeking guidance or authority ... I found he was rather an unguided missile ... the kind of man that could get you in trouble: be- fore you knew you were in trouble. (Hedgman, 8/21/75, pp. 96-97). But Hedgman did not disavow all responsibility for WIROGUE's actions: (oe {I}£ you give a man an order and he carries it é out and causes a problem for the Station, why then as (Chief of) Station, well, you accept responsibility.“ (Hedgman, 8/21/75, p. 97.) In sum, the niet of) Station testified that despite the fact that the CIA was interested in the assassination of Lumumba during this. period, agent WIROGUE's attempt to form an “execution squad" was an unauthorized, maverick action, unconnected to the CIA. assassi- nation plan. Nonetheless, the fact that WIROGUE was to be trained in "medical immunization" (I1.G. Memorandum, 3/14/75) raises the possibility that he was connected to the plot to assassinate Lumumba by means of lethal biological substances. The 1975 report on WIROGUE’s case BW 50955 Dockld: 32202487 Page 7? . -.
“egeaye -79- by the Inspector General's office leaves this question open. The report concludes with the statement that "WIROGUE/1 spent most of his time trying to develop contacts and was not directly involved in any particular operation." (I.G. Memorandum, 3/14/75.) But, when the report was circulated in the Inspector General's office, the following comment was handwritten by Scott Breckinridge, one - of the principal authors of the 1967 report on CIA involvement in assassination attempts: "'ROGUE's pitch is too clear to be digs- carded out of hand as ‘exceeding instructions.'’" (1.G. Memorandum, 3/14/75) 6. The Question of Whether the CIA Was Involved in Bringing About Cumumba’s Death in Katanga There is no direct evidence of CIA involvement in bring- ing about Lumumba's death in Katanga. The CIA officers most closely connected to the plot to poison Lumumba testified uniformly that they knew of no CIA involvement in Lumumba 's death. (a) Lumumba's Escape from UN Custod , Capture b Congolese Army and Tmprisomment ab Thyeerrve. November “Decenber 31960 The strongest hint that the CIA may have been involved in the capture of Lumumba by Mobutu's troops after his departure from UN custody on November 27, was contained in a PROP cable from’ the Chies of) Station to Tweedy on November 14 (CIA Cable IN 42478, (Chief of) Station to Tweedy, 11/14/60). In the cable, Hedeman re- ported that an agent of his had learned that Lumumba's POLITICAL FOLLOWERS IN STANLEYVILLE DESIRE THAT HE BREAK OUT OF HIS CONFINEMENT AND PROCEED TO THAT CITY BY CAR TO ENGAGE IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY. (CIA Cable, 11/14/60.) HY 50955 Docld: 32202457 Page 7é
-80- C The €nief of) Station was confident that he would have foreknowledge of Lumumba's departure and that action plans were prepared for that eventuality: DECISION Oi BREAKOUT WILL PROBABLY BE MADE SUORTLY. STATION EXPECTS TO BE ADVISED BY [AGENT] OF DECISION WHEN MADE.... STATION HAS SEVERAL POSSIBLE ASSETS TO USE IN EVENT OF BREAXOUT AND STUDYING SEVERAL PLANS OF ACTION. (CIA Cable, 11/14/60.) There is no other evidence, however, that the CIA actually gained prior knowledge of Lumumba's plan to depart for Stanleyville. In fact, a cable from Leopoldville on the day after Lumumba's escape betrays the station's complete ignorance about the circum- \ stances of Lumumba's departure (CIA Cable fx 43484) Leopolidville ( to Director, 11/28/60). | . But the same cable raises at least a question as to whether the CIA was involved in the capture of Lumumba enroute by Congolese troops: [STATION] WORKING WITH [CONGOLESE GOVERNMENT] TO GET ROADS BLOCKED AND TROOPS ALERTED . [BLOCK] POSSIBLE ESCAPE ROUTE. (CIA Cable, 11/28/60.) A cable of December 2 reporting Lumumba's capture militates against CIA involvement, however, because it portrays the Conpolese forces as the source of the station's information (CIA Cable (tn 10643), Leopoldville to Director, 12/3/60). the (Chief of) Station testified that he was "quite certain that there was no Agency involvement in any way" in Lumumba's departure HW O50955 Decld: 32202487 Page 79 : .
( from Uil custody and that he had no foreknowledge of Lumumba's 7 plan (Hedgman, 8/21/75, pp. 63-64). He stated that he consulted with Congolese officers about the possible routes Lumumba might take to Stanleyville, but he was "not a major assistance" in track-~ ing down Lumumba prior to his capture (iledgman, 8/21/75, p. 65). Despite the fact that (0'Donnel 1) had planned to draw Lumumba out of UN custody and turn him over to Congolese authorities, he insisted that Lumumba escaped by his own devices and was not tricked by the cra P'Donner 9/11/75, p. 22). (b) Transfer of Lumumba to Katanga Where He Was Killed: January ; 60 The contemporaneous cable traffic shows that the CIA was kept informed of Lumumba's condition and movements in January of ( 1961 by the Congolese and that the CIA still considered Lumumba a serious political threat. But there is no direct evidence of CIA involvement in bringing about Lumumba's death in Katanga. * Excerpts from cable traffic of January 1961 and from the testimony of CIA officers Hedgman, Tweedy, (O'Donnell,) and Helms (investigative report) should be inserted. \ ° HW 50955 Docld: 322027467 Page 60
HY 50955 -§3- Group | agreed that planning for the Congo would not necessarily rule out “consideration” of any particular kind of ac- tivity which might contribute to getting rid of Lumumba. (Minutes of Special Group Meeting, 25 August 1960) The next day CIA Director Allen Dulles, who had attended the Special Group meeting, personally cabled to the Chief of} Station in Leopold- ville that Lumumba's "REMOVAL MUST BE AN URGENT AND PRIME OBJECTIVE . A HIGH PRIORITY OF OUR COVERT ACTION' (CIA Cable ovr 62966) Dulles to Leopoldville, 8/26/60). Dulles added: "YOU .CAN ACT ON YOUR OWN AUTHORITY WHERE TIME DOES NOT PERMIT REFERRAL HERE." Although the Dulles cable does not explicitly mention assassina- tion, Richard Bissell -- the CIA official under whose aegis the as- sassination effort against Lumumba took place -- testified that, in his opinion, this cable was a direct outgrowth of the Special Group meeting and signaled to him that the President had authorized assas- Sination as one means of removing Lumumba (Bissell, 9/10/75, pp. 33- 34, 61-62: see Section. 7(c), infra). Bronson Tweedy, who bore the primary administrative responsibility for activities against Lumumba, testified that the Dulles cable confirmed the policy that no measure, including assassination, was to be overlooked in the attempt to re- move Lumumba from a position of influence (Tweedy, 10/9/75, pp. 4-5). On September 19, 1960, Bissell and Tweedy cabled the (Chief of): Station to expect a messenger from CIA headquarters. Two days later, in the presence of the President at a meeting of the National Security Becld: 32202467 Page 81
Hy Council, Allen Dulles stated that Lumumba “would remain a grave danger as long as he was not yet disposed of" (Memorandum, 460th NSC Meeting, 9/21/60). Five days after this meeting, a CIA scien- tist arrived in Leopoldville and provided the (Chiet of) Station with lethal biological substances, instructed him to assassinate Lumumba, and informed him that the President had authorized this operation. Two mitigating factors weaken this chain just enough so that it will not support an absolute finding of Presidential authoriza- tion for the assassination effort against Lumumba. | First, the two officials of the Eisenhower Administration re- sponsible to the President for national security affairs testified that they knew of no Presidential approval for, or knowledge of, an assassination plot. Second, the minutes of discussions at meetings of the National Security Council and its Special Group do not record an explicit Presidential order for the assassination of Lumumba. The Secretary of the Special Group maintained that his memoranda reflect the ac- tual language used at the meetings without omission or euphemism for extremely sensitive statements (Parrott, 7/10/75, pp. 18-19). NSC staff executives stated, however, that there was a strong pos- sibility that a statement as sensitive as an assassination order would have been omitted from the record or handled by means of euphe- mism. Several high Government officials involved in policy-making 50955 DBocld: 32202487 Page 82
Near Mete 7/21/60). Nonetheless, the attitude toward Lumumba even at these early meetings was vehement: Mr. Dulles said that in Lumumba we were faced with a person who was a Castro or worse . - . Mr. Dulles went on to describe Mr. Lumumba's background which he de- scribed as "harrowing" . . . It is safe to gO on the assumption that Lumumba has been bought by the Commun- ists; this also, however, fits with his own orienta- tion. (NSC Minutes, 7/21/60) The President presided over the other two NSC meetings. After look- ing at the records of those meetings, Johnson was unable to deter- mine with certainty which one was the meeting at which he heard the President's statement (Johnson, 9/13/75, p. 16). However, the chronology of meetings, cables, and events in the Congo during this period makes it most likely that Johnson's. testi- mony refers to the NSC meeting of August 18, 1960. The meeting of August 18 took place at the beginning of a series ‘of events that preceded the dispatch of a CIA scientist to Leopold- ville with poisons for the assassination of Lumumba.* The Septem- ber 7 meeting took place in the midst of this series of events. ee * The major events in the series, each of which is discussed in de- tail in other sections of the report, may be summarized as follows: The week following the NSC meeting of August 18, the Special Group was informed of the President's “extremely strong feelings about the necessity for very straightforward action’ and the Group agreed to consider “any particular kind of activity which might contribute to getting rid of Lumumba" (Special Group Minutes, 8/25/60). At this meeting, DCI Allen Dulles commented that "he had taken the comments referred to seriously and had every intention of proceeding as vig- Orously as the situation permits" (Special Group Minutes, 8/25/60; See Section 7(a)(iii), infra). The next day, Dulles sent an "Eyes Only" cable under his personal signature to the/Chief of station in HY 50955 Docld: 32202467 Page 83
‘uy HY 50955 The NSC meeting of August 18, 1960, was held three weeks before the "“quasi-coup" in the Congo -- the dismissal of Lumumba by Kasavubu ~~ which Johnson remembers as taking place "not long after" he heard the President's Statement. The Only other meeting at which Johnson could have heard the statement by the President was held on Septem- ber 7, two days after this event. * Leopoldville, indicating that it had been concluded in "HIGH QUAR- TERS" that Lumumba's “REMOVAL MUST BE AN URGENT AND PRIME OBJECTIVE AND THAT . _ . THIS SHOULD BE A HIGH PRIORITY OF OUR COVERT ACTION" (CIA Cable OUT 62966, Dulles to(Chiet of)Station, 8/26/60). The Dul- les cable added: a WE WISH GIVE YOU WIDER AUTHORITY .. . INCLUDING EVEN MORE AGGRESSIVE ACTION IF It CAN REMAIN COVERT . ._ YOU CAN ACT ON YOUR OWN AUTHORITY WHERE TIME DOES NOT PERMIT RE- FERRAL HERE. (CIA Cable, 8/26/60) (See Section 2, supra, for more complete treatment of this cable.) On September 19, a CIA scientist was dispatched from headquarters to the Congo on an extraordinarily sensitive assignment (CIA Cable OUT 71464, Bissell/Tweedy to(Chief of)Station, 9/19/60: see Section 4(a), Supra). On September 21, in the Presence of the President at an NSC meeting, Allen Dulles stated that Lumumba "remained a grave danger as long as he was not disposed of" (NSC Minutes, 9/21/60; see Section 7(a) (iv), infra). Finally, on eptember, 26, the CIA scien- tist arrived in tha Congo, provided the( Chief of Station with lethal biological substances, instructed him CO assassinate Lumumba, and in- formed him that the President had ordered the DCI to undertake an as- Sassination effort (see. Sections 4(a)-4(c), supra), The (Chief of) Station stated that he received confirmation from CIA headquarters that he was to follow the instructions he had been given (see Section 4(e) (i), supra). “wk In 1960, Dillon served as Undersecretary of State, the “number two Position in the State Department," the name of which Subsequently changed to Deputy Secretary of State. In this Position, he frequently (Continued) Becldad: 32202467 Page 84
~107- ( on September 21, 1960, Allen Dulles stressed the danger of Soviet influence in the Congo. Despite the fact that Lumumba had been deposed from his position as Premier and was in UN custody, Dulles continued Co regard him as a threat, especially in light of reports of an impending reconciliation between Lumumba and the Post~coup Congolese government : Mobutu appeared to be the effective Power in the Congo for the monent but Lumumba Was not yet disposed of and remained a grave danger as long as he was not disposed of. (NSC Minutes, 9/21/60.) Three days after this NSC meeting, Allen Dulles sent a Personal cable to the/ Chief of Station) in Leopoldville which — included the following message: POSITION OR IF HE FAILS IN LEOP{OLDVILLE] , SETTING HIMSELF IN STANLEYVILLE OR ELSEWHERE. (CIA Cable, (our 73574, Dulles to Leopoldville, 9/24/60.) On September 26, (Sidney Gottlieb), under assignment from CIA headquarters, arrived in Leopoldville (CIA Cable (IN 18989), Leopoldville to Director, 9/27/60), provided the (Chief of} Station with poisons, instructed him CO assassinate Lumumba, and assured him that there was Presidential authorization for this mission (see Sections 4(b)-4(c), supra). Marion Boges, NSC Deputy Executive Secretary, who wrote the memorandum of the discussion of September 21, did not interpret Dulles’ remark as referring to assassination:.:. HY 50955 Docld: 32202487 Page 65
-114- Other Eisenhower Administration officials who were active in the Special Group in late 1960--Assistant Secretary of Defense John N. Irwin II, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Livingston Merchent, and Deputy Secretary of Defense James Douglas--stated that they did not recall any discussion about assassinating Lumumba (Irwin affidavit, 9/22/75, pp. 1-2; Merchant atfidavit, 9/8/75, p. 1; Douglas affidavit, 9/5/75). (c) Richard Bissell Testified That, Despite His Lack of That the Acsassination EEfotE Agsinee Tomes Was Authorized by President Eisenhower and Allom Dulles Richard Bissell's testimony on the question of high-level authorization for the effort to assassinate Lumumba is prob- lematic. Bissell insisted that he had no direct recollection of receiving such-authorization and that all of his testimony on this subject “has to be described as inference" (Bissell, 9/10/75, p. 48). Bissell began his testimony on the subject by asserting that it was on his own initiative that he instructed (sustin O'Donnell) to plan the assassination of Lumumba (Bissell, 6/11/75, pp. 54-55). Nevertheless, Bissell's conclusion--based on his inferences from the totality of circumstances relating to the entire assassination effort against Lumumba--was that an assassination attempt had been authorized at the highest levels. of the government (Bissell, 9/10/75, pp. 32-33, 47-49, 60-62, 65). HW 50955 Docld: 322702467 Page 6
“oN 3 Nase teal HY 50955 -115- As discussed above, Bissell testified that the minutes of meetings of the Special Group on August 25, 1960 and the NSC on September 21, 1960 indicate that assassination was comn- templated at the Presidential level as one acceptable means of “getting rid of Lumumba" (see Sections 5(a) (ii) and 5(a) (iii), supra). There was "no question", according to Bissell, that the cable from Allen Dulles to che( chit of )station in Leopoldville on August 26, which called for Lumumba's removal and authorized Hedgman to take action without consulting headquarters, was a direct outgrowth of the Special Group meeting Dulles had attended the previous day (Bissell, 9/10/75, pp. 31-32). Bissell was “almost certain" that he had been informed about the Dulles cable shortly after its transmission (Bissell, 9/10/75, p. 12). Bissell testified that he assumed that assassination was one of the means of removing Lumumba from the scene that is contemplated within the language of Dulles' cable (Bissell, 9/10/75, p. 32): It is my belief on the basis of the cable drafted by Allen Dulles that he regarded the action of the Special Group as authorizing implementation [of an assassination] if favorable circumstances presented themselves, if it could be done covertly. (Bissell, 9/10/75, pp. 64-65.) Dulles’ cable signalled to Bissell that there was Presi- dential authorization for him to order action to assassinate Lumumba (Bissell, 9/10/75, pp. 61-62): Becld: 32202467 Page 87
~il6- C Q: Did Mr. Dulles tell you that President Eisenhower , wanted Lumumba killed? Mr. Bissell: Tf am sure he didn'rc. Q: Did he ever tell you even circumlocutious Ly through this kind of cable? Mr. Bissell: Yes, I think his cable says it in effect. BisselT, /10/75, p. 33.) As for discussions with Dulles about the source of autho- rization for an assassination effort against Lumumba, Bissell Stated: I think it is probably unlikely that Allen Dulles would have said either the President or President Eisenhower even to me. I think he would have said, this is authorized in the highest quarters, and I would have known what he meant. (Bissell, 9/10/75, Pp. 48.) When asked if he had sufficient authority to move beyond the (case consideration or planning of assassination to order implementa- tion of a plan, Bissell Said, "I probably did think I had [such] authority" (Bissell, 9/10/75, pp. 61-62). When informed about che (Chief of station's testimony about the instructions he received from (Goeel tel), Bissell said that despite his absence of a specific recollection: . I would strongly infer in this case that such an authorization did pass through me, as it were, if Sid ttlieb) gave that firm instruction to the Stationf Chief ~ (Bissell, 9/10/75, p. 40.) Bissell said that the DCI would have been the source of this authorization (Bissell, 9/10/75, p. 40). HW 50955 Docla: 32202467 Page 68
f—" [ Bissell did not recall being. informed by (Goet1ieb) that foretieb)had represented to the(Chief of) Station that there was Presidential authorization for the assassination of Lumumba (Bissell, 9/10/75, p. 46). But Bissell said that assuming he had instructed botelieb Jeo Carry poison to the Congo, "there was no possibility" that he would have issued such an instruc- tion without authorization from Dulles (Bissell, 9/10/75, P. 47). Likewise Bissell said he "probably did" tell Gort1ieb) that the mission had the approval of President Eisenhower (Bissell, 9/10/75, P. 47). This led to Bissell's conclusion that if, in fact, the testimony of the( Chief of) station about (Gotried)'s actions is accurate, then Gottlieb) s actions were Aw * ~~ : . fully authorized: 7 on Q: In light of the entire atmosphere at the Agency and the policy at the Agency at the time, Mr. _ Gottlieb) s representation to the Chief of Station “" "that the President had instructed the DCI to carry out this mission would not have been beyond the pale of Mr. Gottlieb)'s authority at that point? Bissell: No, it would not. (Bissell, 9/10/75, . 05). Bissell further Stated: Knowing Mr. Gott Lieb) it is literally inconceivable to me that hé would have acted beyond his instruc- tions. (Bissell, 9/10/75, Pp. 41.) With respect to his assignment to Justin O'Donnel) to “plan and prepare for" the assassination of Lumumba (Bissell, 9/10/75, P. 24) Bissell testified that "it was my own idea to give | HW 50955 Docld:32202487 Page 989
-118- a “ c (0'Donnety this assignment" (Bissell, 9/10/75, p. 50). But he _ ; : ‘ ‘said that this specific assignment was made in the context that an assassination mission against Lumumba already had autho- rization above the level of DDP (Bissell, 9/10/75, p. also pp. 32-33, 47-48, 60-62). 50; see HY $0955 Docld: 322027467 Page 98
that, while he could have created the capability on his own, any C urgings would have come from Bundy or Walt Rostow. In a later appearance, however, Bissell said he merely informed Bundy of the capability and that the context was a briefing by him and not urging by Bundy. Bundy said he received a briefing and gave no urging, though he raised no objections. Rostow said he never heard of the project. William Harvey testified that he was “almost certain" cos that on January 25 and 26, 1961, he met with CIA officials] Sidney Gottlieb | Gsneld Bile of creating a capability within the Agency for "executive action" the new Chief of CIA's Technical Services Division, and G a CIA recruiting officer, to discuss the feasibility (Harvey, 6/25/75, p. 52). After reviewing his notes of those meetings ,* Harvey testified thar they took place after his initial ( * As to the.dat of these notes, Harvey was asked whether his no- Cations "'25/14Sid GY a ¢ » 26/14 indicate that he spoke to [Sidney ¢ Gottlieb and (GEnoyre eo eSaer) in L961; as opposed to 1962. Harvey testi- fied as follows" Q: And is ite your judgment that that is January 26, 1961 and is about the subject of Executive Action? Harvey: Yes, it is. Q: And it followed your conversation with Mr. Lissell that you have recounted? Harvey: . , . (Wlell, when £ first Looked at this, [ Chought this, well, this has got to be ‘62, but I am almost certain mow Chat it is not. Té this is true, this might Place the the period in the Spring, and very early in '61 to the fall of '61l period, but ‘IL did find out fairly early on that Silvers ( oe} foo55 Docld: 32202487 Page 91
discussion of executive action with Bissell, which, he said,” (C might have transpired in “early January" (Harvey, 6/25/75, 52). When Bissell Was shown these notes, he agreed with Harvey about the timing of their initial discussion (Bissell, 7/17/75, p. 10). ae had -- or t iscussed the question of assassi- nation with (pew and this discussion, at the very least, had to I Clgpen know Bissell already had ~ Meme Wlarvey, 6/25/75, p. 52). Marvey had also testified that, after receiving Bissell's initial in- structions to establish an executive action capability: the first thing I did . |. was discuss in theoretical terms with a few officers whom I Crusted quite implicitly the whole Subject of assassination, our possible assets, Our posture, poing back, if you will, even to the funda- mental questions Of A, is ASSassination a proper weapon ( of an American intelligence Service, and B, even if you setae" assume that it is, is it within Our capability within the framework of this s0vernment to do it effectively and properly, securely and discreetly, (llarvey, 6/25/75, yi Pp. 37-A, 38 . yi} _*t The Inspector General's Report connected (JIM anu Gartiie early stages of the executive action Project as folldws. Harvey says that Bissell had?41lread discussed certain aspects of the problem with Gottlieb, Since GSiiver trea ready cut in, Harvey used him in eveloping™ the Exe utive Action Capability... Harvey's mention of him [Gore lied in this connection may explain a notation # Gunn to discuss techniques with Gottlie Cing the discussion with the Castro Operation. (1.6. Gail pip org) and with JSidney j Dr... Gunn that Jlarvey instructed buwithout associa- Tt is evident from the Cestimony of tlarvey and. Bissell that the turn- _ Over to Harvey of the Roselli contact in November 1961 was discussed 4S part of ZRRIFLE (see Section Cd), infra) , Thus, their initial discussion of executive action can, at the least, be dated before November 196] and the "25/1" and "26/1" notations would have to 55 Docld: 32202487 Page 92
6/11/75, pp. 19-20). Harvey did not recall any mention of the White House or any higher authority than the ppp in his November .meeting with Bissell (Harvey, 7/11/75, pp. 60-61). administrative responsibility (as DDP) for Project éR/RIFLE three months later, he did not recall that ZR/RIFLE was ever contemplated aS a Capability to assassinate Castro (Helms , 6/13/75, p. 35). Asked whether the actual assassination efforts against Castro were related to ZR/RIFLE (executive action), Helms Cestified: "In my mind those lines never crossed’ (Helms, 6/13/75, p. 52). However, Bissell's testimony leaves more ambiguity: "the contact with the Syndicate which had Castro @s its target . _. folded into the ZR/RIFLE project .., . and they became one"! (Bissell, 6/11/75, P. 47). When asked by Senator Baker whether the executive action “capability - .. for assassination" was “used against Castro", Bissell replied that it was "in the later phase", (Bissell, 6/11/75, Pp. 47). The instruction from Bissell to Harvey on November 15; 1961, however, Preceded the reactivation of the ClA~-syndicate assas- ination operation against Castro by approximately five months. (iii) Use of Agent QJ/WIN in Africa QJ/WIN was a foreign citizen with a criminal back- ground who had been recruited by the CIA for certain sensitive Programs involving surreptitious entries which pre-dated Project HW 50955 Docla: 32202467 Page 34
“™, sain” -19- ZR/RIFLE. Harvey testified that QJ/WIN's function after the advent of Project ZR/RIFLE in 1961 was restricted to the "spotting" of. potential assets for "multi-purpose" covert use. However, in the Fall of 1960--before Harvey was assigned to Create Project ZR/RIFLE by Richard Bissell--agent QJ/WIN had been dispatched to the Congo by (4 Supervising CIA case officer in Europe. William Harvey, as the Chief of the CIA Foreign Intelligence staff on which QRH worked. had ordered QJ/WIN's mission to the Congo (CIA Dispatch (UHH) 147, 11/2/60) and arranged the financial accounting for the mission afterward (Memorandum Co Finance Division from William K. Harvey, 1/11/61). [QJ/WIN's activities in the Congo are treated in detail in the discussion of the Lumumba case; see Section —— Supra.) There are two factors which may raise a question as to whether QJ/WIN was being used in an ad hoc capacity to develop an assassination capability before ZR/RIFLE was formally initiated, First, there is a Similarity in the cast of characters: Harvey, QJ/WIN, eres and \Gott Lieb |were connected with the Lumumba Matter and reappear in connection with the subsequent development of ZR/RIFLE. Second, Bissell informed Harvey that the development of an assassination Capability had already been discussed with Gees) and Gottlieb |before Harvey's assignment to ZR/RIFLE (Harvey, 6/25/75 p. 52; I.G. Report, pp. 37-38). .Nevertheless, there does not appear to be any firm evidence of a connection between QJ/WIN and the Plot to assassinate * ‘O855 Docld: 32202487 Fage 94
é Documents indicate that consideration was given within the CIA to airdropping rifles into the Dominican Republic. en 2 At a June 21, 1960, meeting with jot the CIA Western Hemisphere Division, Ambassador Farland reportedly suggested possible sites for the drops. (CIA memo, 6/21/60) Documents also indicate that a meeting was held around the end of June 1960 between Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Roy R. Rubottom and Col. J. C. King, Chief of CIA's Western Hemisphere Division. Apparently King sought to learn the Assistant Secretary's view regarding "To what extent will the u.s,. government participate in the overthrow of Trujillo.” A number of questions were ( raised by King, among them: "eo. Would it provide a small number of sniper rifles Or other devices for the removal of key Trujillo people from the scene?" <ing's handwritten notes indicate that Rubottom's response to * that question was "yes" (CIA memo Of 6/28/60; King affidavit) On July .1, 1960, a memorandum directed to General Cabell, the Acting Director of Central Intelligence, was prepared for Colonel King's Signature and, in his absence, signed by his principal deputy, [ Ruay Gomez \(I.G. Report, p. 26). ‘the memorandum stated that & principal leader of the anti-Trujillo opposition had asked Ambassador Farland for a limited number of arms to precipitate Trujillo's overthrow, and recognized that such arins ( * Neither King nor Rubottom recalls such a meeting, nor does either recall any proposal for supplying sniper rifles. (Rubottom affidavit, King affidavit.). . oo fs) pet. he, ae ae te i ie? . ‘ ; ee | Dockd: 3227027467 Page 95 Phot “| mo ceo \s y : $y my 4 ‘
Trujillo government could be successful unless it involveg Trujillo's assassination. He communicated this opinion to both the State Department and the CIA. In July 1960, he advised Assistant Secretary Rubottom that the dissidents were it] activity in the foreseeable future except the assassination of their Principal enemy." (Dearborn to Rubottam letter, 7/14/60) in ne way ready to Carry On any type of revolutionary Tt is uncertain what portion of the information provided by Dearborn to State WaS passed above the Assistant Secretary level. Through August of 1960, only Assistant Secretary Rubottom, his Deputy, Lester Mallory, and Staff Assistant |Prank Devine, were, within the Latin American Division of the Department, aware of Dearborn's “current projects," (Devine to Dearborn ad letter, 8/15/60) - By September 1960, Thomas Mann had replaced Roy Rubottom as Assistant Secretary for Inter~Anerican Affairs, and Prank Devine] had become a Special Assistant to Mr. Mann. While serving as Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary, | Devine| reportedly spent ninety percent of his time coordinating State activities in Latin America. It was in this capacity that Devine maintained almost daily communication with| | and otner officials of the CIA's Western Hemisphere Division (Devine, p.7) *Dearborn’s candid reporting to State during the summer oF 1960 raised concern with the Department and ne “as advised that certain specific information should more appropriately come through "tne other channel" (presumably, CIA communications) . Dearborn was { advised that his cables to State were distributed to at least 19 A different recipient offices, {Id.) ; - 55 Docld: 32202487 Page 96
re { PI55 Doecld: 32202487 Page a7 3 fq weg Ret Ver ty ‘th the have asked us for a Few Sandwiches, hardly more, and we are not prepared to make them available. Last week we were asked to furnish three or four Dineapples for a party in the near ruture, but I could remember nothing in my in-~ Structions that would have allowed me to contri- dute this ingredient. Don't think I wasn't tempted. I nave rather specific cuidelines to the effect that salad ingredients will be delivered outside the picnic grounds and will be brought to the area by another club, (Dearborn letter to Devine, 3/16/61) After reviewing his “picnic” lettér, together with the requests in the March 14 and 15 cables discussed above, Dearborn con- cluded during his testimony before the Committee that the "pineapples" were probably the requested fragmentation grenades and the restriction on delivering salad ingredients outside of the picnic grounds was, almost certainly, meant to refer to the requirements of the January 12 Special Group orcer that arms be delivered outside the Dominican Republic, (Dearborn 7/29, pp. 25-27) 2. The Passage of Pistols a. Pouching to the Dominican Republic |... In a March 15, 1961 cable, [chief of| Station GIRS reported that Dearborn had asked for tnree .38 caliber Pistols for issue to several dissidents. In reply, Headquarters cabled: "Regret no authorization exists to Suspend pouch regulations against shipment of arms" and indicated that their reply had been coor- dinated with State. (HQS to Station cable, 3/17/61) _ The Station [chief |then asked Headquarters to seek the necessary authorization and noted that at his last two posts, he had received pistols via the pouch for "worthy Purposes” and, vias
im bs a slog a. . oy : : ; wo en a an therefore, he knew it could be done. (Station to Hgs cable, 3/21/61) Two days later, Headquarters cabled that the pistols and ammunition were being pouched. However, the Station [chiet| was instructed hot to advise Dearborn. (Hqs. to Station cable, 3/24/61)* b. Reason for the CIA Instruction oO’ Not to Tell Dearborn “A aN te EES costitica that he believed the “don't tell Dear- born the pistol is being pouched" language Simply meant that the sending of firearms through the “iplomatic pouch was not oO something to be unnecessarily discussed, (Gass pp. 78,79) td eo Dearborn said he never doubted the pouch was used, since he knew Ved had no other means of receiving weapons. (Dearborn, 7/29, p. 33) Cc. Were the Pistols Related to Assassination? ee WO, ASSASSination? Dearborn testified that he had asked for a Single pistol for purposes completely unrelated to any assassination con- Sideration., (Dearborn, 7/29, pp. 29-31) He said he had been approached by a Dominican contact who lived in a remote area and was concerned for the safety of his family in the event of political reprisals. Dearborn testified that he had believed The Inspector General's Report, issued in connection wit a review of these events, concludes that: “There is no indication in the EMDEED operational files that the pistols were actually pouched. The request for pistols appears to have been overtaken by a sub- sequent request for submachine guns." (2I.G, Report, p. 60) This conclusion is difficult to understand in light of the March 24, 1961, Headquarters to Station cable, which Provides: "C. Pouching: revolvers -and ammo: requested TRUI 0462 (in 20040) on 28 March. Do not advise(name Dearborn deleted) pocta: 5503488 tenga bsbeing pouched. Explanation follows."
: . , s cn ” . 1 . wey : - Pr : aout 3 “oat *. nr ie the man's fears were well~founded and had promised to seek a pistol.” Although there is no direct evidence linking any of these pistols to the assassination of Trujillo, a June 7, 1961, CIA memorandum, unsigned and with no attribution as to source, states that two of the three Pistols were Passed by [owen] to LA _ } _ om. os ja United States citizen who was in direct contact with the action element of the dissident group. It should also be noted that the assassination was apparently con~ ducted with almost complete reliance upon hand weapons, Whether one or more of these .38 caliber Smith & Nesson pistols eventually came into the hands of the assassins and, if so, whether they were used in connection with the assassination, remain open questions. — Both Dearborn and jtestified that they regarded the pistols: as weapons for self-defense purposes and they never considered them in any way connected with the then-current i o assSasSination plans. (Dearborn 7/29, p.70; em pp.38,73) However, none of the Headquarters cables inquired as to the purpose for which the handguns were sought and aS cable Stated only that Dearborn wanted them for Passage to dissidents. (Station to HaS cable, 3/15/61) Indeed, the March 24, 1961, v5. *Dearborn 18 clear in his recollection that he asked (@meny to” request only one pistol. (Dearborn, 7/29, pp.30,31) One, 03 on the other hand, testified that if his cables requested pistols for Dearborn then Dearborn must have asked for three Pistols .03@@wem, p.72) The pistols*were, however, apparently sent in one package (HUS to .Station cables,3/27/61 and 3/24/61) and Dearborn testi- fied that, what he believed to be the one gun, came “wrapped up" and that he passed it. | (Dearborn, -7/29,p.30)
iT Mi of ~ Biephan | | f- cable advising that the pistols were being pouched is the very cable which was sent in response to a request by the dissidents for machine guns to be used in an assassination effort which had been previously described to Headquarters. AS with the carbines discussed below, it appears that little, if any, concern was expressed within the Agency over Passing these weapons to would-be assassins, 3. Passing of the Carbines ee In a March 26, 1961 cable to CIA cscs MiB for permission to Pass to the dissidents three 30 caliber M1 carbines. The guns had been left behind in the Consulate by (~ Navy personnel after the U.S. broke formal diplomatic relations in Auyust 1960. Dearborn testified that he knew of and concurred in the proposal to Supply the carbines to the dissidents. (Dearborn 7/29, pp. 42,43) on March 31, 1961 CIA Headquarters cabled approval of the request to pass the carbines. (Hqs to Station cable, 3/31/61) b. Were the Carbines Related to Assassination? £28. the carbines were Passed to tne action group contact lon April 7, — 1961. (Station to HQS cable, 4/8/61) Eventually, they found their way into the hands of one of the assassins, Antonio de la Maza. (Station to HOS cable, 4/26/61; I.G. Report { Pp. 46, 49) Both Dearborn ond (BiB testi rica that the a carbines were at allstimes viewed: ‘ag ‘strictly a token show Docld: 322027487 Page 108
Dau Wa ehan b of support, indicating U.S. Support of the dissidents’ efforts oO} to overthrow Trujillo. (Dearborn 7/29, pp. 16-48; (ERD. 39) ¢c. Failure to Disclose to State Department Officials in Vasnington There is no indication that the request or the Passage of the carbines was disclosed to State Department officials in Washington until several weeks after the passage, In fact, on Avril 5, lieadquarters requested its Station to ask Dearborn not to comment in correspondence with State that the carbines and ammunition were being passed to the dissidents. This cable ~ 93. was sent while ] was in Washington, and it indicated that upon his return to the Dominican Republic, he would explain tne request. The Station replied that Dearborn had not com- mented on the carbines and ammunition in his correspondence with State and he realized the necessity not to do so, (Station to HQS cable, 4/6/61) Dearborn testified, however, that he believed, at the time of his April 6 cable, that someone in the State De- partment had been consulted in advance and had approved the passage of the carbines (Dearborn 7/29, p. 44)
3. Requests For and Pouching of the Machine Guns os d wi) a a. (Ou Poquests Machine Guns (for Use SSassination C The Station (Chie®) suggested that Headquarters consider pouching an M3 machine gun on February 10, Station to HQs cable, 3/15/61). The request was raised again in March but no action was taken. On March 20, 1961, ais cabled a dissident request for five M3 or comparable machine guns specifying their wish that the arms be sent via the diplomatic pouch or similar means. The dissidents were said to feel that delivery by air drop or transfer at Sea would overly-tax their resources. (Station to HQS cable, 3/20/61) The machine guns sought’ by the dissidents were Clearly identified, in G2 cable, as being sought for use in connec- tion with an attempt to assassinate Trujillo. This Plan was to C Kill Trujillo in the apartment of his mistress and, according See : to yl cable: "4 ' To do they need five M3 or comparable machine- guns. and 1500 rounds ammo for personal defense in event fire fight. Will use quiet weapons for basic job." (Id.) In essence, CIA's response was that the timing for an assassination was wrong. neh oe told that Precipitious or uncoordinated action could lead to the emergence of a leftist, Castro-type regime and the “mere disposal of Trujillo may create more problems than solutions." It was Headquarters’ position that: ee -..we should attempt to avoid precipitous action by the internal dissidents until opposition group and HQS are better prepared to Support /assassination/*, effect a change in the regime, and cope with the after- math." (HQS to Station cable, 3/24/61) Word supplie y CIA in previously sanitized cable.
Seppe! The cable also stated to deliver machine guns and they developed a capability -22. that Headquarters was prepared ammunition to the dissidents when to received them, but that security considerations precluded use of U.S. facilities 4S a carrier. * I Sey for consultation with Headquarters, he reported on events in Soon, thereafter, on April 6, 1961, while was in Washington the Dominican Republic and “especially on the insistence of the EMOTH [dissident] leaders that they be provided with a limited number of small arms for their own Protection (specifi- cally, five M3 caliber (45 SMG's)." (CIA memo for the record, 4/11/61) b. Pouching the Machine Guns is Approved by Bissell Accordingly, on April 7, 1961, a Pouch Restriction Waiver Request and Certification was submitted seeking permission to pouch "four M3 machine guns and 240 rounds of ammunition on a Priority basis for issuance to a small action group to be used for self Protection." (Pouch Restriction Waiver Request 4/7/61) The request, “submitted on.benalf of the Chief, tlestern Hemisphere Division, further provided: *ThIs Same cable oF March 24, 196i, Is the one which advised that the revolvers and ammunition were being pouched. cM p aye ates ©
in cables from Dearborn and (wer (Station to HOS’ cables 3 wor advised Headquarters that ” , ; aed ‘ : had informed him that Antonio de la Maza was Z —_ "| LR ' gOling to attempt the assassination between April 29 and May 2, uci also reported that this attempt would use the three carbines passed from the American Consulate, together with whatever else was available. (1d.) fn response to the April 26 cable, Headquarters restated that there was no approval to PaSS any additional arms to the dissidents and requested (REM) to advise the dissidents that the United States was Simply not prepared at that time to cope with the aftermath of the @SSassination. (See C/S comments, Station to HOS cable, 4/27/61) The following day, April 27, 1961, (MN repiiea that, based upon further discussions with the dissidents, "We doubt Statement U.S. government not now prepared to cope with aftermath will dissuade them from attempt." (Station to HQS cable, 4/27/61) Dearborn recalls receiving instructions that an effort be made to turn off the assassination attempt and testified that efforts to carry out the instructions were unsuccessful. . In effect, the dissidents informed him that this was their affair and it could not be turned off to suit the convenience of the U.S. government. (Dearborn, 7/29, p.52)
~ 33- additional Support, coupled with fact ref, C items [the carbines] already made available to them for personal defense; station authori- zed pass ref. A items {the machine guns] to Opposition member for their additional bro- tection on their Proposed endeavor,” (Draft of HOS to Station cable, 5/2/61). The cable was never sent. fn his testimony before the Committee, Bissell characterj- zed his reasoning for recommending release of the machine guns as: + + . having made already a considerable investment in this dissident group and its plans that we might as well make the addi- tional investment." (Bissell, 7/22, p.127) a The following day, May 3, 1961,/) Ray Herbert,; Deputy Chief of the Western Hemisphere Division of CIA, who frequently acted as liaison with the State Department in Matters concerning covert Operations in the Dominican Republic, met with Adolpna Berle, Chairman of the State Department's Interagency Task Force on Latin America. A Berle memorandum of the meeting states that jHerbert informed Berle that a local group in the Dominican Pepublic wished to overthrow Trujillo and sought arms for that purpose, The menorandum continued: . “On cross examination it Geveloped that the real plan was to assassinate Trujillo and they wanted guns for that purpose, Lilerbert |wanted to know what the policy should be. : "I told him I could not care Less for Trujillo and that this was the general sentiment. But we did not wish to have any thing to do with any, assassination plots anywhere, any time. (Herbert | Said he felt the Same way." (ferle, Meno7of Conversation, 5/3/61) Hy 50955 Docld: 32202467 Page 105
Maize ar i NW 50955 Docta:32202487 bage 106 vA a Copies of Berle's memorandum were sent to Wymberly Coerr; the Acting Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs, — and to Special Assistant |Frank Devine]. Both /Herbert and Deving|, who had been in almost daily contact with each other since August of 1969, had been advised of the assassination plans of the dissident group. -In fact, lierbertl, along with Bissell, had Signed off on the proposed cable of May 2, releasing the machine Guns for passage. C. Special Group Meetings of Jay 4 and May 13, 1961 On the day following the Berlofiterbert meeting, the Special Group met and, according to the minutes: “The DCI referred to recent reports of a new anti~Trujillo plot. He said we never know if one of these is going to work or not, and asked what is the status of contingeney Planning should the plot come off. Mr. Bundy Said that this point is covered in the Cuba paper which will be discusse¢<! at a high level in the very near future." (Special Group Minutes, 5/4/61) Once again, the cryptic reporting of Special Grouo Minutes makes subsequent analysis as to the Scope of matters discussed speculative. It is not known to what extent and in what detail Allen Dulles referred to "recent reports" of a new anti-Trujillo plot. Certainly, the most recent report of such a plot was Dearborn's April 30 cable -- disclosing an imminent ASSassination attempt potentially utilizing U.S.~supplied weapons, On May 18, 1961, the Special Group again considered the situation in the Dominican Republic and, according to the i. . Pd
to continue to take the Same line until he received contrary instructions which Clearly indicated they had been Cleared in advance by the State Department itself. This cable from State was approved by Under Secretary Bowles. (Department to Dearborn, 5/16/61) [Ray terbert\ referred to Dearborn's ‘lay 16 request in a memorandum he sent to Devine jon the same date and asked to be advised as to the Department's policy concerning passage of the machine guns. [Herbert noted that when this request was a last taken to the Department, Berle made the decision that the weapons not be passed. {Memo to ARA from CIA, 5/16/61) . 7 . Devine responded to jierbert 's| menorandun on the same day, eo ee ee re, advising [ierbert| that the Department's policy continued to be negative on the matter Of passing the machine guns,.* [Herbert's ) ( attention was directed to the January 12, 1961 Special Group limitation concerning the passage of arms cutside of the i Dominican Republic. A copy of |bevine's| memorandum to fterbert | _. — ~ — was forwarded to the Office of the Under Secretary of State, to the attention of his Personal assistant, Joseph Scott. (Devine to ferbert| memo, 5/16/61) E. Dearborn in Washington for Consultation -- Drafting of Contingency Plans ane PANS At a meeting of the National Security Council on “May 5, 1961, the question of u.s, Policy toward the Dominican Republic was considered and it was: “Agreed that the Task Force on Cuba would prepare promptly both emergency and long~ range plans for anti-communist intervention in the event ofcrises in Haiti or the ee ee ae. By Hay 27, 1961 Dearborn was advising the State Department that the roup was no longer requesting the arms and had accepted the fact that it must make do with what it had. (Dearborn to State nw 50955 1%2de3026723%/ 6hage 107
Hi fact, we feel that the transfer of arms would serve very little Purpose and expose the United States to great danger of association with assasSination attempt,’ soo The cable, as revised by Goodwin and approved by President Kennedy, was sent to Dearborn on May 29, 1961. (State Dept, to Dearborn cable, 5/29/61) Vil, May 30, 1961 and Immediately Thereafter: A. Trujillo Assassinated Late in the evening of May 30, 1961, Trujillo was ambushed and assassinated near San Cristobal, Dominican Republic. The assassination closely paralleled the Plan disclosed by the action group to American representatives in the Dominican Republic and passed on to officials in Was hington at both the CIA and ‘a the State Department. (Dearborn cable to State, 5/30/61) The assassination was conducted by members of the action group, to whom the American carbines had been passed, and such sketchy information as is available indicates tnat one Or more of the carbines were in the Possession of the assassination group when Trujillo was killed. (I. G. Report, Pp. 60-61). This evidence indicat: however, that the actual assasSination was accomplished by handguns and shoteuns. (I.G. Report, p.61) B. Cables to Washington After receiving the May 29 cable from Washington, both consul a3 General Dearborn and Station |chier & a) sent replies. According to Dearborn's testimony, he did not regard the May 29 cable aS a cnange in U.S. policy concerning Support for assassinations. (Dearborn 7/29/75, p. 74), HW 50995 Docld:32202487 Pag! 108
C ~46 He interpreted the May 29 cable as Saying: ",..we don't care if the Dominicans assassinate Trujillo, that is all right. But we don't want anything to pin this on uS, because we aren't doing it, it is the Dominicans who are doing it." (Dearborn, 7/29, p. 104) ; Dearborn testified that this accorded with what he said had always been his personal belief; thae the U.S. should not be involved in an assassination and that if an assassination Occurred it would be Strictly a Dominican affair. 7/29, pp. 100, 101) (Dearborn a In contrast the CIA Station |cnier, @MEN| aia regard the cable as manifesting a change in U.S. policy, Particularly on “ae the questionor Supplying arms. 5p. 120) He believed the May 29 cable was the final word in U.S. policy on this matter and consequently felt that the severnment had retreated from its prior position, of offering material Support to the dissi- dents, and had adopted a new position of withholding such sunnort. shresponsive cable to Headquarters Stated: "HQS aware extent to which U.S. government already associated with assassination. If we are to at least cover up tracks, CIA personnel directly involved in assassination preparation must be withdrawn." (Station to HQS cable, 5/30/61)
aE AMA RNS PNP SCHNEIDER REPORT Summary The President's Initial General Instruction and Background A. September 15 White House Meeting B. Background: Tracks I and II C. CIA Views of Difficulty of Project - CIA's Implementation of Track II A. Evolution of CIA Strategy 1, The "Constitutional Coup" Approach 2. Military Solution ~ B. The Chile Task Force C. The Use of the/semy cache and Interagency Relations . o . The (False Flag \Base E. Chief of Station CIA Efforts to Promote a Coup A. The Chilean Conspirators B. Contacts Prior to October 15 C. October 15 Decision D. Coup Planning and Attempts After October L5 E. The Killing of General Schneider F. Post October 22 Events CIA/White House Communication During Track II cen aE LON During Track IT A.. September ee Diets Er omeny : : B. October sae ey nemeree te C. December D. Did Track II End? Page 17 17 17 18 19 20 26 27 29 29 30 34 36 39 4} 43 45 46 “Ee
~L7- \ ILL. “CIA's Implementation of Track II sey A. Evolution of CIA Strate y The President's instruction to the CIA on September 15 to prevent Allende's assumption of power was given in the context of a broad U.S, : — Government effort to achieve that end. The September 15 instruction to the CIA involved from the beginning the promotion of a military coup d'etat in Chile. Although there was talk of a coup in Chilean military circles, there was little indication that it would actually take place . ’ without active U.S. encouragement and support. There was much talk among Chilean officers about the possibility of some kind of coup...but this was not the kind of talk that waS being backed by, you know, serious organizational planning. r- (Karamessines testimony, Aug. 6, 1963, p. 32) I, The "Constitutional Coup" Approach a Although efforts to achieve a political solution to the Allende ( victory continued simultaneous with Track If, the Agency premised its activities on the assumption that the political avenue was a dead end. On September 21, CIA Headquarters cabled its Station in Santiago: Purpose of exercise is to prevent Allende assump- tion of power. Paramilitary legerdemain has been discarded. Military solution is objective. | (Has. 236, Sept. 21, 1970, para. 3) The initial Strategy attempted to enlist President Frei in promoting 4 coup to perpetuate his presidency for six more years. The Agency decided to promise "help in any election which was an outgrowth of a Successful military takeover." (Nov. 18, 1970 Helms memo to Kissinger) Under this plan Frei would invite the military to take over, dissolve the Congress, and Proclaim a new election. (s private U.S. citizen who had Py" been a conduit for CIA funds to Frei's 1964 campaign was sent to see hin ) : ,
-18~ (with this message on. September 24, (Task Force Log, September 23) ) Thomas Karamessines, the Deputy Director fer Plans, testified: So this was in a sense not Track IL, but in a iz Sense another aspect of a quiet and hopefully #- non-violent military coup....This was abandoned when the military were reluctant to push Frei publicly...and, number two, Frei was reluctant to leave on his own in the absence of pressure from the military....There was left as the only chance of success a straight military coup. (Karamessines testimony, Aug. 6, 1975, p. 6) At the same time, the Station in Santiago reported: Strong reasons for thinking neither Frei nor Schneider will act. For that reason any scenario in which either has to play an active role now appears utterly unrealistic. Overtures to lower echelon officers (e.g., Valenzuebka) can of course be made. This involves promoting Army split. (Stn. to Hqs. 424, September 23, 1970) 2. Military Solution President Frei's failure even to attempt to persuade his own party convention on October 3-4 from reaching a compromise with Allende ended all hope of using him to prevent an Allende presidency. (November 18 memo, Helms to Kissinger, page 16) Thus, by the beginning of October, it was clear that a vehicle for a military solution would have to be found in the second echelon of Chilean officers, and that the top leader- ship of the Armed Services, particularly General Rene Schneider, censti- tuted a stumbling block. (Santiago 424, September 23, 1970; Santiago 439, September 30, 1970) The Agency's task was to cause a coup in a highly unpromising situation and to overcome the formidable obstacles represented by Frei's inaction, Schneider's strong constitutionalism, and the absence me tore of organization and enthusiasm among those officers who were interested in a coup. ow pe a . ‘ re Fama A three-fold program was set into motion: "Ry Gi ' nF Sod HH, I
\ -20- eb Poavia'a. Phillips, [thief of Seatton| as summoned A , - ( Ae back to Washington to head the operation. With the exception of the 4 . Division Chief, William Broe, his deputy [James Flannery \and the head pk * of the Chile Branch, no other officers in the Division were aware of the — task force's activities, not even those officers who normally had respon- sibility for Chile. The task force had a special communications channel to Santiago and Buenos Aires to compartment cable traffic about Track IT. (November 18, 1970, Helms to Kissinger memo, page 3) Most of the a Significant operational decisions were made by Phillips, Broe and Karamessines, who met on a daily basis. It should be noted that all those involwed with the task force des- cribed the pressure from the White House as intense. Indeed, Karamessines has said that Kissinger “left no doubt in my mind that he was under the heaviest of Pressure to get this accomplished, and he in turn was plac- ( ing us under the heaviest of pressures to get it accomplished." (Kara- messines testimony, August 6, 1975, page 7) The Deputy Chief of the ~~ ta Western Hemisphere Division} James Flannery,! testified that pressure was . "as tough as I ever saw it in my time there, extreme." (Flannery teset- mony, July 15, 1975, page 20) Broe testified that "I have never gone through a period as we did on the Chilean thing. I mean it was just wo constant, constant....Just continual Pressure....I¢ was coming from the White House." (Broe testimony, August 4, 1975, page 55) C. The Use of che/army /ateache and Interagency Relations a The CIA Station in Santiago had inadequate contacts within the Chilean military to carry out its task. However, [ine U.S. Aray) At <TH wor nes tache in Santiago! Colonel Paul Winert,) knew the Chilean military ane r = wile r fy
Pai tte = 4 a rr . ~ cc very. well due.to his \five years of service there and| his broad personal x a x 5 a we oa he ‘contacts among the Chilean officers. Following a proposal by the Chief 4 nae “e Be “\ rote “* i Sane 4 (- Ve of Station, the CIA decided to enlist Colonel Wimert iin collecting in- ae ny telligence concerning the possibility of a coup and to use him as a channel to let the interested Chilean military know of U. S. support for a coup. Karamessines described this procedure for the Committee: We also needed contact with a wider segment of the military, the senior military which we had not maintained and did not have, but which we felt confident that our military represen- tative in Chile had....And we got the approval of the DIA to enlist the cooperation of [Folonel Wimer ¢} iin our effort to pro~ cure intelligence, (Karamessines testimony, August 6, 1975, p. 6) To obtain |dimert!'s services, CIA officials Prepared a suggested mes- i ad ~ 4 ; Sage for the Director of DIA toa send to the[ Army [Attache in Santiago through CIA communications channels, Because the DIA Director, General Donald V, Bennett, was in Europe on official business, the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, General Cushman, invited DIA Deputy ( Director Lt. General Jammie M. Philpott to his office on September 28, 1970.* During that meeting, General Cushman requested the assistance of iN ~ the [Army |attache, and General Philpott Signed a letter which authorized ~ 4 aa transmission of a message directing the \Army| Attache: ++-to work closely with the CAS chief, or in his absence, his deputy, in contacting and advising the Principal mili- tary figures who might play a decisive role in any move which might, eventually, deny the presidency to Allende. ' Do not, repeat not, advise the Ambassador or the Defense At-— tache of this message, or give them any indication of its portent. In the course of your routine activities; act in accordance with the Ambassador's instructions. Simultaneously, I wish--and now authorize you--to act in a concerted fashion with the CAS chief, * General Bennett returned to” thd United States on the ‘evening of October 10, 1970. General Philpott Was''Acting Director in Bennett's absence. ~<a
‘ . Senger we ~ -22- ', This message is for your eyes only, and should not be dis- A ict \ cussed with any person other than chose CAS officers who will ", "°°" be knowledgeable. CAS will identify them. (Headquarters 380 to Santiago) For this and all subsequent messages intended for the (hem Jattache, the secret CIA communications channel was used. Both General Philpott and Thomas Karamessines testified that ini-~ f ~ 4 tially the /Army' Attache would be used only to “obtain Or procure” in-~ - 4 Me 4 telligence on Chilean military officers.* (Philpott, p. 11; Karamessines, Pp. 6) The September 28, 1970 message to the/Acny] accache, however, did in fact trigger his deep involvement in the coup attempt. According to the Attache's testimony, he received day-to-day instructions from the Chief of Station, and on occasion, the COS would show him messages ostensibly from Generals Bennett and/or Philpott, directing him to take certain actions. The COS also transmitted messages from the [army ) Attache to these Generals. General Bennett testified that he never had knowledge of Track II and that he never received any communication relating thereto, nor did he ever authorize the transmission of any messages to the Army Jactache. General Philpote also testified that he had no recollection of anything connected with Track II after his initial meeting with General Cushman on September 28. (Philpott, p. 16) U. S. Army Colonel Robert c. Roth, who in September and October 1970 was the Chief of the Human Resources Division, Director of Collection, DIA, a ere ec aa were cceencitinsnnsen, * In this connection it should be noted that when questioned about this letter, General Philpott testified that he recalled.signing an authorization such as that contained in the first. paragraph of Headquarters 380 but that he did not recall .the authorizations and instructions in paragraphs tworand mo * Kottom —
testified that he recalled working for Generals Bennett and Philpott on “a priority requirement to identify Chilean personalities who might be helpful in preventing the election of Allende as President of Chile." (Roth, Vol. I, p. 6) Though Roth recalls ho mention of Track II as such, the goal of this mission is identical to that described in the Message of September 28 bearing Philpotte's signature. Beginning on October 15, Roth kept a chronology of his activities connected with Chile. This chronology reflects that there was a meeting on October 21 regarding the preparation of biographic material on Chilean generals which focused on their willingness to Participate in a military coup. Generals Bennett, Philpott, and a CIA representative attended. The chronology also shows that on October 21, Roth delivered @ message to , am Mr. Broe to be sent by CIA channels.* A message was sent to leo. Wimert \ that same day, ostensibly from General Bennett, which authorized: FYI: Suspension temporarily imposed on MAP and FMS has been rescinded. This action does not repeat not imply change in our estimate of situation. On the contrary, it is intended to place us in a posture in which we can formally cut off assistance if Allende elected and situa- tion develops as we anticipate. Request up date on situa- tion. (Santiago 446; Ref: Headquarters 762) (Headquarters 934, 21 October 1970) Roth testified that this DIA project ended on October 23 when he followed Philpott's instructions to deliver biographic information on Pp & Chilean figures to Mr. Broe at CIA, Philpott also instructed him that AAA re ere cent annanannn * Roth believes that General Philpott directed him to deliver this message and also pressed him on several occasions to seek a re- Sponse from Broe to an earlier message to [Colonel Wimer¢], (Roth, Vol. II, p. ) Mebhoes) ? ene Cane otie! ONT err eg Fy AG t: t } ~~ ene
Both Bennett and Philpott testified that the activities described by Roth were routine DIA activities. However, Colonel Roth testified: that DIA then had a priority responsibility of coming up with the identities of key Chilean personalities that would be help- ful, and so forth. I have nothing specific as to the nature of .Q. Tt was your sense at the time that you were working on a oe ok . —_—S cate with Cushman if the need arose, (Roth, p. 11) Roth also testi- _- fied that Philpott advised him that communications with /iimert \vould be by CIA channels. (Roth, p. 41) .
(.. Colonel Roth. That was my impression at the time, Q. You understand from your work in the Defense Department that the highest level of government usually indicated the President of the United States? Colonel Roth. I would assume that. The CIA produced copies of several messages which identify Generals Bennett and Philpott as either the Sender or recipient. Among these documents is a message relating to Track II which bears Philpott's purported signature. (Undated message. ca. 14 October 1970) General Philpott admitted that the signature appears to be his but doubted that it was and he could not recall signing it, or having seen it. (Philpetc, p-. ) CIA also produced messages of. October 14 (Headquarters 762) and October 21 (Headquarters 934) conveying instructions from General Bennett to che [Army |accache. General Bennett testified he did not authorize these messages: It is. beyond the responsibilities which I had in the military assistance area. [It goes beyond the responsibility which I had in terms that I would have to get the authority or the approval of the Secretary through the Chairman for covert action of this magnitude, This message would not have been Signed by me. (Bennett testimony, p. 21) According to Karamessines, only the White House had the authority to issue the directives contained in those messages (Karamessines testi- mony, p. 84) The Department of Defense was unable to provide any documents bear- ing on the issue of inert} Track II instructions or responses. A DOD file search under the direction of General Daniel Oo. Graham, the Present Director of DIA, produced no copies of communication documents for the September-October 1970 period. (Graham, P. 6} However, Roth testified that detailed vain for the record which he prepared on 1 his activities are missing - from. the | files. (oe, VoL! Il, p. ) tlhe. | aan. ieee
Tad x rit sk CIA officials maintain that they acted faithfully in transmitting messages to Generals Bennett and/or Philpott and in never sending a message without Proper authorization. Mr. Karamessines Was particularly forceful in this regard: individual, an officer of the 80vernment anywhere, in what- ever department, which was not faithfully, directly, promptly and fully and accurately delivered to that officer, or to his duly authorized representative, (Karamessines testimony, p. 79) We may have Played tricks overseas, but it stopped at the water's edge, and we didn't play tricks among ourselves or among our colleagues within the Agency or in Other agencies. (Karamessines testimony, p. 79) We could not remain in business for a day...if this had been the practice of the Agency. It would have been ho time at all before wa would have been found out, a single instance of the kind of thing you are Suggesting might have taken Place would have Put us out of business. (Karamessines testimony, p. 80) fe wy Dr. Kissinger denied he was ever informed of the Army ‘Attache's {7 ~ role or that he authorized any messages to be sent to the [Army Attache, (Kissinger testimony, p. 22) statements of the senior CIA, DIA and White House officials, There are four Possibilities that could explain the conflict. First, Generals general instructions to the Army /ateache, This possibility would be contrary to their sworn Cestimony. Second, General Bennett was not aware of Track IL but General Philpott was and communicated Reneral instructions to the /Arny Attache. This possibility is “Supported by Roth's testimony but would be contrary to Philpott's Sworn testimony and his duty to keep General Bennett informed, Third, the CIA acted on its own + and, after receiving initial authority, from General Philpott, COmopted and ordered i TR “ vere Ts.
24 -26- ‘the fey pecache without further informing any member of the Department C of Defense of the White House. This possibility would be contrary to the sworn testimony off David Phillips | William Broe, Thomas Karamessines, and William Colby. Fourth, members of the White House staff authorized the CIA to convey orders to the hrny| Attache on the basis of high or highest government authority. Further, that the White House staff directed that the krmy \Attache's superiors in the Pentagon not be in- formed. This possibility would contradict the sworn testimony of Dr. Kissinger and General Alexander Haig. \ D. The hatse Flag Base } XM “ In order to minimize the risks of making contact with the dissident Chilean officers, the task force decided in late September to set up a ‘. . \ "False Flag Base," }i.e., to send four staff officers to Chile posing as “A y . i \ nationals of other countries to supplement Folonel Wimert's }contacts (. = with Chilean military officers )civen the limitations of the Station's \ resources and (Colonel Wimert's visibility, Headquarters felt the use of ("raise Flag officers" \was necessary because “We don't want to miss a . ~ } aa o chance.” /One of these officers posed as af Iacettigence officer \ . so that “any flap would be a one." (Headquarters 363, September 27, 1970) ) y, { *The use of "False Flag Officers" is not, according to David Phillips, \ ; “an unusual practice," either by the CIA or. Eqteign. intelligence ‘4 services. (Phillips testimony, pp. 47~48) ‘ pftiet ; — /
Filia’ -27- The False Flaggers were compartmented from each other and reported separately on their contacts to a "deep cover" CIA officer | in Santiago who in turn reported to the Station. According to the testimony of the Chief of Station, they received their instructions from Washington and me not from him. (Chief of Station testimony (Felix), August 1, 1975, p. 27) | é E. Chief of Station Although most of the Station officers in Santiago did not know of Track II, the Chief and Deputy Chief of Station were knowledgeable and the Chief of Station initiated contacts on his own with Chilean officers. i The COS has testified that he regarded Track II as unrealistic: ft had Left no doubt in the minds~wf my colleagues and superiors that I did not consider any kind of “ intervention in those constitutional processes desirable....And one of the reasons certainly for my last recall (to Washington) was to be read: the riot act--which was done in a very pleasant, but very intelligible manner. Specifically, I was told at that time that the Agency was not too interested in continuously being told by me that certain proposals which had been made could not be executed, or would be counterproductive. (Chief of Station (Felix) testimony, August 1, £975, p. 10) The Chief of Station's objection to Track IL did not go unnoticed. The following instruction to the COS was sent on October 7: "Report should not contain analysis and argumentation but simply report on action taken." (Headquarters 612, 7 October) Very simply, Headquarters - wanted the Station to take orders quietly as was the Agency itself. ray Say arene
? fea” , rad Fy ai aw — ae ras see’ i nr O i 4 ') "tv." CIA Efforts to Promote a Coup er) ( A. The Chilean Conspirators Anti-Allende coup plotting in Chile centered around several key individuals. One of these was retired General Roberto Viaux, the General who had led the 'Tacnazo" insurrection a year before. Following the “Tacnazo” revolt, and his dismissal from the Army, Viaux retained the support of many non-commissioned and junior officers as well as being the recognized leader of several right-wing civilian groups. (CIA an Briefing Paper, “Special Mandate from the President on Chile," July ~~ 15, 1975) Another individual around which plotting. centered was General Camilo Valenzuela, Commander of the Santiago Garrison. General Valenzuela was o 6,08 " . a O in league with several other (active duty) officers,(including’ | m AOL ru Se a )) «cra Report on Chilean Task Force Activities, November 18, * 1970) All of these officers, with the possible exception 6“) . kk were in contact with Viaux as well. *This revolt was engineered by Viaux ostensibly for the purposes of drama~ cizing the military's demand for higher pay, but was widely interpreted as an abortive coup. , a **The record of meetings between Viaux and the active duty military officers is incomplete. The record does show, however, that Viaux met cc i 7 round October 7. (Chile Task Force Log, October 7). On Ocfdber iaux tet with General Valenzuela (Chile Task Force Log, 14 October).) One cable from Santiago indicates that y have been a member t ; of Viaux's inner cirgle of conspirators Ob (Station 545, 16 October 1970) 7 ah At the very least, as in contact with Viaux. ; - ue ’ a : 7 wt q , st - . Ss ‘ - Although a distinction can be made between the. Viaux and Valenzuela groups, f- as CIA witnesses did throughout their testimony before the Committee, the ose principal distinction between the two was that the latter was led by active duty military officers. The two groups were in contact with each other. The record also indicates that they worked together in at least two of the three Schnei
‘ <4 ~ _ cot ¥, 30 There was considerable communication among the various plotting elements. As Thomas Karamessines testified: -»-I might add here that it seemed that a good dozen or more, maybe 20 Chilean senior officers m were privy to what was going on(fin addition to President Frei nd) they were all talking to one another exchanging views and trying to see how best to mount the kind of coup that they wanted to see take place. (Karamessines testimony, p. 10) B. Contacts Prior to October 15 The CIA's initial task in Chile was to assess the potential within the Chilean military to stage a coup. It recognized quickly that anti- —_ Allende currents did exist in the military and the Carabineros (police), but were immobilized by "the tradition of military respect for the Constitution” and “the public and private stance of General Schneider, Commander in Chief of the Amny, who advocated strict adherence to the Constitution. (CIA Report on Chilean Task Force Activities, 18 Novem ber 1970, p. 17) The Agency's task, then, was to overcome "the apolitical, constitutional-oriented inertia of the Chilean military." (Ibid, p. 2) Since the very top of the Chilean military, embodied by General k. Schneider and his second-in-command, General Prat, were hostile to the idea of a coup against Allende, discreet approaches were made to the second level of general officers. They were to be informed that the U.S. Government would support a coup both before and after it took place.” (Headquarters to Station 611, 7 October 1970) This effort began in earnest on October 5 when Colonel Wimert informed both an Army General ("Station's priority contact") an an Air Force General of the pro~coup t f as yoo 4 *the military officers were told, for example, that should Allende be - p prevented from taking office, "The Chilean military will not be ostra- — cized, but rather can continue to count on us for MAP support and main- tenance of our close relationship." (Hqs. 075517, 7 October 1970) EPO, ea we ett ee Ey
4 Ne om) \ a 4 -31- U.S. policy. (Santiago 469, October 5; Santiago 473, October 6)* Three days later the Chief of of the Carabineros that “the U tion and is willing to support military intervention." (Task Station told aN -S. Government favors a military solu- it in any manner short of outright ; a - Le Force Log, 93 October) [| ! informed the COS that there was no chance of a coup by the Chilean Army high command. (Task Force Log, i0 October) {f On October 7, Colonel Wime rt \approached members of the War Academy in Santiago who in turn asked him to provide light weapons. This was Lf \ s ‘Colonel Wimert!s first contact with the Army o whom he ; i ded would ultimately pass, three submachine gunseon October 22. At this meeting, che feote(cotoner Winert} that, he and his colleagues were ‘ trying to exert for Gen. Schneider to e him out of the coun ied plans to kidnap main barrier to all ce on Frei to eliminate ither replace him, send try. They had even stud- him. Schneider is the plans for the military to take over the government to prevent an Allende presidency. x According.to the CIA's wrap-u (Santiago 483, 8 October) p report on Track II, between October 5 and October 20, the CIA Station and the (Army Attache--for the most part the latter--made 21 contacts with key military and Carabinero officials. (CIA Report on Chilean Task Fo kk ; In his testimony, (Col nel Wimert) indicated that the affiliated with ceneratl 6 (Wimert Yestimony. BR. a <able sent to Headquarters on October i8,°in which the request for three submachine guns was believed the Army officer, and league with Admiral ( ree Activities, 8 November 1970) made, the Station indicated t at(Wimert ) his companion, a Navy ere in Station 562, October 18 t another point in his testimony,\Wimert jstated, "There was Valenzuela here and the Navy (Captain! and the Army (Lt.’ Colonel! and the Air Fotce General over here." (Wimert )testimony, p- 107) :The Committee has been unable to determine the exact affiliation of the stated, both Genera rmy However, as previously nd were affiliated with General Valenzuela and Admiral as in contact with General Viaux. gor 3
ae -32- tk « pe pert 44 TAL ns an | The next day, October 8, Headquarters cabled the Station in response ; nf OS é to the| Wimert meeting. Headquarters took note of Schneider's we \ 7 resistance to coup plans and stated: Pa . a ..-This would make it more important than | ever to remove him and to bring this new state of events...anything we or Station can do to effect removal of Schneider? We know this rhetorical question, but wish inspire thought on both ends on this matter. (Hqs. 628, 8 October) During the first week of intensive efforts chances of success F . i) looked unusually bleak. The Chile Task Force Log commented: {President Frei and |the highest levels of the drmed forces unable to pull themselves together to block Allende. The Chilean mPlitary's tradi- tion of non-intervention, Frei's reluctance to » tarnish his historical image, General Schneider's firm constitutional stand, and most importantly, the lack of leadership within the government and — military are working against a military takeover. (Task Force Log, 8 October) Noe The following day the Station made reference to the "rapid(ly) waning chances for success." (Santiago 487, 9 October) This pessimism was not dispelled by their simultaneous judgment: "Station has arrived at Viaux solution by process of elimination.” (Santiago 504, 10 October) Three days later the Task Force agreed: "We continue to focus our attention on General Viaux who now appears to be the only military leader willing ° to block Allende." (Task Force Log, 13 October) If Viaux was the CIA's only hope of staging a coup, things were bleak : indeed. His own colleagues, General’ and Walenzuela described him b ~ G as "a General without an army." (Santiago 495, 9 October) Yet in the : first two weeks of October he came to be regarded as the’ best hope for. — ae . Pw cc { SOE FE carrying out the CIA's Track II mandate. } “+ i {
-33- Although (Colonel Wimert |was instructed not to involve himself with (> 2 Viaux because of the high risk involved (Santiago 461, 5 Qctober), he served initially as a contact to Viaux through /an [pititary Attache. thef reported on October 5 that Viaux wanted several hundred paralyzing gas grenades to launch a coup on October 9. (Santiago 476, 6 October) Headquarters turned down the request, concluding that a “mini~coup at this juncture would be counterproductive" and Viaux should postpone his plans, "while encouraging him in a suitable manner to maintain his posture so that he may join larger movement later if it materializes."" (Headquarters 585, 6 October) The primary purpose of the \"False Flag hase"|was to contact Viaux, and it very rapidly relieved (Wimert and the[ Jatt ache of that task. Viaux reiterated his demand for an air drop of weapons to the “False Flagger',": and again the response was the same: reject the demand (_. for arms, but encourage him to keep planning. In essence the Agency was buying time with Viaux: "We wish to encourage Viaux to expand and refine his coup planning. Gain some influence over his actions." (Headquarters 689, 10 October) To achieve this latter purpose, Head- quarters authorized passing $20,000 in cash and a promise of $250,000 in life insurance to Viaux and his associates, as a demonstration of U.S. support. (Headquarters, 729, 13 October) On October 13, Headquarters again indicated its concern over Schneider by asking: "What is to keep Schneider from making statement in early hours which will freeze those military leaders who might otherwise join Viaux?" (Headquarters 729, 13 October) The Station's response later that same day was "Viaux intends to kidnap Generals Schneider and Prats within |; H Whore a the next 48 hours in order to precipitate a coup." (Santiago 527,
fied -34- » “ i. ; at f 3 > ~ § * A “A « AEE 23 October)” This Viaux kidnapping of Schneider was reported by the Sta- x med al enya a om neon ot BY tion "as part of a coup that included Valenzuela." (Station 529, 13 October) ( At about this time che Station began to receive encouragement from its other contacts. On October 14, ten‘days before the Chilean Congress was LL to vote, the Task Force Log concluded: Now we are beginning to see signs of increasing coup activity from other military quarters, specifically an Army General (name deleted), sanicail the forces in Concepcion and Valdivis7ani perhaps even Frei andi #6 ‘ . (Task Force Log, 14 O¢tober) w C. October 15 Decision To summarize, by October 15, General Viaux had advertised to his con- tact a desire to proceed with a coup, had ifdicated he would deal with the Schneider obstacle by kidnapping him, had met at least once with Gen- > eraié nd ‘Valenzuela and had once postponed his coup plans.* poses On October 15 Thomas Karamessines met Henry Kissinger and Alexander C , Haig at the White House to discuss the situation in Chile. According to the Agency's record of this meeting, Karamessines “provided a run- down on Viaux, the meeting with : and, in some detail, the general situation in Chile from the coup-possibility viewpoint." (Memorandum of Conversation/Kissinger, Karamessines, and Haig, 15 October 1970) A decision was made at the meeting "to de-fuse the Viaux coup plot, at least temporarily:" * The reason for Viaux postponing his coup plans was the subject of a cable to from Santiago to Headquarters: oe We discount Viaux's statement that he had called off his coup at- tempt because of (False Flag Officer's impending visit. Other re- porting indicated Viaux probably not able or intending move this weekend. (Santiago 499, 10 October) yoy om * at. “e There is also reason to believe that General Valenzuela was instrumental in persuading Viaux to postpone. According to the Chile Task Force Log: | Station reported that on 12 October General Valenzuela met with General Viaux and attempted to persuade him not to at- tempt a coup." (Chile Task Force Log, 14 October) a Se aa RE RR eo BE RP OOS ae Ts
-35- . “\ \_ Lt was decided by those present that the Agency v- ' Must get a message to Viaux warning him against " any precipitate action. In essence the message should state: "We have reviewed your plans and based on your information and ours, we come.to the conclusion that your plans for a coup at this time cannot succeed. Failing, they may re- duce your capabilities in the future. Preserve your assets. We will stay in touch. The time will come when you with ail your other friends can do something. You will continue to have our support.’ (15 October Memorandum of Conver- sation, Kissinger, Karamessines, Haig) The meeting concluded, according to the Agency's record, "on Dr. Kissinger'’s note that the Agency should continue keeping the pressure on every Allende weak spot in sight--now, after the 24th of October, after 5 November, and into the future until such time as new marching ae orders are given. Mr. Karamessines stated that the Agency would comply."'* The following day CIA Headquarters cabled the results of the White House meeting to the Station in Santiago: 2. It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup....We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end utiliz- ing every appropriate resource. 3. After the most careful consideration it was determined that a Viaux coup attempt carried out by him alone with the forces now at his disposal would fail. Thus it would be counterproductive to our Track Two objectives. It was decided that CIA get a message to Viaux warning him against precipitate action. (Headquarters 802, 16 Octo- ber) The message was supplemented by orders to "continue to encourage him (Viaux) to amplify his planning; encourage him to join forces with other coup planners." (Headquarters 802, 16 October) The message concluded: Ce} “There is great and continuing interest in the activities of )) Valenzuela et al and we wish them optimum good fortune." (Ibid.) ne * Secretary Kissinger's recollection of the October 15 meeting is not in accord with that of Mr. Karamessines or the cable (Headquarters 802) that was sent the following day to the Station in Santiago. This mat- ter will be discussed in Part V of this report. Phar ~My