TMS Trust Company Bank - @ “UE Atlanta. Georgia 30302 Special Agent ‘Seymour Phillips November 25, 1975 Page Two the deposition was taken surprised, but didn’t bother me. [It could catch someone off guard if strong cross examination developed. Kelly informed me of my constitutional rights, the right to have a senator present and the right to request a senator and/or attorney at any time throughout the deposition. He had hinted while walking to the room of an interest in how Klan informants are developed and Bureau policy. He did not have a form on my rights or any form for me to sign. After his advisement, I advised him I had been briefed by the FBI only on procedure and the limitation of the waiver of oath as pertained to information only on Tom Rowe. He was informed I would not answer policy questions because I had been out eleven years, and of the availability of the Bureau executives to answer those questions. He explained a notary would be waiting to notarize my deposition when we returned to Room G-308. I stated that I would only allow the oath she gave me to apply to the fact I was the person who gave the deposition. He agreed. The preliminary conversation and advisement of my rights was not recorded to my knowledge. Apparently he predicated the inquiry as the result of Rowe's testimony and to corroborate same. He made it clear Rowe was most complimentary to the Bureau and all agents he knew. Set forth below are briefs of his questions and my answers: (He was using a statement or memo of about six pages which recorded testimony from Rowe.) Q - Manner of reporting from Informant Rowe? A - He reported in person, in writing, and by telephone depending on the urgency of the information. All information received from him was recorded in FBI files and disseminated to local, state and federal authorities on a “need to know™ basis. Q - Instructions by me to Rowe as to what information he shoul report? , : A - All information, -with main interest in intelligence activities ‘discussed by action groups. Q - My knowledge of any interest regarding an arrest record for Rowe? A - None recalled nor did I ever recall seeing a rap sheet on him. Q - Any actions of violence which were planned which he reported to me and what was done with the information? A - None recalled, only evidence recalled was a report of another Klansman carrying blasting caps on his person while at a Klan convention. This information was disseminated to fellow agents on the scene with me surveilling the convention. Q - Rowe claimed that I had told him about the Bureau's activities in "Cointel". . A - His statement had to be false because I had never heard of the code word until used recently in newspaper reports covering the Church Senate Subcommittee on intelligence activities. La 54959 DoclId: 32989458 Page 256
RES Trust Company Bank re ~ Atlanta Georgia 30302 Special Agent Seymour Phillips November 25, 19/5 Page Four Q - Any special instructions I recalled on how I was to handle him? ' A - I was to maintain control over him and recognize that by his personality that if his control was not maintained that he was the type that would run off because of his enthusiasm and put his safety in jeopardy. He was also the type who would try to run the show if you let him. Q - Any recollections I had to the "Mother's Day" incident? A ~ I had only heard of the incident, but was not with the Bureau in Birmingham. - Q - Did I ever direct Rowe while he was in the homes of Klansmen to attempt to steer them to certain rooms in the house while they . engaged in conversation. A - No and commented that they rarely discussed anything of value in homes or Klan meeting halls, but did so in small action groups. Q - A general question on the problem of handling a Klan informant as opposed to a criminal informant with Kelly setting an example of an informant in a bank robbery? A - I did not see any particular difference from his example and that of a Klansman planning to bomb a building. These were the only questions I recorded in note form as he asked them. There may have been a few others, but none of any significance and Kelly appeared very cooperative and matter of fact throughout the deposition. Ward and Kelly escorted me back to Room G-308 where I was asked to swear to the deposition by a Notary Public, Audrey Hatry. [I informed Kelly that I hoped this would be the.last time I would see him on this matter and he responded he was "pretty sure it was”. Please express my appreciation of the manner in which the FBI helped me after I secured assistance, particularly the people in the Congressional Affairs and the staff in your division. Yours very truly, J. Brooke Blake Second Vice President and Director of Security JBB:mrp Copies to: Special Agent In Charge, James Dunn ; A-5.1 NW 54959 Docld:32989498 Page 259
- e @ 12/10/75 TELETYPE URGEAT TO . DIRECTOR, FBI (134-6502) FPOM SAC, ATLANTA (P) LESLEY E. ROGERS, FORMER EXTREMIST INFORMANT; AT FILE 134-190. SENSTUDY 75; AT FILE 62-2854, RS ATLANTA AIRTEL TO BUREAU, MARCH 5, 1973, AND BUREAU AIRTEL TO ATLANTA, MARCH 14, 1973. FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BUREAU, REFERENCED COMMUNICATIONS ARE CONCERNED WITH PREVIOUS COMPLAINTS FROM SUBJECT, ROGERS, CONCERNING HIS ALLEGED MISTREATMENT BY THE FBI, ATLANTA PILES REVEAL THAT ROGERS TESTIFIED IN A STATE OF GROPGIA TRIAL CONCERNING THE BOMBING OF A JEWISH TEMPLE WHICH OCCURRED I11 1959. SUBSEQUENT TO THE TRIAL, HOWEVER, ROGERS HAS COMPLAINED O22 NUMEROUS OCCASIONS THAT THE FBI "ABANDONED" HIM, DUE TO TRIAL PUBLICITY, ROGERS HAS CONTENDED THAT HE AND HIS FAMILY HVE SUFFIRED EMBARRASSMENT (2- ATLANTA NW 54959 Docid:32989493 Page 260 4I-~- 134-190) (1 » 62-2854) ARR:bip (2) Lee ra ¢ - 7,
PAGE TWO? AT 134-190; AT 62-2854 AND HARASSMENT PRIMARILY DUE TO HIS INABILITY TO OBTAIN GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT. ON THE EVENING OF DECEMBER 9, 1975, ROGERS TELEPHONICALLY CONTACTED THE ATLANTA DIVISION AND ADVISED HE WAS FILING A BRIEF BEFORE THE “CHURCH COMMITTEE" (U. S. SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE). ROGERS STATED THAT WHILE HE HOLDS THE FBI IN HIGH ESTEEM, HE STILL FEELS HE WAS TREATED IMPROPERLY BY THE BUREAU FOLLOWING HIS TESTIMONY AT THE TRIAL. ROGERS STATED THAT HE RECENTLY TELEPHONICALLY CONTACTED THE CHURCH COMMITTEE REGARDING HIS COMPLAINT AND THE COMMITTIE REQUESTED THAT HE SUBMIT A BRIEF PROVIDING DETAILS OF HIS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE FBI. THE ABOVE IS BEING FURNISHED FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BUREAU. MW 34959 Doocld: 3290994939 Page 261
% "ROSG wi PLAIN «| * \ 10:58PM NITEL viens . @ 10 ALL sacs FROM DIRECTOR DIRECTOR'S APPEARANCE BEFORE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE O" INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES, DECEMBER 19, 1975 A COPY OF THE STATEMENT I DELIVERED BEFORE THE SENqTE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE qCTIVITIES TODAY HaS BEEN SENT aLL OFFICES. FOR YOUR INFORMATION, THERE FOLLOS A - SYNOPSIZED ACCOU'T OF THE MaJOR AREAS OF THE COMMITTEE'S QUESTIONS TO ME, TOGETHER WITH MY RESPONSES: (1) REGARDING FBI INFORMANTS, QUESTIONS wERE aSKED WHETHER COURT aPPROVAL SHOULD BE REQUIRED FOR FBI USE OF INFORMANTS IN INVESTIGATIONS OF ORGANIZATIONS (MY RESPONSE WAS THAT THE CONTROLS yHICH EXIST TODAY OVER USE OF INFORM,NTS ARE SATISFACTORY) $ HOW CAN FBI KEEP INFORMANTS OPERATING WITHIN’ PROPER LIMITS $O THEY DO NOT INVADE RIGHTS OF OTHER PERSO"S (MY RESPONSE yAS THAT RELIANCE MUST BE PLACED ON THE INDIVIDUAL AGENTS HANDLING INFORMANTS AND THOSE SUPERVISING THE AGENTS’ WORK, THAT INFORMANTS WHO VIOLATE THE.Lay CAN BE MW 54959 Doold: 32989498 Page 262 =
a e. e PAGE TyO | PROSECUTED -- AS CAN ANY AGENT yHO COUNSELS aN INFORMaNT TO COMMIT VIOLATIONS); qND DID FORMER ,LAN INFORMANT GARY ROWE TESTIFY ACCURATELY WHEN HE TOLD THE COMMITTEE ON DECEMBER 2 THAT HE INFORMED FBI OF PLANNED aCTS OF VIOLENCE ByT FBI DID NOT ACT TO PREVENT THEM (MY RESPONSE yAS THaT ROVE'S TESTIMONY WAS NOT ACCURATE). (2) IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS REGARDING IMPROPER CONDUCT BY FBI EMPLOYEES, I STATED THAT ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF LAW BY FBI PERSONNEL SHOyLD BE INVESTIGATED BY THE FBI OR “OTHER APPROPRIATE AGENCY; THAT THE INSPECTION DIVISION HaS CONDUCTED INQUIRIES REGARDING aLLEGAWUBN OF MISCONDUCT$ THAT AN OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY HaS JUST BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, AND yE wILL qDVISE THAT OFFICE OF OUR MAJOR INVESTIGATIONS OF DEPARTMENTaL PERSONNEL, INCLUDING FBI EMPLOYEES, FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF Lay, REGULATIONS, OR STANDARDS OF CONDUCT$ THAT I WOULD RESERVE COMMENT REGARDING POSSIBLE CREATION OF A NATIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL TO CONSIDER MATTERS OF MISCONDUCT BY EMPLOYEES OF aNY FEDERAL AGENCY. NW 54959 Docld: 32969498 Page 263
“PAGE THREE (3) 1% RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING HARASSMENT OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., I STATED THAT THE PERSONS wHO ISSnED THE ORDERS WHICH RESULTED IN SUCH HARASSMENT SHOULD FACE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT, RATHER THAN THOSE ,yNDER THEM wHO CaRRIZD OUT SUCH ORDERS IN GOOD FAITH; THAT THE FBI STILL HaS RECORDINGS RESULTING FROM ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCES OF yINGs THAT wE RETAIN RECORDINGS FOR TEN YEARS ByT WE ALSO HAVE AGREED TO a REQUEST FROM THE SENATE NOT TO DESTROY INFORMATION IN OR FILES wHILE CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRIES ARE BEING CONDUCTED$ THAT I HAVE NOT REVIEWED THE KING TaPES$; THAT IF THE COMMITTEE REQUESTED TO REVIEW THE KING TAPES, THE REQUEST WOULD BE REFERRED TO THE ATTOR"EY GENERAL. (4) IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS REGARDING yHETHER IT wOULD BE qDVANTAGEOUS TO SEPARATE THE FBI CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES AND OUR INTELLIGENCE FUNCTIONS, I STATED ! THAT wE HaVE FOUND THE TyO AREAS TO BE COMPATIBLE, ~ND I FEEL THE FBI IS DOING a SPLENDID JOB IN BOTH AREAS. (5) IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE aDEQuaCcy OF CONTROLS ON REQUESTS FROM THE yHITE HOySE AND FROM OTHER GOVERMENT AGENCIES FOR FBI INVESTIGATIONS OR FOR INFORMATION NW 34959 Doocld: 32909498 Page 264 (a ter tp mt tl
PAGE FOUR FROM OUR FILES, I STATED THaT wHEN SUCH REQUESTS ARE MaDE ORALLY, THEY SHOULD BE CONFIRMED IN wRITING; THAT WE wOyLD WELCOME A"Y LEGISLATIVE GUIDELINES THE CONGRESS FEELS yOuLD PROTECT THE FBI FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF PARTISAN MISUSE. _ A FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS yILL BE FUR*ISHED TO EACH OFFICE aS SOON AS IT IS AVAILABLE. ALL LEGATS ADVISED SEPARATELY. END FBI AT ACK FOR ONE HLF  THANBS a LOT CLR | NW 34959 Doold:32989499 Page 265 L
9 “RISD yA PLATY ] _ 16:56PM NITEL ‘evar ous ad TO ALL SACS FROM DIRECTOR “. DIRECTOR'S qPPEARA‘ICE BEFORE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE O” T°TELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES, BECE“SER 12, 1975 | _ A COPY OF THE STATRYENT I DELIVERED SEFORE THY SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE 9N INTELLIGENCE qaCTIVITIZS TOPAY HaS BEE" S2°T jbl OFFICES. FOR YOUR INFORMATION, THERE FOLLOWS A “ synopsizen ACCOU T OF THE MadOR AREAS OF THE COMMITTEE'S auEsT10"$* Th WEy TOGETHER WITH MY RESPONSES CL) REGARDING FBI INFORNANTS, QUESTIONS WERE aSKED WHETHER COURT APPROVAL SHOULD SE REQUIRED FOR FBI Use OF INFORMANTS IN INVESTIGATIONS OF ORGANIZATIONS, (MY RESPONSE WAS THAT THE CONTROLS WHICH EXIST TODAY OVER YSE OF INFORM, TS ARE SATISFACTORY) 3} HOY CAN FBI KEEP INFORMqTS OPFRATING | YTTHIN PROPER LIMITS $0 THEY BO NOT INVANE RIGHTS OF OTHER - PERSO S (MY RESPONSE yAS THAT RELIANCE MUST BE PLACED ON THE TIDIVINUAL AGE TS HANDLING INFORMANTS 4ND THOSE SUPERVISING ¥ THE AGE"TS' YORK, THAT INFORMANTS yHO VIOLATE THE Law CAN BE
o e PAGE THO _ PROSECUTED -- AS CAN ANY AGENT WHO COUNSELS aN LSFORMANT TO Rien VIOLATIONS): qvt0 NID FORMER vLAN INFORMANT GARY ROVE : ESTUFY ACCURATELY WHEN HE TOLD THE GOMYITTEE 0 DECEMBER o THAT HE LIFORMED FBI OF PLANED aCTS OF VIOLTNCE ByT FBI DID NOT-ACT TO PREVENT THEM C4¥ RESPOUSE AS THaT ROWE'S “TESTIMONY YAS UOT ACCURATE) « 2) «IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS REGARDING IMPROPER CONDUCT BY FBI EMPLOYEES, L STATED THAT ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF LAY BY F21 PERSONNEL SHOWLN BE INVESTIGATED BY THE F&I OR _ OTHER APPROPRIATE AGESCYs THAT THE INSPECTIO’ DIVISION Has ” coNDUCTE E} PIQUIRIES REGARDING ALLE TGAUUSN OF MISCONDUCTs THAT AN OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPOSIBILITY Has JUS BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THE JUSTICE. MEPARTME"T, AND yE wILL gOVISE _ THAT OFFICE OF OUR MAYOR LIVESTIGATIONS OF. MEPARTMEITAL PERSOANTL, *amenunre FEI SMPLOYEERS, FOR ALLEGED VIGLATIONS OF Law, REGULATIONS, OR STANDARDS OF CONNYCT; THAT I WOULD RESERVE COMMENT REGARDI"G POSSIBLE CREATION OF A NATIONAL I*SPECTOR GENERAL + TO CONSIDER MATTERS OF MISCONDUCT BY EMPLOYEES OF aNY FEDERAL * peancy, |r MW 54959 Docld: 329894938 Page 267
PAGE THREE " (3) ET" RESPONSE To QUESTIONS CONCERNING HARASS“ENT OF “\RTIN LUTHER KING, JR., I STATED THAT THE PERSONS wHO ISSuEN THT QRNERS WHICH RESULTED I4 SUCH HARASS“EZ"T SHOULD FACE THE RESPO SIBILITY FOR IT, RATHER THAN THOSE wDER THEM wHO CARRIED GUT SUCH ORDERS IM GOOP FAITH; THAT THE FBI STILL HaS RECORNINGS RESULTING FROM ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCES OF wING3 THAT wh RETAIN RECORDINGS FOR TEN YEARS ByT WE ALSO HAVE AGREED TO 4 REQUEST FROM THE SENATE ROT TO NESTROY INFORMATION IN OnR FILES sHILE CONGRESSIONAL T°QUIRTES ARE MEING CONDUCTEDs THAT I HAVE NOT REVIEVED THE KING TqPES; THAT IF THE COMMITTER RECWESTED TO REVIEW THE KING TAPES, THE REQUEST WOULD BE REFFRRED TO THE ATTOR“EY GEYERAL. (4) 1" RESPONSE To QUESTIONS REGARDING yHETHER IT wouLn % es = ADVA“TAGEOQUS TO SEPARATE THE FBI CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE RESPO'SIBILITIES AND OUR INTELLIGENCE FUNCTIONS, I STATED TRAT yE HaVe FOUND THE TyO AREAS TO BE COMPATIBLE, AMD fT FEEL THE F8I If DOING ~p SPLENDID JOB’ IN BOTH AREAS, (2) IY RESPOISE TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE ~nEauacy OF CONTROLS ON REQUESTS FROM THE yHITE HOpSE AND FROM OTHER GIVER MET AGENCIES FOR FBI INVESTIGATIONS OR FOR INFORMATION MW 54959 Doold: 32939495 Page 265
PAGE FOUR FROM OUR FILES, I STATE THAT wHEN SUCH REQUESTS ARE MqDz ORALLY, THEY SHOULD BE CONFIRMED IN wRITING; THAT WE wOuLD WELCOME AY LEGISLATIVE GUIDELINES THE CONGRESS FEELS yoyLn PROTECT THE FBI FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF PARTISAN MISUSE. A FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WILL BE FUR ISHER TO EACH OFFICE aS SOON AS IT IS AVAILABLE, ALL LEGATS ADVISED SEPARATELY an ry FBI AT ACK FOR QHE HLF THANSS aA LOT OLR NW 34955 Doocld: 32989493 Page 265
Vol. 20 Che United States Senate Report of Proceedings Hearing held before - Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to intelligence Activities a . INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION Wednesday, December 10, 1975 Washington, D.C. WARD & PAUL 410 FIRST STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 fi (202) 544-6000 JAN2 FBI —~ ATLANTA + * NW 54959 Doold:32989498 Page 270 oo.
Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 10 11 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 1? 18 ig 20 al 22 25 R4 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003. 25 . . pS CONTENT eee eee STATEMENT OF: - PAGE The Honorable Clarence M. Kelley, Direcotor, Federal Bureau of Inve- stigation 2451 : NW 54959 Doold: 325989498 Page 271 _ , i
Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 LO @ @ 2447 INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION Wednesday, December 10, 1975 United States Senate, Select Committee to study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, Washington, D. C. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 ll o'clock a.m., in Room 318, Russell Senate Office Building, WARD & PAUL 14 12 the honorable Frank Church (Chairman of the Committee) 13 presiding. Present: Senators Church (presiding), Hart of Michigan, 15 Mondale, Huddleston, Hart of Colorado, Baker, Goldwater and 16 L? | Mathias. Also present: William G. Miller, Staff Director; Frederiak ‘18 A. O. Schwarz, Jr., Chief Counsel; Curtis R. Smothers, Minorit 24 410 First Street, S.€., Washington, D.C. 20003 25 ‘oid S4959 Doold: 32989496 19 Counsel; Paul Michel, Joseph diGenova, Barbara Banoff, Frederick 20 Baron, Mark Gitenstein, Loch Johnson, David Bushong, Charles 21 I Lombard, John Bayly, Charles Kirbow, Michael Madigan, Bob 22 Kelley, John Elliff, Elliot Maxwell, Andy Postal, Pat Shea, 23 Michael Epstein and Burt Wides, Professional Staff Members. The Chairman. The Committee's witness this morning is Page 272
Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 10 11 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 al 22 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 24 25 25 2448 e e : i the Honorable Clarence M. Kelley, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Kelley was appointed Director in July of 1973 ina troubled time for the FBI. His experience as an innovative law enforcement administrator in charge of the Kansas City Police Department for over ten years, and his previous work as a Special Agent of the FBI have made him uniquely qualified to lead the Bureau. The Select Committee is grateful for the cooperation extended by Director Kelley in the course of its inquiry over the past months. The Committee is also impressed by the openness of the FBI's witnesses before this Committee, and their willingness to consider the need for legislation to clarify the Bureau's intelligence responsibility. It is important to remember from the outset that this Committee is examining only a small portion of the FBI's activities. Our hearings have concentrated on FBI domestic intelligence operations. We have consistently expressed our admiration and support for the Bureau's criminal investigative and law enforcement work, and we recognize the vital importanc of counterespionage in the modern world. But domestic intelligence has raised many difficult questions. The Committee has also concentrated on the past rather than on present FBI activities. The abuses brought to light in our hearings occurred years and even decades before Directo HW 54959 Docld: 32989496 Page 273 i =
. Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 10 Li 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 25 Kelley took charge. The Staff has advised the Committee that under Director Kelley the FBI has taken significant steps to rethink previous policies and to establish new safeguards against abuse. The FBI is now placing greater emphasis on foreign related intelli gence operations, and less on purely domestic surveillance. The FBI is working more closely with the Justice Department in developing policies and standards for intelligence. These are welcome developments. Nevertheless, many important issues remain unresolved. ‘Therefore, we have invited Director Kelley to share with the Committee his views on some of the considerations the Congress should take into account in thinking about the future of FBI intelligence. Among these issues are whether FBI surveil-| lance should extend beyond the investigation of persons likely to commit specific crimes; whether there should be outside supervision or approval before the FBI conducts certai types of investigations or uses certain surveillance technique whether foreign related intelligence activities should be strictly separated from the FBI's domestic law enforcement functions, and what should be done to the information already in the FBI files and that which may go into those files in the future. The Committee looks forward to a constructive exchange of views with Director Kelley this morning, with Attorney MW 34959 Doold: 329594969 Page 274 . 1)
i Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 10 11 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 || 1? 18 19 20 21 22 25 24 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 25 | Bw 54555 Docld: 3pS89498 Page 275 3 _ c @. General Levi tomorrow, and with both the FBI and the Justice Department in the next months as the Committee considers recommendations that will strengthen the American people's confidence in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. That confidence is vital for the effective enforcement of Federal law and for the security of the nation against foreign espionage. Director Kelley, we are pleased to welcome you, and if you would have a prepared statement you would like to lead off with, please proceed. 2450.
th r r B Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 10 il 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 RA 2) NW 34955 Doold: 329859458 © . @ | 2451 STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CLARENCE M. KELLEY, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Mr. Kelley. Thank you very much, Senator Church and gentlemen. I welcome the interest which this Committee has shown in the FBI and most particularly in our operations in the intelli gence and internal security fields. I share your high regard for the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Throughout my 35 year career in law enforcement you will find the same insis tence, as has been expressed by this Committee, upon programs of law enforcement that are themselves fully consistent with law. I also have strongly supported the concept of legislative oversight. In fact, at the time my appointment as Director of the FBI and was being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee two and one half years ago, I told the members of that Committee of my firm belief in Congressional oversight. This Committee has completed the most exhaustive study of our intelligence and security operations that has ever been undertaken by anyone outside the FBI other than the present Attorney General. At the outset, we pledged our fullest cooperation and promised to be as candid and forthright as possible in responding to your questions and complying with your requests. Page 276
‘oo smaco & fo] 3 $ , % 1 I believe we have lived up to those promises. i N . i °o . . | N $ 2 The members and staff of this Committee have had unprece- <x E 3 dented access to FBI information. 4 . You have talked to the personnel who conduct security-type 5 investigations and who are personally involved in every facet 6 of our day-to~day intelligence operations. 9 You have attended numerous briefings by FBI officials who 8 have sought to familiarize the Committee and its staff with 9 all major areas of our activities and operations in the national 10 security and intelligence fields. li In brief, you have had firsthand examination of these 12 matters that is unmatched at any time in the history of the WARD & PAUL 13 Congress, 14 As this Committee has stated, these hearings have, of | - 45 necessity, forcused largely on certain errors and abuses. I 16 credit this Committee for its forthright recognition that the 17 hearings do not give a full or balanced account of the FBI's 18 record of performance. 19 It is perhaps in the nature of such hearings to focus 20 on abuses to the exclusion of positive accomplishments of the 21 organization. 22 The Counterintelligence Programs which have received the 23 lion's share of public attention and erjtical comment constituted 24 an infinitesimal portion of our overall work. 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 25 A Justice Department Committee which was formed last year
Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 WARD & PAUL, 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, 0.C. 20003 MW54959—boslds3 to conduct a thorough study of the FBI's Counterintelligence Programs has reported that in the five basic ones it- found 3,247 Counterintelligence Programs were submitted to FBI Headquarters from 1956 to 1971. Of this total, 2,370, less than three fourths, were approved. I repeat, the vast majority of those 3,247 proposals were being devised, considered, and many were rejected, in an era when the FBI was handling an average of 700,000 investigative matters per year. Nonetheless, the criticism which has been expressed regarding the Counterintelligence Programs is most legitimate and understandable. The question might well be asked what I had in mind when I stated last year that for the FBI to have done less than it did under the circumstances then existing would have been an abdication of its responsibilities to the American people.. What I said then, in 1974, and what I believe today, is that the FBI employees involved in these programs did what the felt was expected of them by the President, the Attorney General, the Congress, and the people of the United States. Bomb explosions rocked public and private offices and buildings; rioters led by revolutionary extremists laid seige to military, industrial, and educational facilities; and killings, maimings, and other atrocities accompanied such acts of violence from New England to California.
smn 8 Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 LO Li 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, 0.C. 20003 24 25 NW 54959 ; Doold: 32989496 ® . ® 2454 The victims of these acts were human beings, men, women, and children. As is the case in time of peril, whether real or perceived, they looked to their Government, their elected and appointed leadership, and to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to protect their lives, their property, and their rights. There were many calls for action from Members of Congress and others, but few guidelines were furnished. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies were besieged by demands, impatient demands, for immediate action. FBI employees recognized the danger; felt they had a responsibility to respond; and in good faith initiated actions designed to countér conspiratorial efforts of self-proclaimed revolutionary groups, and to neutralize violent activities. In the development and execution of these programs, mistakes of judgment admittedly were made. Our concern over whatever abuses occurred in the Counter- intelligence Programs, and there were some substantial ones, should not obscure the underlying purpose of those programs. We must recognize that situations have occurred in the past and will arise in the future where the Government may well be expected to depart from its traditional role, in the FBI's case, as an investigative and intelligence-gathering agency, and take affirmative steps which are needed to meet an imminent threat: to human life or property. Page 279
y 2 « smn 9 Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 LO 11 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Rd 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 24 25 NW 54959 Docld:32989498 Page 280 ® 9 2455 In short, if we learn a murder or bombing’ is to be carried out now, can we truly meet our responsibilities by investigatin only after the crime has occurred, or should we have the ability to prevent? I refer to those instances where there is a strong sense of urgency because of an imminent threat to human life. Where there exists the potential to penetrate and disrupt, the Congress must consider the question of whether or not such preventive action should be available to the FBI. These matters are currently being addressed by a task ; force in the Justice Department, including the FBI, ‘ and I am confident that Departmental guidelines and controls ca be developed in cooperation with pertinent Committees of Congress to insure that such measures are used in an entirely responsibl manner. Probably the moSt important: question here today is what - assurances I can give that the errors and abuses which arose under the Counterintelligence Programs will not occur again? First, let me assure the Committee that some very sub- | | stantial changes have been made in key areas of the FBI's methods of operations since I took the oath of office as Director on July 9, 1973. Today we place a high premium on openness, openness both within and without the service. I have instituted a program of open, frank discussion
smn 10 ® ® 2456 8 8 zt % 1 in the decision-making process which insures that no future N . °o N § 2 program or major policy decision will ever be adopted without a 4 ; : 3 3 full and critical review of its propriéty. 4 Participatory management has become a fact in the FBI. 5 I have made it known throughout our Headquarters and 6 Field Divisions that I welcome all employees, regardless of y position or degree of experience, to contribute their thoughts 8 and suggestions, and to voice whatever criticisms or 9 reservations they may have concerning any area of our. operations. 10 The ultimate decisions in the Bureau are mine, and I take Ll full responsibility for them. My goal is to achieve maximum 12 critical analysis among our personnel without in any manner WARD & PAUL 13 weakening or undermining our basic command structure. 14 The results of this program have been most beneficial, to 15 me personally, to the FBI's disciplined performance, and to 16 the morale of our employees. 1" In addition, since some of the mistakes of the past 18 were occasioned by direct orders from higher authorities outsid 19 the FBI, we have welcomed Attorney General Edward Levi's 20 guidance, counsel, and his continuous availability, in his 21 own words, "as a ‘lightning rod' to deflect improper requests." 22 Within days after taking office, Attorney General Levi 23 instructed that I immediately report to him any requests 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 24 or practices which, in my judgment, were improper or which, 25 considering the context of the request, I believed presented WW 34959 Docld: 52589498 Page 261
S a Pp 2457 the appearances of impropriety. I am pleased to report to this Committee as I have to the Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 Attorney General that during my nearly two and one half years a Director under two Presidents and three Attorneys General, no - one has approached me or made overtures, directly or otherwise, to use the FBI for partisan political or other improper purposes. I can assure you that I would not fora moment consider honoring any such request. I can assure you, too, in my administration of the FBI I routinely bring to the attention of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General major policy questions, including those which arise in my continuing review of our operations and WARD & PAUL . practices. These are discussed openly and candidly in order that the Attorney General can exércise his responsibilities over the FBI. I am convinced that the basic structure of the.FBI today -is sound. But it would be a mistake to think that integrity can be assured only through institutional means.. Integrity is a human quality. It depends upon the character of the person who occupies the office of the Director and every member of the FBI under him. I am- proud of the 19,000 men and women with whom it is 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, 0.C. 20003 my honor to serve today. Their dedication, their professionaliism, their standards, and the self+discipline which they personally - NW 54959 Docld:32989498 Page 282
~ Y ® Phone (Area 202) 544-6000° B om i) 10 11 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 7; 18 19 20 21 22 25 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 24 25 2458 demand of themselves and expect of their associates are the nation's ultimate assurance of proper and responsible conduct at all times by the FBI. The Congress and the members of this Committee in particular have gained a great insight into the. problems confronting the FBI in the security and intelligence fields, problems which all too often we have left to resolve without sufficient guidance from the Executive Branch or the Congress itself. As in all human endeavors, errors of judgment have been made. But no one who is looking for the ' cause of our failures should confine his search solely to the FBI, or even to the Executive Branch. fhe Congress itself has long possessed the mechanism for FBI oversight; yet, seldom has it been exercised. An initial step was taken in the Senate in 1973 when the Committee on the Judiciary established a Subcommittee on FBI Oversight. Hearings had been commenced, and we were fully committed to maximum participation with the members of that Subcommittee. I laud their efforts. However, those efforts are of very recent origin in terms of the FBI's history. One of the greatest benefits of the study this Committee has made is the expert knowledge you have gained of the complex problems confronting the FBI. But I respectfully submit that NW 34959 Doocld: 32989498 Page 253 pm NN ee ie wer ns 8
Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 LO 11 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 el 22 23 24 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 25 HW 54955 Docld: T @ 2459 those benefits are wasted if they do not lead to the next step, a step that I believe is absolutely essential , a legislative charter, expressing Congressional determination of intelligence jurisdiction for the FBI. Action to resolve the problems confronting us in the security and intelligence fields is urgently needed; and it. must be undertaken in a forthright manner. Neither the Congres nor the public can afford to look the other way, leaving it to the FBI to do what must be done, as too often has occurred in the past. This means too that Congress must assume a continuing role not in the initial decision-making process but in the review of our performance. | I would caution against a too-ready reliance upon the courts to do our tough thinking for us. Some proposals that have been advanced during these hearings would extend the role of the courts into the early stages of the investigative process and, thereby, would take over what historically have been Executive Branch decisions. I frankly feel that such a trend, if unchecked, would seriously undermine the independence of the Judiciary and cast them in a role not contemplated by the authors of our Constitution. Judicial review cannot be a substitute for Con- gressional oversight or Executive decision. The FBI urgently needs a clear and workable determination 2989498 Page 284
smn 14 of Phone (Area 202).544-60 10 ‘41 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 * 16 L? 18 19 20 al R2 25 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 24 25 Nw 34959 Docld: 329539498 Page 255 ‘challenges. ® e of our jurisdiction in the intelligence field, a jurisdictional 2460 statement that the Congress finds to be responsive to both the will and the needs of the American people. Senators, first and foremost, I am a police officer, a career police officer. In’my police experience, the must frustrating of all problems that I have discovered facing law enforcement in this country, Federal, state, and local, is when demands are made of them to perform their traditional role as protector of life and property without clear and understandable legal bases to do so. I recognize that the formulation of such a legislative charter will be a most precise and demanding task. It must: be sufficiently flexible that it does not stifle the FBI's effectiveness in combating the growing incidence of crimé and violence across the United States. That charter must clearly address the demonstrated problems of the past; yet, it must amply recognize the fact that times change -and so also do the nature and thrust of our criminal and subversive The fact that the Department of Justice has commenced the formulation of operational guidelines governing our intelligence activities does not in any manner diminish the nee for legislation. The responsibility for conferring juris- diction resides with the Congress. In this regard, I am troubled by some proposals which
smn 15 Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 10 11 12 13 WARD & PAUL, 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 25 Nw 34959 Doold: ® eo | 2461 question the need for intelligence gathering, suggesting that information needed for the prevention of violence can be acquired in the normal course of criminal investigations. As a practical matter, the line between intelligence work and regular criminal investigations is often difficult to describe. What begins as an intelligence investigation may well end in arrest and prosecution of the subject. But there are some fundamental differences between these investigations that should be recognized, differences in scope, in objective and in the time of initiation. In the usual criminal case, a crime has occurred and it remains only for the Government to identify the perpetrator and to collect sufficient evidence for prosecution. Since the investigation normally follows the elements of the crime, the scope of the inquiry is limited and fairly well defined. By contrast, intelligence work involves the gathering of information, not necessarily evidence. The purpose may well b not to prosecute, but to thwart crime or to insure that the Government: has enough information to meet any future crisis or emergency. The inquiry is necessarily broad because it must tell us not only the nature of the threat, but also whether the threat is imminent, the persons involved, and the means by which the threat will be carried out. The ability of the Government to prevent criminal acts is dependent on our anticipation of those criminal acts. Anticipation, 2989498 Page 256
~ a « n B ae) top) Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 10 ll 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 L? 18 19 20 eal 22 23 24 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 25 @ ® | | 2462 in turn, is dependent on advance information, that is, intelli- gence. Certainly, reasonable people can differ on these issues. Given the opportunity, I am confident that the continuing need for intelligence work can be documented to the full satisfactio of the Congress. We recognize that what is at stake here is nat the interests of the FBI, but rather the interests of every citizen of this country. We recognize also that the resolutio of these matters will demand extensive and thoughtful deliberation by the Congress. To this end, I pledge the complete cooperation of the Bureau with this Committee or its successors in this important task. In any event, you have my unqualified assurance as Director that we will carry out both the letter and the spirit of such legislation as the Congress may enact. That is the substance of my prepared statement. I would also like to say extemporaneously that I note that on this panel are some gentlemen who were on the Judiciar Committee Which heard my testimony at the time I was presented to them for candidacy as Director of the FBI. At that time I took very seriously the Charge which may possibly result in the deliberation of this Committee and of the full Senate. I have been well aware of the problems of the FBI since that time. I have also been well aware of the capabilities of the FBI to discharge those responsibilities. I don't take NW 54959 Docld:32989498 Page 287 . ; ;
Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 10 li 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 24 25 ° ® _ them lightly. I am of sufficient experience and age that I have pledged myself to do what is good and proper. I say this not as a self-serving statement but in order that we might place in context my position within the FBI. I could seek Sanctuary and perhaps a safe sanctuary by saying during the period these things occurred I was with the local police © department in Kansas City, Missouri. Prior to that time, however, I was in the FBI. During the time I was with the FBI, during the time I . | was with the police department, I continued throughout that : period a close acquaintance with and a strong affection for ! the FBI. | I only want to point out that based on those years, based on those observations, we have here a very fine and very sensitive and a very capable organization. I feel that there is much that can still be done. I know that we are not withou fault. I know that from those experiences I have had. We will not be completely without fault in the future. But I assure you that we look upon this inquiry, we look upon any mandate which you may feel you have, that you should look at - this is good and proper, and we do not intend “~~ I only want to place in your thinking the fact that you have here a matchless organization, one which I continue to say was not motivated in some of these instances, and in most of > them, and I cannot justify some, that the motivation was of th HW 34959 Docld: 32589498 Page 268
| + smn 18 é 5 8 4 5 6 7 8 9 end t. 1 10 11 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 al 22 235 24 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 25 e e 2464 best. I am not pleading, as does a defense attorney. I am only putting in your thinking my objective observations as a citizen who is somewhat concerned about the future of this organization. It is too precious for us to have it in a condition of jeopardy. Thank you very much. The Chairman. Thank you, Director Kelley. I want to turn first to Senator Hart who won't be able to remain through the whole morning. I think he has one question he would like to ask. Nw 34959 Doclid:s2939498 Page 259
WARD: GSH ITA Opén .2/10/35 ‘ap 28 1 Phone (Area 202 10 ll 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 el 22 25 24 25 WW 54959 Doold: ® ® 2465 Senator Hart of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Mathias and I have Judiciary Committee hearings at 10:30. Iahve several questions, and I'm sure they'll be covered by others, but the ones that I have is a result of reading your testimony and listening to it this morning, and it relates to your comment at the foot of page 10 and at the top of ll. There you are indicating that you caution us about extending the court's role in the early stages of investigations suggesting that this might take us beyound the role comtemplatef for the courts under the Constutution. Now as you have said, aside from the so-called national security wiretap problem, the main focus of our discussions and concern has been on the possibility requiring court approval for the use of informants, informants directed to penetrate and report on some group. And one of the witnesses yesterday, Professor Dorsen, pointed our that really those informants are the most pervasive type of an eavesdropping device. It is a human device. It's really, an informant is really more intrusive on my privacy than a bug or a tap because he can follow me anywhere. He can ask me questions to get information the government would like to have. Now we certainly involve the courts in approval of the wiretaps for physical searches with the intent of the drafters $89499 Page 290
'  ) r ) ° 2466 °o 8 ¢ ; . osh a2 1 of the Constitution to have a‘ neutral third party magistrate oO WN . « g a screen use of certain investigative techniques. And the 2 x 3 ° informant is such a technique. He functions sort of like a 4 general warrant, and I don't see why requiring court approval 5 would violate the role envisaged for the courts. 6. And as I leave, I would like to get your reactions to 7 my feelings. 8 Mr. Kelley. I do not feel that there is any use of the 9 informant in intrusion, which is to this extent objectionable. 10 || rt has of course been approved, the concept of the informant, 11 || by numerous court decisions. | ! | 12 Let us go down not to the moral connotation of the use 13 of the informant. WARD & PAUL 14 I think, as in many cases, that is a matter of balance. 15 You have only very few ways of solving crimes. You have 16 basically in the use of the informant, I think, the protectian 17 of the right of the victim to be victimized. You have within 18 the Constitution certain grants that are under ordinary 19 circumstances abrogation of rights. The right of search and 20 seizure, which, of course, can't be unreasonable, but none- 21 theless, you have the right. 22 I think that were we to lose the right of the informant, 25 we wauld lose to a great measure our capability of doing our 24 job. 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 25 Now I'm not arguing with you, Senator, that it is not an NW 54959 Docld: 3298945968 Page 2591
410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 Ww Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 WARD & PAUL 22 Doold: 32989493 @ sg ‘ 2467 1 ‘unusual procedure, I'm not even going to say that it is not 2 an intrusion, because it is. But it has to be one. I think 5 that is by virtue of the benefits must be counted. 4 We don't like to use it. We don't like the problems that 5 are attendant. We take great care, 6 Now you say about the court having possibility taking 7 jurisdiction over them and guiding. I think that possibly we 8 could present the matter to the court but what are they going . 9.]| to do insofar as monitoring their effort? Are they going to 10 || have to follow it all the way through? 11 Also, there is, of course, urgency in the other contacts. 12 | Must the court be contacted for each and approval of the court 13 || given for each contact? 14 There are a great many problems insofar as administration 15 || of it. , 16 I frankly feel, and again, all I can do is give you my 17 || idea -- I frankly feel that there is a satisfactory control ove | 1g || the informants as we now exercise it today. Yes, there are {9 |) going to be some who will get beyond our control, but this 20 || is going to happen no matter what you do. 21 Senator Hart of Michigan. Well, I appreciate your reaction, - 23 I was not suggesting that there is consideration here -to 24 | prohibit informants. I was reflecting a view that I felt and hold that the use of an informant does require some balance, as Page 292
4 1 cah Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 LO 11 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 25 NW 54959 Docld: 5298945968 Page 293 © . @ nace you yourself said, and I would be more comfortable with a third party making a judgment as to whether the intrusion is warranted by the particular circumstance. But I do understand ‘your position. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hart. (Senator Hart leaves the hearing room.) The Chairman. Senator Baker, do you have questions? Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. Kelley, I have a great respect -for you and your organization and I personally regret that the organization is in political distress, but we've both got to recognize that it is, along with other agencies and departments of the government. I think you probably would agree with me that even though that is extraordinarily unpleasant and in many respects unfortunate, that it also has a plus side. That is, it gives us an indication of our future direction and the opportunity, at least, to improve the level of competency and service of the government itself. With that hopeful note, would you be agreeable then to volunteering for me any suggestions you have on how to improve the responsiveness of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or indeed, for any other law enforcement agencies of the government, to the Congress, to the Attorney General, to the President, and I AE
gsh Phone (Area 202}-544-6000 10 11 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 1? 19 20 al 22 25 RA 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, 0.C. 20003 25 vs 54959 Doold: . 2469 beyond that, would you give me any suggestions you have on how you would provide the methods, the access, the documents, the records, the authority, for the Congress to perform its essential, I believe, essential oversight responsibility to see that these Eunctions, these delicate functions are being undertaken properly?_ And before you answer, let me tell you two or three thing I am concerned ahout. It hasn't been long ago that the FBI Director was not even confirmed by the Senate of the United States. I believe you are the first one to be confirmed hy the Senate of the United States. I think that is a movement in the right direction. I think the FBI has taken on a stature that, an additional importance that requires it to have closer supervision and scrutiny by us. At the same time I rather doubt that we can become involved in the daily relatianship between you and the Attorney General. Therefore, I tend to believe that the Attorney General needs to be more directly involved in the operations of the FBI. I would appreciate any comments on that. Second, I rather believe that major decisions of the intelligence community and the FBI ought to be in writing, so that the Congress can, if it needs to in the future, take a 2989490 Page 294 am TA SA. —___|
look at these decisions and the process by which they were made to decide that you are or you are not performing your Q n Phone (Area 202P544-6000 5 services diligently. 4 I don't think you can have oversight unless you have access to records, and in many cases records don't exist 6 and in some cases the people who made those decisions are now 7 departed and in other cases you have conflicts. 8 How would you suggest: then that you improve the quality 9 of service of your agency? How would you propose that you 10 increase the opportunity for oversight of the Congress of the 11 |]; United States? What other suggestions do you have for improvin 12 the level of law enforcement in the essential activity that 13 is required? WARD & PAUL 14 Mx. Kelley. I would possibly be repetitious in answering 15 this Senator, but I get a great deal of pleasure from telling 16} what I think is necessary and what I hope that I have followed, 1? one which is beyond my control, but which I think is very 18 important is that the position of Director, the one to which 19 great attention should be paid in choosing the iman who will 20 properly acquit himself. 21 I feel that the Judiciary Committee, at least in going 221 over me, did a pretty good job. I feel that it is most 23 || necessary that care be taken that his philosophy, his means 24 || of management, his facility to adapt to change, his tendency 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, 0.C. 20003 25 toward consulting with other members of the official family, NW 54959 Docld: 3298945968 Page 295
2471 °o bs . a7 1 that he be willing to, for example, go through oversight with So N 3 2 no reticence, and that I think that he should be chosen very 2 5 carefully. 4 I think further that he should be responsible for those 5 matters which indicate impropriety or illegality. 6 Senator Baker. Could you stop for just a second? Who 7 does he work for? Does the Director, in your view, work for .8 the President of the United States, for the Attorney General, 9 for the Justice Department, for the Executive Branch?’ 10 Who does the executive of the FBI, the Director of the 11 FBI, be responsible to, who should he be responsible to? 12 Mr. Kelley. Jurisdictionally, to the Attorney General, 13 but I think this is such an important field of influence that WARD & PAUL 14 it is not at all unlikely that we can expand it to the 15 judiciary, the legislative, and of course, we are under the 16 Attorney General. 17 Senator Baker. Do you have any problems with the idea 18 of the President of the United States calling the Director of 19° the FBI and asking for performance of a particular task? 20 Does that give you any difficulty? Or do you think that 21 the relationship between the FBI Director and the President 22 is such that that is desirable, or should it he conduited 23 through the Attorney General? 24 Mr. Kelley. I think it should be in the great majority 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 25 of the cases conduited through the Attorney General. There HW 34959 Doocld: f25e9498 Page 256
ash Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 WARD & PAUL 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 989498 Page 297 _ 2472 has been traditionally some acceptance of the fact that if the President wants to see and talk with the Director, he may do so, call him directly. It has been my practice in such an event to thereafter report to the Attorney General, whoever it might be, that I have been called over and I discussed and was told. And this was revealed in full to them. Senator Baker. I suppose we could pass a statute that says the President has to go through the Attorney General, although I rather ‘suspect it would be a little presumptuous, But to go the next step, do you think it is necessary for the pursuit of effective oversight on the part of the Congress, to have some sort of document written, ox at least some sort.of account of a Presidential order or an order of the Attorney General given to a Director of the FBI? Do you think that these things need to be handled in a-more formal way? Mr. Kelley. Personally, it would be my practice in the event I receive such an order, to request that it be documented. This is a protection as well as a clarification as to whether or not it should be placed as part of legislatio I frankly would like to reserve that for some more considera~ tion. I don't know whether it would be, but I think that it can be worked very easily. :
Phone (Area 202) 644-6000 10 11 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 el 22 25 24 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.c. 20003 25 NW 34959 DoolId:32 ® ® 2473 Senator Baker. Mr. Kelley, Attorney General Levi, I believe, has already established some sort of agency or function within the Department that is serving as the equivalent, I suppose, of an Inspector General of the Justice Department, including the FBI. Are you familiar with the steps that Mr. Levi has taken in that respect? I think he calls it the Office of Professional Responsibility. ; Mr. Kelley. Yes, sir, I'm familiar with it. Senator Baker. Do you have any comment on that? Will you give us any observations as to whether you think that will be useful, helpful, or whether it will not be useful or helpful, how it affects the FBI, how you visualize your relationship: to it in the future? Mr. Kelley. I don't object to this, which is to some extent an oversight within the Department of Justice under the Attorney General. Frankly, it just came out. I have not considered it completely, but to the general concept, yes, I very definitely subscribe. Senator Baker. How would you feel about extending that concept of government-wide operation, a national Inspector General who is involved with an oversight of all of the \ sy j agencies of government as they interface with the Constitutionally protected rights of the individual citizen? Would you care $499 Page 2596
6000 vt gshaio = 1 4 Phone (Area 20 10 Ll 12 13 WARD & PAUL r 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 25 24 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 25 2474 to comment on that, or would you rather save that for a while? Mr. Kelley. I would like to reserve that one. Senator Baker. I'm not surprised. Would you think about it and let us know what you think about it? Mr. Kelley. I will.. Senator Baker. All right. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. The Chairman. Senator Huddleston. : Senator Huddleston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kelley, you deseribe on page 4 the conditions that existed when much of the abuse that we have talked about during this inquiry occurred, indicating that the people within the Bureau felt like they were doing what was expected of them by the President, by the Attorney General, the Congress and the people of the United States. Does not this suggest that there has been a reaction there to prevailing attitudes that might have existed in the country because of certain circumstances rather than any clear and specific direct instructions that might have been received from proper authorities? And if that is the case, is it possible in developing this charter, this guideline, to provide for that kind of specific instruction? Mr. Kelley. I think so, yes. -I think that they can logically be incorporated and that -~- Senator Huddleston. You can see there would be a continuing Nw 34959 Docld: 35939498 Page 299
: 2475 ah #1 L danger if any agency is left to simply react to whatever the ° . E a attitudes may be.at a specific time in this country because ~~ E 5 | Mr. Kelley. Senator; I don't contemplate it might be 4 a continuing danger, but it certainly would be. a very acceptable 5 guidepost whereby we can, in the event such a need seems 6 || to arise, know what we can do. 7 Senator Huddleston. Well, in pursuing the area which 8 Senator Hart was discussing, that is whether or not we can 9 provide sufficient guidelines would replace a decision by the 10 court in determining what action might be proper and specific- a on ‘ally in protecting individual's rights, can't we also a é 12 || provide the restrictions and guidelines and the various 5; 13 techniques that might be used? 14 For -instance, supposing we do establish the fact, as 15 has already been done, that informants are necessary and 16 || desirable. Wow do we keep that informant operating within the 17 proper limits so that he in fact is not violating individual 18 rights 19 22 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 ? Mr. Kalley. Senator Huddleston. Well, of course, much of the reliance must 20 || be placed on the agent and.the supervision of the FBI to assure 21 || that there is no infringement of rights. But this is an aware we've gotten 23 || into some difficulty in the past. We have assumed that the 24 || particular action was necessary, that there was a present 25 | threat that some intelligence programs should be initiated, but NW 34959 Doold: #2999496 Page 300
pan i) i! ach Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 10 Li 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, 0.C. 20003 25 NW 54959 Dootd:3 ® . ® | 2476 in many cases it has gone beyond what would appear to have been necessary to have addressed the original threat. How do we keep within the proper balance there? Mr. Kelley. Well, .actually, it's just about like any other offense. It is an invasion of the other individual's right and it is by an officer and an FBI agent is an officer. There's the possibility of criminal prosecution against him. This is one which I think might flow if he counsels” the informant. Now insofar as his inability to control the informant, I don't suppose that would warrant prosecution, but there is still supervisory control over that agent and over that informant by insisting that control is exercised on a continuin basis. Senator Huddleston. It brings up an interesting point as to whether or not a law enforcement agency ought to be very alert to any law violations of its own Members or anyone else. Ifa White House official asks the FBI or someone to do something unlawful, the question seems to me to occur as to whether or not that is not a violation that should be reported by the FBI. Mr. Kelley. I think that any violation which comes to our attention should either be handled by us or the proper authority. 89498 Page 301 a rt rr
; @ @ > 2477 3 gsh-13 1 Senator Huddleston. But that hasn't been the case in the o N g 2 past. 3 5 Mr. Kelley. Well, I don't know what you're referring 4 to but I would think your statement is proper. 5 Senator Huddleston. Well, we certainly have evidence ° 6 of unlawful activity taking place in various projects that 7 have been undertaken, which certainly were not brought to 8 light willingly by the FBI or by other law enforcement agencies 9 The question that I'm really concerned about is.as 10 || we attempt to draw a guideline and charters that would give 11 the Agency the best flexibility that they may need, a wide - ‘ ' Po] . i < 12 range of threats, how do we control what happens within each ; 8 . fe] & 13 of those actions to keep them from going beyond what = End 2 14 waS intended to begin with? 15 16 1? 18 3 8 19 g [a] g 20 5 21 = a 22 i 23 g i w { 3 24 ‘ : 25 . NW 54959 Docld: 32959499 Page 302
AHW/smnl t. Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 WARD & PAUL 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 NW 34959 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 a3 24 25 2478 Mr. Kelley. You're still speaking of informants. Senator Huddleston. Not only informants but: the agents themselves as they go into surveillance, wiretaps, or whatever intelligence gathering techniques. The original thrust of my question was, even though we may be able to provide guidelines of a broad nature, how do we control the techniques that might be used, that ini themselvds might be used, that in themselves might be a serious violation of the rights. Mr. Kelley. Well, first, I don't know whether it's germane to your question but I do feel that it should be pointed out that the association to, the relationship between the informant and his agent handler is a very confidential one, and I doubt very seriously whether we could have any guide- lines, where there might be an extension of any monitors here because thereby you do have a destruction of that relationship Insofar as the activities of agents, informants’ or others which may_be illegal, we have on many occasions learned of violations of the law on the part of informants, and either prosecuted ourselves, through the reporting of it to the United States Attorney, or turned it over to the local authority. We have done this on many a time, many occasions. Insofar as our own personnel, we have an internal organization, the Inspection Division, which reviews this type of activity, and if there be any violation, yes, no question about it, we would Doclad: 3@989498 Page 303
t mn 2 Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 yy) LO 11 12 13 WARD & PAUL | 14 15 16 1? 18 |} 19 20 21 22 23 24 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 25 989498 Page 304 flee fig , NW 54959 Deoold: | @ ® 2479 pursue it to the point of prosecution. Senator Huddleston. But it could be helped by periodic review. Mr. Kelley. We do, on an annual basis, review the activities of our 59 offices through that same Inspection | Division, and they have a clear charge to go over this as well | as other matters. Senator Huddleston. Mr. Kelley, you pointed. out the difference in the approaches when gathering intelligence, in | gathering evidence after a crime has been committed. Would there be any advantage, or would it be feasible to . | attempt to separate these functions within the Agency, in the departments, for instance, with not having a mixing of | gathering intelligence and gathering evidence? Are the techni ues: definable and different? : | Mr. Kelley. Senator, I think they are compatible. I | see no objection to the way that they are now being handled on a management basis. I think, as a matter of fatt, it is a very fine association whereby the intelligence, stemming as it does from a substantive violation, is a natural complement. Senator Huddleston. Now, another area, the FBI furnishes information to numerous government agencies. Is this properly restricted and controlled at the present time in your judgment as to just who can ask the FBI for information, what kind of information they can ask for, and
ome ® ® 8 2480 8 $ 1 who might also be inclined to call the Director and ask him 3 . So 3 2 to do specific things? < : 5 3 Could there be some clearcut understanding as to whether A or not the Director would be obligated to undertake any such 5 project, that just anybody at the White House might suggest? 6 Mr. Kelley. It's very clear to me that any request must 7 come from Mr. Buchen's office, and that it be, in any case, 8 wherein it is a request for action, that it be followed with 9 a letter so requesting. 10 | . This has come up before during the Watergate hearings, as 11 I think it has been placed very vividly in our minds, in 4 12 take care that you just don't follow the request of some 13 underling who does not truly reflect.the desire of the.President. ° 14 Senator Huddleston. Just one more question about 15 techniques, aside from the guidelines of authority on broad 16 projects undertaken. 7 Would it be feasible from time to time in a Congressional 18 oversight committee, would be able to discuss with the Department, 19 with the Bureau various techniques so that they could have 20 some input as to whether or not these actions are consistent. 21 with the overall guidelines, to start with, and consistent 22 with the very protections? 23 Mr. Kelley. Senator, I have already said.to.the 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, 0.C. 20003 2A oversight committee of the Senate that so far as I can now 25 see, the only thing that would be withheld is the identity of WW 54959 Docld:32989498 Page 305 P*kG
Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 WARD & PAUL 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 WwW 54959 smn 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 Al 22 25 24 25 Decld: 32989498 Page 306 2481 probably even more importantly, what restrictions can be put on the use of that information once it has been supplied by the FBI? ene = | Mr. Kelley. I think so, Senator. Senator Huddleston. You think there are proper restrictidns now? Mr. Kelley. I don't know that we can ourselves judge in all cases whether or not there is good and sufficient reaso for an Agency to inquiry. I think that there should be a very close delineation by the agencies as to what they're going to ask for, but I think that we do have sufficient rules that at least to us we are satisfied. Senator Huddleston. You're confident that the informatio your agency supplies is not being misused, to the detriment of the rights of any individuals. Mr. Kelley. Senator, I'm only confident in what I do myself. I would say that I am satisfied. Senator Huddleston. I was wondering whether some inclusion ought to be made in whatever charter is made as to who specifically can request, what limits ought to be placed on what the request, and what they can do with it after they get it. Mr. Kelley. Yes. Senator Huddleston. I have some concern about the fact that in intelligence gathering, you gather, you are just
Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 WARD & PAUL 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 MW 34959 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Boold: 2¢98949R Page 307 6 GG +! 2482 bound to gather a great deal of information about some individual that is useless as far as the intent of the intelli- gence gathering is concerned, but might be in some way embarras sing or harmful to the individual, whether or not there's any effort to separate this kind of information out of a person's file that is really initiated for a purpose, for a specific purpose unrelated to this information. Is there any effort, or could any direction be given to doing that? Mr. Kelley. We would be very happy to work under the guidelines or rules or anything else to purge material which is extraneous, irrelevant, or for any other reason objection- able. Senator Huddleston. And how about the length of time that these files are kept in the agency? Mr. Kelley. We are willing to work within that framework, too. Senator Huddleston. I think that might be done. Now, I think in developing the chain of command, so to speak, it certainly would be very difficult to prevent the President of the United States from calling up the head of the FBI or anyone else and discussing any law enforcement problem he might so desire, and perhaps even give direction to the agency. But how about that? What about White House personnel
smn 6 2483 3 8 <¢ % 1 informants. We'il discuss techniques, we'll discuss our N ° . N ” : 2 present activities. I think this is the only way that we can 2 5 exchange our opinions and get accomplished what you want to 4 accomplish and what I want to accomplish. 5 Senator Huddleston. I feel that is an important aspect 6 of it because even though you have a charter which gives broad 7 direction for all the guidelines and to the types of projects 8 that enter into it, if we don't get down to specifics, such 9 things as how intelligence is to be collected, how evidence 10 is to be collected, what is done after it is collected, this il ‘type of thing, it seems to me we are leaving a wide gap 2 12 again for the Bureau to assume that it has total instruction 8 . cE 13 and total permission to move in a certain direction and go 3 14 beyond what is intended or what was authorized. 15 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Director. 16 The Chairman. Senator Goldwater? 17 Senator Goldwater. Mr. Kelley, as part of the FBI 18 electronic surveillance of Dr. King, several tapes of : 19 specific conversations, and later a composite King tape were ; 20 produced. i 21 Are these tapes still in the possession of the FBI? 22 Mr. Kelley. Yes, sir. : 23 Senator Goldwater. Have they been reviewed by you? : 24 Mr. Kelley. No, sir. ? 25 Senator Goldwater. Have they been reviewed by any of you NW 34959 Doocld: 325959496 Page 306
’ | ® e . 2484 1 staff, to your knowledge? 2 Mr. Kelley. Senator, I think that they have been reviewed]. 3 I know that at least some have reviewed it within the area of 4 this particular section. There has been no review of them 5 since I came to the FBI, I can tell you that. 6 Senator Goldwater. Would these tapes be available to 7 the Committee if the Committee felt they would like to hear 8 them? 9 Mr. Kelley. This, Senator Goldwater, is a matter which i 10 of, as I said before, some delicacy, and there would have to 11 be a discussion of this in an executive session. 12 The Chairman. I might say in that connection that the 13 Committee staff gave some consideration to this matter and - 1A decided that it would compound the original error for the 15 staff to review the tapes, because that would be a_ still 16 further invasion of privacy, and so the staff refrained from 7 insisting on obtaining the tapes, believing that it was 18 unnecessary, and quite possibly improper, in order to get at 19 what.we needed to know about the King case. 20 So the staff did refrain, and for that reason the issue 21 never came to a head. I just wanted to lay that information 22 before the Senator. 23 Senator Goldwater. I realize that's a prerogative of 2A the staff, but it's also the prerogative of the Committee if, 25 and I'm not advocating it, if we wanted to hear them to - HW 34959 || DoclTd: 32969495 Page 305
B Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 10 11 12 WARD & PAUL 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 el 22 25 24 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, 0.C. 20003 25 NW 54959 Docld: 2485 ourselves whether Mr. Hoover was off ona wild goose chase or whether there was, in effect, some reason. Again, I am not advocating it, I am merely asking a question. They would be available if the Committee took a vote to hear them and decided on it. Mr. Kelley. I don't think it would be within my juris- diction to respond to this, Senator. It would have to be the Attorney General. Senator Goldwater. I see. Now, are these tapes and other products of surveillance routinely retained even after an individual ceased to be a target of inquiry? Mr. Kelley. “they are retained usually for ten years. Senator Goldwater. Ten years. Mr. Kelley. Yes, sir. Senator Goldwater. What is the future value, if any, to the Bureau of retaining such information? Mr. Kelley. If there be guidelines that set out a destruction or erasure,we will abide by it. We will, on those occasions where we think that matters might come up within that period of time which may need the reténtion of them, we will express our opinion at that time, but other than that we would be guided by guidelines. Senator Goldwater. Is it your view that legitimate law enforcement needs should outweigh privacy considerations S89495 Page 310
WARD & PAUL 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, O.C. 20003 NW 54959 © smn 9 o [=] o ¢ .¢ ts) ~ N So N 6 o g < < e S ° & « ¢ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 » » | 2486 with respect to retention of such information, or do we need the clear guidelines on the destruction of these materials when the investigation purposes for which they were collected have been served? Mr. Kelley. We feel that there should be a good close look at the retention of material, and we would of course like to have an input. But we welcome consideration of this. Senator Goldwater. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Senator Mondale? Senator Mondale. Mr. Director, it seems to me that the most crucial question before the Congress is to accept the invitation of the FBI to draw Congressionally imposed lines, limits of authority so the FBI will know clearly what you can and cannot do, so you will not be subject to later judgments, and the question is, where should that line be drawn? As you know, in 1924 when the FBI was created, and Mr. Stone later became the Chief Justice, he drew the line at criminal law enforcement. He said that never again will we go beyond the authority~-imposed upon us to get into political ideas. We will stay in the area of law enforcement. Would you not think it makes a good deal of sense to draw the guidelines ina way that your activities are restricted to the enfonmcement of the law, investigations of Docld: 32989498 Page Sil
Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 WARD & PAUL 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 n : 5 2 ea OQ 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 » ® 2487 crime, investigations of conspiracies to commit crime rather than to leave this very difficult to define and control area of political ideas? Mr. Kelley. I don't know whether I understand your last statement of involving the area of political ideas. I-say tha I feel that certainly we should be vested and should continue in the field of criminal investigations as an investigatory objective. These are conclusions, of course, which are based on statutes in the so-called security field, national or foreign. These are criminal violations. I feel that they should be in tandem. I feel, having worked many years in this atmosphere, that you have more ears and eyes and you have more personnel working together, covering the same fields.. I do not think there should be a separation of the intelligence matters, because it is a concomitant. It naturally flows from the investigation of the security matters and the criminal. Senator Mondale. Mr. Kelley, what'Mr. Stone said was: this, that the Bureau of investigation is not concerned with political or other opinions of individuals. It is concerned only with such conduct as is forbidden by the laws of the United States. When the police system goes beyond these limits, it is dangerous to proper administration of justice and human liberty. Decld: 32989498 Page 312
smn 11 Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 LO Li 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 22 25 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 24 25 | " Nw 34959 Doold: a1. @ > 2488 Do. you object to that definition? Mr. Kelley. I think that life has become much more sophisticated and we have added to the so-called policeman's area of concern some matters which were probably not as important at that time. I think that the fact that the FBI has been in touch with the security investigations and the gathering of intelligence is something which has proved to be at times troublesome and given us great concern, but it is a viable, productive procedure. I don't know what Mr. Stone was thinking of entirely of this course, but I can tell you about the procedure today. Senator Mondale. You see, I think you recognize, if that further step is taken, as you're recommending here, that at that point it becomes so difficult to guarantee, and in fact, in my Opinion, impossible to guarantee that we won't see a recurrence of some of the abuses that we've seen in the past, and I don't know how you establish any kind of meaningful oversight on a function as nebulous as the one you've just defined. If the FBI possesses the authority.to investigate ideas that they consider to be threats to.this nation's security, particularly in the light of the record that we have seen how that definition can be stretched to include practi- cally everybody, including moderate civil rights leaders, war dissenters and so on, how on earth can standards be developed ap 389498 Page 313 th
4 Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 WARD & PAUL 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 . NW 54959 Doocld: $2989498 Page 314 e @ 2489 that would provide any basis for oversight? How can you, from among other things, be protected from criticism later on that you exceeded your authority or didn't do something that some politician tried to pressure you into doing? Mr. Kelley. It might well be, Senator, that ten years from now a Director of the FBI will be seated here and will be criticized for doing that which today is construed as very acceptable. Senator Mondale. Correct. And I have great sympathy for the predicament the FBI finds itself in. Mr. Kelley. And the Director. Senator Mondale. And the Director especially, and that is why I think it's in the interest of the FBI to get these lines as sharply defined as possible, so that when you are pressured to do things, or when, after the fact, people with good 20/20 hindsight can criticize you or the Bureau, that you can say | well, here are the standards that you gave us, and they specifi¢- ally say this, and that is your answer. We have to live by the law. If we don't define it specifically,it seems to me that these excesses could reoccur, because I don't think it's possible to define them, and the FBI is inevitably going to be kicked back and forth, depending on personal notions of what you should have done. Don't you fear that?
Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 uke) 11 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 1? 18 19 21 22 . Ro 24 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 25 WW 5aS5 9. Devrdel 20 2490 Mr. Kelley. Not too much, Senator. I think we learned a great lesson by virtue of Watergate, the revelations that have come up as a result of this Committee's inquiries, the fact that I think that we have a different type of spirit today in the Bureau, the fact that, as I said before, you came in, that I think the Bureau is a matchless organization, and they are eager to do that which is vital and proper, and the fact that we are getting a number of very fine young people in the organization, people of the other ethnic backgrounds than we had years ago. I think there is a greater understanding in the Bureau today of what is the proper type of conduct. We may not be able to project this on all occasions, because we must equate this with the need and with our experience, but if the precise guidelines be the goal, you're going to have trouble. If, on the other hand, there be a flexibility, I think that we can work very well within those guidelines. Senator Mondale. I think, as you know, I don't think there is a better trained or higher professionally qualified law enforcement organization in the world than the FBI. I think we all agree it is superb. But the problem has been, from time to time, that when you go beyond the area of enforcing the law into the area of political ideas, that you are subject to and in fact you leave the criminal field, you get into politics. And that is where, it seems to me, that th Page 315
. smn 14 Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 WARD & PAUL 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, 0.C. 20003 Nw 34959 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 2491 great controversy exists, and.where you are almost inevitably going to be subjected to fierce criticism in the future, no into trouble. matter how you do it. Once you get into politics, you get Mr. Kelley. I agree to that, and I point out that in almost | every branch of the government and in every part, as a matter | of fact, every segment of our society, there are some who deviate | from the normal course. I feel that within the Bureau there is less likelihood of this to happen, and I think that working with you we can at least make some achievements that will be significant. | Now, whether it be lasting, I don't think so, but I think we've made a good start. | Senator Mondale. In your speech in Montreal on August 9th, you said we must be willing to surrender a small measure of our liberties to preserve the great bulk of them. Which liberties did you have in mind? Mr. Kelley. Well, of course, this speech has been mis- understood many, many times. Senator Mondale. Well, I want you to have a chance to clear it up. = te te Mr. Kelley. All that was intended here was a restatement of the approach which the courts historically have used in resolving most issues of Constitutional importance, and its recognition that rights are not susceptible to absolute DoclTdad: 22989495 Page 316
smn 15 ray] H Gl Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 10 11 1l2 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 1? 18 19 ~ 20 21 22 25 R4 25 NW 34959 Docid: 2492 protection. It's a matter of balance. Even in the Fourth Amendment, for example, which protects the right of privacy, it does not prohibit searches and seizures. I mention, it only | refers to those that are unreasonable. I came from the police fiedd. “What is more restrictive to more people than traffic regulation? But what would be more chaotic is of you did not have traffic regulation. We do have to , in order to in the complexities and intricacies of today's life, have to give up some of our rights. some may construe this as an extravagant statement. If is os, I wish to say that I only was pointing out that there has to be a balance. Senator Mondale. So that when you say we have to give ° up some liberties, or as you just said, some rights, what you mean -- let me ask. Let me scratch. that and ask again, you have to give up somé tights. Which rights would you have us give up? Mr. Kelly. Well, under the Fourth Amendment you would have the right for search and seizure. Senator Mondale. You wouldn't give up the Fourth Amend- ment right. Mr. Kelley. Oh, no not the right. Senator Mondale. What right do you have in mind? yt Mr, Kelley. The right to be free from search and seizure. $89499 Page 317
smn 16 2493 $ 1 Senator Mondale. There's no such right in the Consti- a i 2 tution. You can have such seizures, but they must be reasonable, ; 3 under court warrant. 4 Did you mean to go beyond that? 5 Mr. Kelley. That's right. 6 Senator Mondale. That you should be able to go beyond 9 that? 8 Mr. Kelley. No, no. I do not mean that we should ever 9 go beyond a Constitutional right guarantee. 10 Senator Mondale. Well, would you say, Mr. Kelley, that 1 that sentence might have been inartful in your speech? 2 12 Mr. Kelley. I said that if it was misunderstood, I 13 made a mistake, because I should never make a statement which +- ° 14 yes, it was inartful. 15 Senator Mondale. I think I know about your record in 16 law enforcement well enough to tell you that I think you were 17 saying something different, that it was taken to mean somethin 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.c. 20003 Nw 34959 18 different than I think you intended. 19 What you are saying is that in the exercise of your law 20 enforcement powers, the rights of individuals is determined 21 by the laws and the courts, but the courts, in the handling 2° of those issues, have to balance rights and other values. 23 That's what you're essentially saying, is that correct? 24 Mr. Kelley. Senator, I ought to have you write my 25 speeches so that I don't have any misunderstandings. I didn't Doocid: 349539498 Page 3168
Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 end t. WARD & PAUL 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, 0.C. 20003 NW 34959 LEsoold: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 al 22 25 24 25 2494 understand that to be at the time anything that was unusual. I have to admit that maybe I made a mistake. Senator Mondale. What you are saying in effect is that in effect, the rights: of the American people can be determined not by the Director of the FBI but by the courts and by the law. You meant that. Mr. Kelley. Indeed, yes, sir. Senator Mondale. All right. Thank you. 2989498 Page 319
. r < WARD: GSH @ @ . 2495 CIA Open 12/50/75 e A TAPS 1 The Chairman. Senator Hart. N So S ; ry 2 Senator of Colorado. Mr. Kelley, in response to § : E 3 a question by Senaotr Mondale, one of his first questions about 4 laying down guidelines, it seems to me what you were saying was 5 we could work together. That is to say the Bureau and the 6 Congress, lay down guidelines that would not unreasonably 7 hamper you from investigations of crime control in the 8 country. 9 But I think implicit in his question was also an area 10 || that you didn't respond to, and that is how do you, what kind | 11 || of guidelines do you lay down to protect you and the Bureau | 12 | from political pressure, the misuse of the Bureau by political 13 || figures, particularly in the White House? WARD & PAUL 14 And we've had indications that at least two of your 15 || predecessors, if not more, obviously were corrupted and Mr. 16 || Gray was under great pressure from the White House to use 17 || the facilities af the Bureau and their’capabilities to accomplijsh 18 | some plititcal end. 19 Well, it seems to me you were arguing in favor of fewer 20 || restrictions so you could get on with your job, but that is g] || not what Senator Mondale and the rest of us are interested in. 22 What .kKindof restrictions can we lay down to protect you 93 || from political pressures? I'd be intérested in that sign of the 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 24 || coin, if you would. 25 Mr, Kelley. I would welcome any guidelines which would MW 54959 Docld: 37989496 Page 320
g 8 ¢ gs & 2 i 3 2 < . 5 3 4 5 6 | 8 9 10 11 a po] by 12 & 2 e 13 3 14 15 16 17 18 8 19 9 Qa ¢ 20 5 21 a F 22 f BB = ° 24 ¢ 25 _ uw 54959 Docld: S89495 Page 321 @ @ 2496 protect me or any successor from this type of thing. I think that would be splendid. I have not reviewed the guidelines as prepared to the present date by the Department. It might be that they are well defined in there. But I welcome any consideration of such directives. Senator Hart of Colorado. Do you think this is a problem Mr. Kelley. No, sir, not with me. Senator Hart of Colorado. Do you think that it has been a problem for the people that preceded you? Mr. Kelley. JI think so. Senator Hart of Colorado. And that's a problem the Congress ought to address? Mr. Kelley. I think so. Senator Hart of Colorado, The Committee received a letter from the Department of Justice a couple of days, the Assistant Attorney General asking our cooperation in carrying out the investigation or their efforts to review the investi- gation conducted by the FBI into the death of Martin Luther King, Jr., in order to determine whether that investigation should be re-opened. They asked our cooperation, they asked for our transcripts, the testimony before the Committee, all material provided to the Committee by the FBI which relates to Dr. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. I guess my question is this: Why is the Justice Depart- ment asking this Committee for FBI files?
Q n Phone (Area 202)°544-6000 WARD & PAUL 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, 0.C. 20003 | NW 34559 fe es) 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e @ 2497 Mr. Kelley. I don't think they're asking for files. I think they're asking for what testimony was given by witnesses whose testimony has not been given up. I don't know. Senator Hart of Colorado. I'll quote it. “And all material provided to the Committee by the FBI which relates to Dr. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference." I repeat the question. Why is the Justice Department asking this Committee for material provided to us by the FBI? Mr. Kelley. Frankly, I don't know. Do you mind if I just ask ~~ (Pause) Mr. Kelley. I am informed, and I knew this one. Everything that was sent to you was sent through them. Did they have a copy also? Yes, they had a retained copy. I don't know why. Senator Hart of Colorado. So there's nothing you provided us that's not available to the Justice pepartment? Mr, Kelley. That's right. Senator Hart of Colorado. And you can't account for why an official of the Justice Department would ask this Committee for your records? Mr, Kelley. No, sir. Senator Mart of Colorado. You released a statement on November the 18th of '74 regarding the FBI's. counter-intelligen Docld: 335989498 Page 322
On } P Phone (Area 204f'544-6000 ny ne) 11 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 235 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 24 25 oe @ 2498 program and you said you made a detailed study of COLINTELPRO activities and reached the following conclusions, and I quote: "The purpose of these counter-intelligence programs was to prevent dangerously and potentially deadly acts against individuals, organizations and institutions both public and private across the United States." Now we had an FBI informant in the other day before this Committee and he stated he told the FBI on a number of. occasions he planned violent acts against black people in groups. And yet, he said few, if any, instances in which the FBI actually prevented violence from taking place. How does his testimony square with your statement that I have quoted? Mr, Kelley. It doesn't, and I don't know if any of his statements contrary to what we have said is the truth. We don't subscribe to what he said. We have checked into it and we know of no instances where, for example, 15 minutes and that type of thing has been substantiated. — Senator Hart of Colorado. You're saying the testimony he gave us under oath was not accurate? Mr. Kelley. Right. Senator Hart of Colorado. You also said in that statemen and I quote: "I want to assure you that Director Hoover did not conceal from superior authorities the fact that the FBI was engaged in neutralizing and disruptive tactics against _ HW 54959 Docld: 32989496 Page 325
1Q Phone (Area 202) 544-6000y) LO il 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 is 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2499 revolutionary and violence-prone groups. Now the Committee has received testimony that the New Left COINTELPRO programs was not in fact told to higher authorities, the Attorney Gereral and Congress. Do you have any information in this regard? I know in that statement you cite onw or two instances, but in terms of the bulk of COINTEL programs, the record seems to date at least to be clear that there was not systemati information flowing upward through the chain of command to Director Hoover's superiors? Mr. Kelley. May I ask that I be given the opportunity to substantiate that with documentation? Senator Hart of Colorado. ‘Sure. Mr.. Kelley; Or respond to it. Senator Hart of Colorado. Dorector Kelley, just in passing, do you agree with the statement made by President Ford that those responsible for harassing and trying to destroy Dr. King should be brought to justice. Mr. Kelley. Those who directly responsible and upon whcse orders the activities were taken responsible. I don't know i& he intended to say that, but if he did not, I would say that it would be more proper. Insofar as my Own opinion is concerned, that it be centered on those who said to do it and those who are responsible. I. took the responsibility for any such program and I don't expect that those under me would be not acting in NW 54959 Docld: 3498945968 Page 324
On a) ash Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 LO Li 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 25 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, 0.C. 20003 R4 25 NW 34959 Doold:3 >. © responsibility, that be done. who give the orders should be brought to justice. Mr. Kelley. I do. The Chairman. Aren't they all dead? Mr. Kelley. Wo. The Chairman. Not quite? Mr. Kelley. Not quite. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Director Kelley, in the Committee's review of COINTELPRO program and other political involvements FBI, it seems to me that we have encountered two or basic questions. we learned in that investigation. 89490 Page 325 2500 accordance with what they think is proper and may even have some reservation, but they do it on my orders. I accept that I think that it should rest. on those who instructed that Senator Hart of Colorado. But you agree that the people Senator Hart of Colorado. That's all, Mr. Chairman, the of the three Since the investigation is over insofar as the Committee is concerned, we're now turning our attention to remedies for the future, what I would think would be our constructive legislative work, it is very important that we focus on what And one thing that we have learned is that Presidents of the United States have from time to time ordered the FBI to
~l bh t n Phone (Area 203544-6000 10, 11 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 1? "18 19 20 21 22 23 24 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 25 MW 34959 Doold: e a ® 2501 ~ obtain for them certain kinds’ of information by exercising the necessary surveillance to obtain .and to have a purely political character, that they simply wanted to have for their own personal purposes. I think that you would agree that that is not a proper function of the FBI,, and you agree, Yet it's awfQlly difficult for anyone in the FBI, including the Director, to turn down a President of the United States if he receives a direct order from the President. It is always possible, of course, to say no, and if you insist, I will resign. But that puts a very hard burden on any man serving in your position, particularly if the President puts a good face on the request and makes it sound plausible or even invents some excuse, It is alwavs easy for him to say, you know, I am considering Senator White for an important. position in my administration, and I need to know more about his activities, particularly of late. I've had some cause for concern and I want to be certain that there is nothing in his record that would later embarrass me, and I just want you to keep careful track of him and report to me on what he's been doing lately. It's difficult fur you to say back to the President, Mr. President, that's a very questionable activity for the FBI, and I frankly don't believe that you've given me the real reason why you want this man followed. I think his opposition 899495 Page 326
3 a Phone (Area 2087 544-6000 ro] ne) 11 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 “15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 410 First Street, S.£., Washington, D.C. 20003 25 2502 to your current policy is politically embarrassing to you and you want to get something on him.. I mean, you know, the Director can hardly talk back that way, and I'm wondering what we caquid do in the way of protecting your office and the FBI from political exploitation in this basic charter that we write. | Now, I want your suggestions, but let's begin with one or two of mine. I would like your response. If we were to write into the law that any order.given you either by the President or by the Attorney General should be transmitted in writing and should clearly state the objective and purpose of the request and that the FBI would maintain those written orders and that furthermore they would be available-to any oversight committee of the Congress. If the joint committee on intelligence is established, that committee would have access to such a file. So that the committee itself would be satisfied that orders were not being given to the FBI that were improper or unlawful. What would you think of writing a provision of that kind into a charter for the FBI? . Hr, Kelley. I would say writing into the law any order issued by, the President that is a request for action by the Attorney General should be in writing, is certainly, in my opinion, is a very plausible solution. I'm sure that in WW 54955 Docld: 3pSe9498 Page 327
wc uy Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 <9) WARD & PAUL 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, 0.C. 20003 contemplation of this there would be some that will say yes or some that will say no, but I think we could define an area where you are trying to cure the abuses and we could do that. Now as to the availability to any oversight committee of Congress, I would say generally that I certainly would have no objection to this, but I again, there may be some request for something of high confidentiality that the President might put in writing such as some national or foreign security matter. I would like to have such a consideration be given a great deal of thought and that the oversight committee review be conditioned with that possibility. I don't think it would present a problem. I have said previously that I feel I can discuss every-. thing except the identity of the informants to the oversight committee. I welcome that. The Chairman. Hell, that has been of course the way we proceeded with this Committee. It has worked pretty well, I think. | Now Senator Goldwater brought up a question on the Martin Luther King tapes. I would like to pursue that question If these tapes do not contain any evidence that needs to be preserved for ongoing criminal investigations, and since ra Dr. King has long since been violently removed from the scene, a
Phone (Area 205) 544-6000 fe oO 10 il 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 el R2 23 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 25 NW 34959 Docld:3¢989458 Page 329 a _ i —_—___ — 24 e ® | . 2504-2505 why are they preserved? Why aren't they simply destroyed? Is there a problem that we can help through new law to enable the FBI to remove from its files so much of this information that is has collected that it is no longer needed or may never have connected the person with any criminal activity?’ And yet, all of that information just stays there in the files year after year. What can we do? How can a law be changed? If that's not the problem, then what is? Why are these tapes still down there at the FBI? Mr. Kelley. Well, of course, we do have the rule that they are maintained ten years. Now why the rule is your question and why right now are they maintained? Since we do maintain everything since the inquiry has started and until that's lifted, we can't destroy anything. I would say that this is a proper area for guidelines . Or legislation and ayain, as I have said, there should be some flexibility and I know that's a broad statement but there might be some areas wherein that the subject of the investigatioh himself may want them retained because it shows his innocence. I think you have to deliberate this very carefully, but it can he done and we are willing to be guided by those rules, The Chairman, Let me ask you this. The FBI is conducting thousands of investigations every year on possible appointees we
12 Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 ond LO il 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 ) HW 54959 Doold: 16 1? 18 19 20 al 22 ee) 24 2 ° ° ° N g Q ¢ 9 2 a £ £ wa s = ul rm) = a 2 2 & uw ~~ “ = t ° wt t 25 to Federal positions. As a matter of fact, the only time I ever see an FBI agent is when he comes around and flashes his badge and asks me a question or two about what I know of Mr. so and so, who's being considered for an executive office. And we have a very brief conversation in which I tell him that as far as I know, he's a loyal and patriotic citizen, and that is about the extent of it. Then when this file is completed and the person involved is either appointed or not appointed, what happens to that file? I know it's full of all kinds of gossip because it is in the nature of the investigation to go out to his old neighborhoods and talk to everybody who might have known him. What happens to the file? Is that just retained forever? Mr. Kelley. We have some capability of destroying some files and they are rather lengthy insofar as retention. We have some archival rules which govern the retention of mateial and is developed in cases involving certain members of the Executive Branch of the government. I see no reason why this would not be a proper area for consideration of legislation. | The Chairman, Can-you give me any idea of how much ~-- do you have records that would tell us how nach time and money is being spent by the FBI just in conducting these thousands of routine investigations on possible Presidential appointments to Federal offices? 2989498 Page 330
we Phone (Area 202), 544-6000 dD 10 14 12 WARD & PAUL 13 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 el 22 25 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 24 25 HW 54959 Docld: 250 Mr. Kelley. I feel confident we can get it. I do not have it now, but if you would like to have the annual cost for the investigation of Federal appointees -- The Chairman. Yes. Plus, you know, plus any other information that would indicate to us what proportion of the time and effort of the FBI was absorbed in this kind of activity. Mr. Kelley. I can tell you it is relatively small, hut “I can get you, I think, the exact amount of time and the approximate expense, The Chairman. I wish you would do that because this is a matter we need niore information about. And when you supply that data to the Committee, would you also supply the number of such investigations each year? You know, I don't expect you to go back 20 or 25 years, but give us a good idea of the last few years. For example, enough to give us an idea of how much time and how broad the reach of these investigations may be. Mr, Kelley. Through '70? The Chairman. That would be sufficient, I would think. “the other matter that is connected to this same subject that I would like your best judgment on is whether these invéstigations could not be limited to offices of sensitivity. That is to say where legitimate national security interest might be involved so that there is a reason to make a close check on S89495 Page 331
at Phone (Area 2d) 544-6000 t— WARD & PAUL 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 1 NW 34959 Docld: 379894568 Page 332 _ e  ©@ 2508 ™~ past associations, attitudes and expressions of belief. I have often wondered whether we couldn't eliminate routine Federal offices that are not particularly sensitive in the national security sense from the reach of these FBI checks. And so when you respond to the series of questions, I wish you would include the offices that are now covered by such checks and give us an idea of how far down into the Federal bureaucracy this extends. Could you do that? Mr. Kellev. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Fine. Now there is a vote. The vote always comes just at he wrong time, but Mr. Schwarz wants to ask you some additiona questions for the record, and there may be other questions, too that would be posed by the staff, after which I will ask Mr. Schwarz to adjourn the hearings. It looks like we're going to be tied up on the floor with votes. But before I leave I want to thank you for your testimony, lir. Kelley, and to express my appreciation to you for the way you have cooperated with the Committee in the course of its investigation during the past months, Mr. Kelley. Thank you. The Chairman. And I hope, as you do, that as a result of the work of the Committee we can write a generic law for
r @ ® 2509 ~ ~~ Go. G4 the FBI that will help to remedy many of the problems we'll encounter in the future. Plone (Area 202), 544-6000 go End e 4 Thank you. 10. il 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 410 First Street, S.E;, Washington, 0.C. 20003 25 Mw 54959 Docld: 3PS989¢98 Page 333
AHW/smnl t. 5 Phone (Area 202) 544-60 10 il 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 a1 22 23 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 24 25 Mr. Schwarz. Mr. Kelley, I'll try to be very brief. On page 5 of your: -statement _ - Mr. Kelley. What? Mr. Schwarz. On page 5 of your statement, the third full paragraph, you said the following, and I would like then to question about what you said. "We must recognize that situations have occurred in the past and will arise in the future where the Government may well be expected to depart from its traditional role, in the FBI's case, as an investigative and intelligence-gathering agency, and take affirmative steps which are needed to meet an imminent threat to human life or property." Now, by that you mean to take what kind of steps in what kind of situation? And can you give some concrete examples under your general principles statement? Mr. Kelley. I think that Mr. Adams addressed himself to that the other day, where you have an extremist who is an employee at the waterworks, and he makes a .statement that he's going to do something which is devastating to the city, and you . have no way to attack this under the ordinary procedures, and so therefore you must take some steps to meet that imminent threat to human life or property. Mr. Schwarz. So let us take that case as a test of the principle. You are saying the extremist has said he is going NW 54559 Doold: 35989458 Page 334
fo} dS Phone (Area 202) 544-6068 10 11 L2 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, 0.C. 20003 24 25 23 eo ® 2511 — to do something to the waterworks, poison it or something, and he is on the way down there with the poison in his car. Is that the presumption? Mr. Kelley. We hadn't goné that far, but all right, you can extent it. Mr. Schwarz. All right, now, in that case you have the traditional law enforcement tool, which is the power of arrest. Mr. Kelley. Not under probable cause where he has not gone down there. The hypothetical we gave was one where he had not taken any overt acts in perpetration of this. Mr. Schwarz. Well, if he hasn't taken any overt acts, are you then in what you would call in imminent threat of human life or property? Mr. Kelley. I think so. Mr. Schwarz. How so? Unless he has taken an overt act: to buy the poison or to get in the car with the poison, there is not by definition any threat to life or property. Mr. Kelley. Mr. Schwarz, I've-been around in this busines a long time. I've-heard a number of threats which were issued, and they thereafter materialized into actions. I don't -think - take these threats as being empty ones, because so many times they have been acted upon. I was criticized one time when there was a threat made to kill me, and it was said later on, it's not rhetoric, it's not rhetoric to me, because when they say they're going to NW 54959 Docld: 39869498 Page 3355 rarer
Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 10 11 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 235 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 24 25 ee 955. Doold: 2512 kill me, that just means one thing. Mr. Schwarz. But I'm not disagreeing with you. Mr. Kelley. But you are disagreé@ing with me. You're sayin on the basis of experience that you cannot detect a possible threat. That's the whole area of concern that we have here, where we don't lose the capability of doing something. We don't say we should initiate ourselves. We say that we should go to the Attorney General. We do not subscribe to the idea that we should act independently because maybe we don't have the judicial review, the capability of determining, but we do ‘think that we should report it and thereafter see what can be done. Mr. Schwarz. Well, have you changed in the gourse of our discussion the standard on page 5. On page 5 you're talking about an imminent threat. Mr. Kelley. Yes. Mr. Schwarz. And I hear you now as saying a possible threat. Mr. Kelley. An imminent possible threat. Mr. Schwarz. An imminent possible threat. All right. Now, would a fair standard for either action, other than arrest, I don't know what you have in mind, but something to prevent the person from carrying out his activities, other than arrest, for instance, what is an example of what you have in mind? 989498 Page 336
* T BS 1 2 Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 2 &m a Oo Ke} 11 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, O.C. 20003 25 nn 54959 Doold: a 10 25° 2513 Mr. Kelley. Removing him from his position or whatever is necessary in order to make it impossible or at least as impossible as possible to perpetuate this thing. Mr. Schwarz. Mr. Kelley. Mr. Schwarz. Mr. Kelley. Mr. Schwarz. You mean have him lose his job or -- I don't know what it would be. Isolate him in some fashion. In some fashion perhaps. Now, for such activity and for opening an investigation into a domestic group, could you live with a standard which said you would have to have an immediate threat that someone was likely to commit a serious federal crime involving violence? Mr. Kelley. I think that this thing could be worked out so that there could be an adequate basis for an evaluation. Mr. Schwarz. So those words, without trying to commit you entirely to them, do not seem to you to depart far from what you think would be an acceptable standard. Mr. Kelley. Well, an imminent, immediate threat might be, by virtue of the word "immediate" that he's going to do it the next minute. In that case it may be necessary for you to, not with the presence or the possibility, not able to do anything except put him under arrest or anything. Sa9496 Mr. Schwarz. Of course, of course. And nobody would at all disagree with that kind of action. Mr. Kelley. Page 337 _ I don't think they would either.
2) a Phone (Area 202) 544-6dgo LO 11 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 410 Fisa? Street, S.£., Washington, D.C. 20003 25 21 2514 Mr. Schwarz. But on the question, let's take the opening of an investigation into a domestic group. Is it basically consistent with practicality to make the test immediate threat of a serious Federal crime involving violence? Mr.Kelley. To open a domestic security case. Mr. Schwarz. Yes. Mr. Kelley. It appears to me that this is a terrorist activity, in effect. We certainly have terrorist activities under our jurisdiction as a threat against the United States. Mr. Schwarz. Now, are there other circumstances where it is justifiable to open an investigation of the domestic group where you do not have an immediate threat of serious federal crime involving violence? Mr. Kelley. Oh, I think there are other criteria, and they have been well defined as to what is the possible opening, the basis for a possible opening. We haven't been discussing that, we have been discussing particular instances, but there are other criteria that are used, yes. Mr. Schwarz. What would the other criteria be? Mr. Kelley. Well, the possible statutory violations over which we have jurisdiction are, generally speaking, the most used of thebasis, and then you have, of course, some intelligence investigations which should, of course, be of short duration. If there is no showing of this into action | NW 54959 Docld:3@989495 Page 336
5 Phone (Area 202) 544-6090 10 11 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 7) 18 19 20 21 22 24 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 25 R95: 2515 or a viable intent. : ‘ Mr. Schwarz. So that's what you're Looking for in the intelligence investigation? a | Mr. Kelley. . By intelligence investigation, yes, you | are looking to prevent. Mr. Schwarz. And what you are looking to prevent, and what you're looking to find is a likelihood of action combined with an intent to take an issue? Mr. Kelley. And the capability. Mr. Schwarz. And the capability. All right. I just have two other lines, Mr. Kelley, and I appreciate very much your time. Mr. Kelley. That's all right. Mr. Schwarz. Assuming a legitimate investigation has - been started into a domestic intelligence matter, is it legiti- mate for the FBI, in addition to obtaining information that relates to what we've just been talking about, the likelihood of violent action, is it also legitimate for the FBI to collect, A, retain, B, disseminate, C, information concerning let's say the sex life of a person on the one hand, and the political views of a person on the other? Mr. Kelley. I think, Mr. Schwarz, that this is just what many of our problems and perhaps the guidelines can define this type of thing. I think probably you will agree that within the determination of the deviations possibly of sex HW 54959 Boeld: 22989495 Page 335
Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 ~d 10 li 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 LY 18 ‘Ig 20 21 22 24 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 25 25. 2516 lives, there might be something that is relevant. I would:say ordinarily it's not. And so far as political views, yes, I think that this could be, if he is espousing some cause or some view that advocates violence or the overthrow of the government. Mr. Schwarz. Would those be the two limits on political views? | Mr. Kelley. What? Mr. Schwarz. Would those be the only limits on political views that you think are okay to collect, advocants of violence or advocants of overthrow? Mr. Kelley. Well, I don't think because he's a Democrat or a Republican it would be anything that would be damaging, but it might on the other hand counter the report that he's a member of some other organization. Mr. Schwarz. Is the standard you used on collection of sex life information, might be relevant? I suppose anything might be relevant, but don't you think that as a function of balance, it has to have a high degree of relevance before it's justifiable to collect that kind of information on American citizens who are not suspected of having committed crimes? Mr. Kelley. Insofar as doing it presently, it has been included in some reports as a result-of the requirement that that is what is required by our rules, that when a person reports something to us, we do a report of the complaint. Insofar : MW 54959 Doold: 32999495 Page 340
Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 WARD & PAUL 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C, 20003 NW 54959, s mn8 2517 1 as a determination by guidelines that might be prepared later, 2 || I think that we can certainly deliberate on this to see whether 3 or not this is something we should retain, and we would not . 4 object to anything reasonable in that regard. Mr. Schwarz. I just have one final question. Taking the current manual and trying to understand its 9 applicability laid against the facts in the Martin Luther King 8 case, under Section 87 there is a -- permission is granted to 9 open investigations of the infiltration of non-subversive 10 || groups, and the first sentence reads: "When information is ll received indicating that a subversive group is seeking to 12 || systematically infiltrate and control a non~subversive group 13 || OF organization, an investigation can be opened." 14 Now, I take it that is the same standard that was used 15 in opening the investigation of the Southern Christian Leadership 16 Conference in the 1960s, so that invéstigation could still be 7 open today under the FBI manual, the current FBI manual. 18 Mr. Kelley. We are interested in the infiltration of 19 clearly subversive groups into non-subversive groups inasmuch 20 as this is‘a ploy that is used many times, and having infil- 21 trated, they then get control, and they have a self-laundered 22 organization which they can use, and not, certainly, to the 23 benefit of the country. 24 Mr. Schwarz. But is the answer to my question yes, that 25 under that standard, the SCLC investigation could still be BDoold: 349894596 Page 341
Phono (Area 202) 544-6000 WARD & PAUL 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 | HW 54959 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DoolTd: 3 e | © 2518 opened today? Mr. Kelley. I think so. Mr. Schwarz. All right, then, just one final question. Do you agree that special care needs to be taken not only of the standards for initially opening an investigation of a group, but perhaps extra care needs to be taken when the investil- gation goes beyond the initial target group to individuals or people who come into contact with it? Mr. Kelley. I don't know if I agree with that entirely. you mean that we go into the non-subversive group, that we then investigate peopfie in that non-subversive group, not the infiltrators, but the non, that we conduct a lengthy investigation of them without any basis for doing so other than that they are in an infiltrated group, I would likely have said -- but off the top of my head I would say probably that's not necessar Mr. Schwarz. Thank you very much. Mr. Smothers. Just a couple of very brief lines of inqtiry, Mr. Kelley. I think that the questions of the Chief Counsel. was raising is one that goes further into your statement, when you talk about the difficulty of setting out the line between intelligence gathering and law enforcement kinds of functions.. Nevertheless, though, I think that you have made an effort, indeed, the Bureau's organizational scheme reflects ay G+ 013 to distinguish some of this has been made. S89495 Page 342
a tLe smn 10 Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 10 11 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21° 22 23, 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 24 25 > NW 54959 Deoold: 2519 Putting aside for one moment the counterespionage effort, and looking strictly at what we have - been calling the Domestic Intelligence, is it your view that the retention of this function in the Bureau is critical to the Bureau's law enforcement position? Mr. Kelley. My personal opinion is that the Bureau does a splendid job in this area. I feel further that the backgroun of criminal investigatory activities and experiences which | all counterintelligence people have is very helpful. It is help- ful not only in gathering knowledge and experience, it also enters into this field, a person with a broad understanding of the rights and privileges, and you don't have so much that spy type, that cloak and dagger, that very, very secret type of an operation. I subscribe to the present system heartily. Mr. Smothers. Would it be of assistance to your mission if within the Bureau guidelines were established that effectively limited access or controlled dissemination of the intelligence product? In other words, if we had a situation where the intelligence product is critical to assist the law enforcement effort, I don't think there's any question that there should be access to it. Isn't our problem one of controlling the use of that intelligence product and preventing the kind of murky crossing of lines there with the information legitimately needed for S89495 Page 343
smn 11  ) Td 2520 L law enforcement? . . 2 Mr. Kelley. There is always a problem when there is wide 3 dissemination, because that just numerically increases the Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 4 possibility of misuse, abuse or slander, libel, or anything 5 of that matter, and I think that it would be well worthwhile 6 to review the dissemination rules to make them subject to ” Close guidance in the guidelines that we're speaking of. 8 Mr. Smothers. Let me just raise one final area with you. 9 We talked a little bit about, or a question was raised about 10 || the investigation now being conducted by the Justice Department 11 regarding the improper actions on the COINTELPRO, and the 12 King case in particular. 13 As we look at allegations of impropriety by your personnel WARD & PAUL 14 || I think it would be helpful for our record here to have some 15 insight into the procedure the Bureau would normally follow. 16 What does the Bureau do when you get an allegation that 17 an agent or administrative official in the Bureau has behaved 18 improperly? 19 Is an investigation conducted internally, or is it 20 routinely referred to the Justice Department? 21 Mr. Kelley. There may be a revision in this type of 22 procedure as a result of the establishment of the Council for 23. Professional Responsibility. At present it would be in the 24 || great majority of the cases turned over to our Investigative 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, 0.C. 20003 25 Division for investigation. There might, on some unusual NW 34959 Docld: 39969458 Page 344
Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 WARD & PAUL Nw 34959 410 First Street, S.E., Washington, 0.C. 20003 LO 11 12 13 14 15 16 7) 18 x9 20 21 22 25. occasion, be a designation of a special task force made up, perhaps, of division heads. That is most unlikely, but it is handled internally at present. Mr. Smothers. Would these internal determinations be reviewed by Justice, or do you think that is a necessary step? . I guess what we are searching for here is, first of all, I think you answered that, well, to what extent does the Bureau police itself, and then secondly, is the Department of Justice involved in the police determinations? For instance, what if the Attorney General disagreed with the assertion that only the higher up officials who ordered the action against King should be the subject of investigation and maybe prosecution? How does the interplay work there between you and Justice? Mr. Kelley. We do report to the Attorney General those activities which we construe as improper or possibly. illegal. There is a possibility that the Department, having been advised ‘of the situation, might take it on their own to do their own investigating, and this is something that we feel is a decision to be made only rather rarely, because we feel we have within our own organization sufficient capability to handle that. But we do not protest it. It is handled independently of us. Mr. Smothers. Thank you. 89490 Page 345
| | Phone (Area 202) 544-6000 WARD & PAUL 410 First Street, S.€., Washington, D.C. 20003 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 20 That is all I have. Mr. Schwarz. Thank you. 2522 (Whereupon, at 12:12 o'clock p.m., the Committee recessed subject to the call of the Chair.) be 54959 Doold: 33969495 Page 346
Roviing 0-7 (Res fr2-17-73) | TO: SAC: i} Albany (2) Albuquerque fj Alexandria f°, Anchorage (-} Adanta __] Baltimore, (Cj Binningham Boston = Buffalo (CJ Butte C_} Charlotte P™| Chicago {_} Cincinnati {_) Cleveland f~} Columbia | F"] Dallas {_] Denver 1] Detroit i_] El Paso i is * ™ Honolulu RE: (_} Houston . (_] Indianapolis (7j Jackson [} Jacksonville C_] Kansas City C_] Knoxville C] Las Vegas (_] little Rock C_] Los Angeles ("} Louisville {_] Memphis Pr} Miami C_] Milwaukee {(_] Minneapolis {_] Mobile C7] Newark (_]} New Haven f"] New Orlcans (_] New York City C_] Norfolk (Copies to Ofittes Checkea) r “TO LEGAT: C7] Oklahoma City Cj Omaha (_] Philadelphia ~} Phoenix (_] Pittsburgh [—] Portland {"] Richmond Sacramento b| St. Louis C_] Sall Lake City {__j San Antonio (_] San Diego (_] San Francisco Cj} San Juan [_] Savannah (_] Seattle C-] Springfield (") Tampa (-] Washington Field L_} Quantico Dat ‘(j Manila ‘(3 Ottawa -(_} Singapore -£-} Tokyo , 12/30/75 (C) Beirnt Cj Bern C_} Benn [_) Brasilia [-] Buenos Aires L_| Caracas (_]} Hong Kong {CJ London (_} Madrid (_] Mexico City L_) Paris {_) Rome [| Tel Aviv )IRECTORS APPEARANCE BEFORE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES, DECEMBER 10, 1975 . Retention’ For appropriate {_] For information "Jj optional ([j action (CJ Surep, by (7) The enclosed is for your information. If used in a future report, [7] conceal all sources, [_]} paraphrase contents. ((] Enclosed are corrected pages from report of SA dated . Remork ss ReButel to all SACs and Legats, 12/10/75. Enclosed for each Office and Legat is pne copy of the transcript of questions which vere asked 4 ley during captioned appearance, nlong with Mr,/ARelley's answers to those questions. oo 09-29 S7-G5fr SEARCHED . INDEXED ....+66 SERIALIZED 22, FILED . 7 - JANZ 1976 Bufile “ FRI — ATLANTA Urfile - . , NW 54959 pofta: Adsboabs Page 347
i (Re To: SAC: (Copies to @: Checked) (_} Albany (L} Houston . (_j Oklahoma City ss LEGAT: {-j Albuquerque [(] Indianapolis ([] Omaha - -(-] Bern ("}] Mexandria = (—] Jackson (-j Philadelphia [=] Bonn CL} Anchorage ~~} Jacksonville {_] Phoenix () Brasilia fj Atlanta (} Kansas City (_] Pittsburgh [7] Buenos Aires __] Baitimore (__] Knoxville (_] Portland [} Caracas {] Bimningham [_] Las Vegas {_]} Richmond [—] Hong Kong Boston {_] Little Rock (_? Sacramento () London {_} Buffalo {_] Los Angeles St. Louis ("1 Madrid {_] Butte . (_] Louisville (_] Sait Lake City (_] Manila ™™] Charlotte {__} Memphis {_} San Antonio L_] Mexico City [_} Chicago L_] Miami ((] San Diego [_j Ottawa C_] Cincinnati [_} Milwaukee C] San Francisco C1 Paris {_] Cleveland L_] Minneapolis {_] San Juan [_] Rome {_] Dallas (_] Newark [_] Seattle CI Tel Aviv {_j Denver New ITaven C_] Springfield (_} Tokyo {_] Detroit ~] New Orleans Tampa (_] El Paso {_] New York City [7] Washington Field {_] Honolulu (_] Norfolk [7] Quantico ; 11/21/75 RE: SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE Date AVIS ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES : Retention For appropriate (7) For information ‘TJ optional (7) action {—j Surep, by C7} The enclosed is for your information. If used in a future report, [7] conceal all sources, [—} paraphrase contents. (7] Enclosed are corrected pages from report of SA dated . Remarks: ‘Enclosed for your information is a copy of an article by Mr. William Safire entitled "Mr. Church's Cover-[Jjg" that appeared in the November 20, es, issue of "The New York Times." ‘Ge Cot buter MM — TVY-2 NDEXED wed eel . SERIALIZED Ene (1) HO; FOS Bufile FBI—ATLANTA _ lirfile : F nO ee ee MW 54959 Doold: 32969498 Page 346
aes By William Safire WASHINGON, Nov. 19-—On Oct. 10, 1963, the then-Attorney General of the United States put his personal signa- ture on a document that launched and legitimatized one of the most horren- dous abuses of Federal police power in this century. In Senator Frank Church’s subcom- mittee hearing room this week, the authorized wiretapping and subse- quent unauthorized bugging and at- tempted blackmailing of Martin Luther King Jr. is being gingerly examined, with the “investigation” conducted in such a way as not to unduly em- barrass officials of the Kennedy or Johnson Administrations. With great care, the committee has focused on the F.B.I. Yesterday, whenr the committee counsel first set forth the result of shuffling through press clips, it seemed as if no Justice De-, partment had existed in 1962; today. an F.B.I. witness pointed out that it was Kobert Kennedy who authorized the wiretap of Dr. King, and that “the President of the United. States and the Attorney General specifically discussed their concern cf Communist influence with Dr. King.” But the Church committee showed no zest for getting further to the Ken- nedy root of this precedent to Water- gate eavesdrepping. If Senator Church were willing to let the chips fall where they may, he would call some knowl- edgeable witnesses into the giare of the camera lights and ask them some questions that have gone unasked for thirteen years. For example, he could call Nicholas <atzenbach, Attorney Gencral Ken- nedy’s deputy and successor, and ask what he knows of the Kennedy de- cision to wixetap Dr, King. Who at Justice concurred in the recommenda- tion? How does the F.B.I. know the 4 President was consulted or informed? After Mr. Katzenbach assumed of- fice, and the wiretapping continued, he was told by angry newsmen that the F.B.I. was leaking scurrilous in- formation about Dr. King. Why did he wait for four months, and for a thou- sand telephonic interceptions, to dis. continue the officially approved tap? Of course, this sort of testimony would erade Senator Church’s political base. That is why we do not see for- mer Assistant F.B.1. director Cartha {Deke) Deloach, Lyndon Johnson’s personal contact with the F.B.I in the witness chair, What did President Johnscn knew about the character- assassination plec and when did he Know it? What conversations toct: place between Mr. Deloach and Presi- deni Johnsor on {hr tapping of Dr. Ring, or about the use af the EBA. io any other intrasisas into the lives of patitical eures? MW 54959 Boold: 328094995 OVET-UD seer The committee is not asking embatr- rassing questions even when answers are readily available. A couple of weeks ago, at an open hearing, an F.B.I. man inadvertently started to blurt out an episode about newsmen who were weritapping in 1962 With, .the apparent knowledge of Attorney General Kennedy. The too-willing wit: ness was promptly shoasned into si- lence, and told that such information! would be developed only in executive - session. Nobody raised an eyebrow. That pattern of containment by the Church committee is vividly shown by the handling of the buggings at the 1964: Republican and Democratic con- ESSAY Ce eenneeanemeees a ventions which were ordered by Lyn- don Johnson. Such invasions of politi- cal headquarters were worse than the crime committed at Watergate, sirice they involved the use of the 'F.B.I., but the Church investigators seem to be determinet! not to-probe-too deeply. If F.B.1. documents say that reports were made to specific Johnson aides, why are those men not given the same opportunity to publicly tell their story so avidly given the next Presi- dené’s men? If Lyndon Johnson com- mitted this impeachable high crime of using the F.B.J. to spy on political opponents, who can be brought for- ward to tell us all about it? But that would cause embarrass- ment to Democrats, and Senator Church wants to embarrass profes- sional employees of investigatory agencies only. A new sense of Con- gressional decorum exists, far from the sense of outrage expressed in the Senate Watergate committee’s hear- ing room. When it is revealed that the management of NBC News gave press credentials to L.B.J.’s spies at the 1964 convention, everybody blushes demure-, ly—and nobody demands to know. which neiwork executive made what? decision under what pressure. i I have been haranguing patient’ readers fer years about the doubie ) standard applied to Demecratic and’ Republican political crimes, and bed heaped the day would come when the hardball preeedenis set by the Ken- nedy and Jolinson men would be laid befure the public in damning detail. Obviously, Democrat Frank Charch is not the man to do it. His jowi- shaking indignation is all tea stlec- tive: the trail ot high-ievel reenonsi- bility for rhe crimes comm:t.ed -gainst Dr. King and otbers is evidently gcing to he allowed re cool. Pity, Youd thinks thio after all the nation has been through in the past few years, ovr political 'caaers woubl have learned that the one thee, that arngs vou down is tee act of cover- ings up. vine merce AS Page 349 THE THURSDAY, NOVEM PAGE C-41 Tay Dk NEW YORK TIMES R
FD-350 (Rev. 7-16-63) (Indicate page, name of newspaper, aeyene state.) _ PAGE 1, 6 __ NOW. 28, 1975 Classification: Submitting Office: Cj Being Investigated SEARCHED INDEXED .. 9... SERIALIZED FLED. «62. . JAN 12 1976 FBI ~—- AILAWTA
Cmewerenemaneansnty By Cindy Jaquith . - WASHINGTON—The FBI was placed on _ trial this week as congressional committees _ held public hearings on the secret Cointelpro operations. The verdict in the minds of ’ millions of Americans was “Guilty.” Confronted by. testimony from victims of its secret war against the rights of the American! people, and questioned’ sharply by hostilet members of Congress, FBI representatives ’ could offer nothing but the most feeble justifi- cations for their massive campaign of disrup- | tion against the civil rights, antiwar, women’s, and socialist movements. The Senate Select'Committee on Intelligence - ‘ made public new documentary proof of the . FBI’s attacks on’ Martin Luther King, includ- ing plans made against the Black leader just a few days before his assassination.’ According to committee counsel F.A.O. Schwarz, the bureau’s goal was to “discredit or destroy” King. In November. 1964, FBI agents tried to force t King to commit suicide by sending him an ) ‘anonymous letter along with a tape recording j | classewtns afro it hoped would humiliate him. “King, there is only one thing left for you to do... . You are done. ‘There is but one way out for you,” the — note said. The revelation of this operation adds sub- stantial new evidence to the widespread belief that the FBI was involved in the assassination | of King four years later. Continued on page & lav sasss Dooid: 32989498 Page 351 nanan nen EERE SRE ENA
— W495 ogTd: 32989498 .Schwarz emphasized that the FBI illegal activity by King. . In addition, the committee said, the FBI established a network of 7,500 “ghetto informants” in the late 1960s. The investigators also made public documents detailing extensive spying on a group called the Women’s Libera- tion Movement in Baltimore, which the FBI described as “a group therapy session with young women who were For. editorial on King assassination, Seei page 70. either lonely or confined to the home ‘with small children, getting together to talk out their problems.” At hearings sponsored by the House Select Committee on Intelligence on November 18, FBI officials were con- fronted by Socialist Workers party presidential candidate Peter Camejo and other victims of government disruption efforts, invited by the com- meee to testify on the crimes of the BI. In response to questioning, the FBI officials were forced to concede that | he SWP does not advocate violence, that it does not engage in illegal acts, iand that there is no law authorizing he FBI to continue its harassment and disruption under the guise of “investigating” the party. ° The SWP and the Young Socialist Alliance have filed a $27 million suit against the FBI and other government agencies charging ):.em with burglary, wiretapping, bombing, police infiltra- tion, and harassment of individual members, The government has justi- fied its spying on the SWP on the grounds that the’ SWP is “subversive.” Preview of trial The lawsuit is scheduled to come to trial sometime in 1976. The November 18, hearings may preview what this unprecedented trial will be like. ‘The FBI had their chance today to justify why they have spied on the SWP ever since its founding in 1938,” said Syd Stapleton, national secretary of the Political Rights Defense Fund. The PRDF is organizing support for the suit” anarnontnnne Page hat Wyotone shred of evidence of any shred of evidence that the SWPis. “Heating room. _ “These officials could not produce a guilty of any crimes,” Stapleton ex- plained. “Their testimony proved our case—that they are the guilty ones, guilty of trying to destroy a legal political party.” __Testifying on harassment of social- ists, in addition to Camejo, were Lori Paton, who was investigated for writ- ing a letter to the SWP as part of a high school project, and Kathy Sledge, a member of the Seattle YSA whom the FBI tried to get fired. Robert Silver- man, a Chicago businessman who once employed an SWP member, told the committee of FBI attempts to get the socialist employee fired. - All these incidents happened after 1971, when the FBI supposedly ended its attempts at disruption of the SWP and YSA, , The committee also heard from FBI provocateur Robert Hardy, who helped stage the Camden 28 draft board raid; and Marcus Raskin, codirector of the Institute for Policy Studies, another victim of FBI spying. Former agent testifies Another - witness was former FBI Rep. Andrew Young (D-Ga.). Murtaugh testified that he had been ordered to obtain handwriting samples of asso- ciates of King, including Andrew Young, and to obtain copies of station- ery and envelopes of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. { Appearing at the hearings to defend! these crimes were James Adams and W. Raymond .Wannall, top FBI offi- cials. : . “Your rationale for investigating the SWP would be based either on a violation of law or a threat’ to the United States?” asked committee coun- sel A. Searle Field. “Yes,” -replied Wannall. “Tn the last thirty years you’ve found no violations by the SWP. Could you say the same about the Democratic? and Republican parties?” demanded’ Field, as laughter broke out in the \ b 352 Ominously, “the FBI claimed, the right to investigate groups that, in its “opinion, might advocate terrorism or ' other illegal acts in the future. - Some people, FBI official Adams warned, ‘ “publicly state that they consider terrorist activity ‘counterpro- ductive’ in today’s political climate.; Nevertheless, they by no means re-! nounce its use at the right moment to attain their political objectives.” This is the FBI’s cheap argument in the SWP’s suit: that the party only “pretends” to oppose terrorism, but is secretly plotting violence “when the time is right.” This slander-wag ripped to shreds at the hearings by Camejo and the Majority of members of the House f committee. _ ; “ “For thirty years you’ve been follow- \ ‘ agent Arthur Murtaugh, who testified . ‘ about the harassment of King and-of
perenne? + eo. . ing these people. Why do you stay after them if you don’t have any convic- tions?” asked Rep. James Johnson (R- Colo.) impatiently. “We have no evidence of a statutory violation,” admitted Adamis. But, he “insisted, “we feel that when an organi- ization states publicly that they don’t lengage in violence, but also states to its members, ‘Wait until the time is right,’ . . . we feel we have to monitor that situation.” The SWP, he suggested, might be- come “violent” in the event of “a hostile attack by the Soviet Union or others.” / “Are you aware that SWP members have never advocated Violence?” asked counsel Field. He went on to point out that provisions of the Smith Act, which miade it illegal to advocate jrevolutionary change, have long been {ruled unconstitutional by the USS. Supreme Court. “So you're continuing to surveil “under ‘something that’s been ruled unconstitutional?” hé demanded. __ “We surveil on the basis of activity in which [the SWP] has engaged,” replied Wannall. “Has it engaged in any activities that are violent . ?” asked Field. “Not violent,” said Wannaill. | Camejo responded to the “terrorist” charge. “The FBI knows what our real position is,” he told the committee. That position is to win the majority of the American people over to the need to replace the capitalist system with socialism. “The Declaration of Independence says we have a right to do that,” he noted. “After we win a continued, “we do not intend to use violence.” Those who will use blood- shed, he predicted, are “a small minori- ty,” the capitalist class. | “What more could we ask than that | we be treated like any other party, and that the Watergating of my campaign be ended?” he finished. majority,” he NW 54959 Doclid: 32989496 Revolution of 1776 The only member of Congress to attack Camejo was Rep. Robert McClo- ry (R-Ill.) who bristled at the socialist’s examples from the American Revolu- » tion. McClory asked Camejo if he favored “violent” revolutions like those in 1776 and 1861, Camejo offered the representative a short lesson in history. “The American people chose in 1776 that they didn’t want taxation“ without representa- tion... . There was a tyranny that was opposed to that. There was a revolution. The entire nation is cele- brating it next year,” he concluded, as spectators and reporters laughed. At the end of the hearing, the committee offered the FBI a chance to rebut the testimony of victims. Hoping to avoid putting his foot in his mouth once again, Wannall declined to take up the charges of the SWP, claiming he couldn’t comment on a matter in litigation. “I think thé courts them- selves are going to make the decision” as to whether the FBI is going to continue to spy on the SWP, he said. - Pressed to justify his contention that the SWP does pose a threat “to national security,” Wannall said, “It’s my recollection that Leon Trotsky established the Fourth International in 1988 and the party here in the United States was established at the same time. .. party that follows the doctrine of | Marxism-Leninism as interpreted by | Leon Trotsky.” The SWP, as Camejo had explained, is in fraternal solidarity with the world Trotskyist movement, the Fourth Inter- national, but is not affiliated with it because of the reactionary Voorhis Act. Deiiums accuses FBI Rep. Ronald Dellums (D-Calif.) point- ed this out and blasted Wannall for trying to use this excuse. “As I, understand, the SWP was affiliated. with the Fourth International back in! the late 1930s which was not illegal,” " he said. Srperenpnrrmmcets Page 353 . I regard [the SWP] as a they disaffiliated,” he explained. This fact “flies in the face of your justifica- tion for surreptitious entries, wiretaps, and all the rest under the absurd nemenclature of Cointelpro!” Dellums went on to accuse the FBI of burglarizing the SWP, citing the 1971 break-in at the Detroit office of the party. A letter stolen in that burglary later appeared in ci¥il service files and was used to harass a former member of the SWP seeking a job. Wannall stonewalled the question, claiming he had “no knowledge” of : FBI involvement in the break-in and that “there is nothing” in the files on ' the matter. Rep. Philip Hayes (D-Ind.) told Wannall he was incensed that a legal political organization should be dis- rupted solely because of the ‘ideas it advocates. As the hearings drew to a close, one of the FBI’s few friends on the commit- tee that day, Rep. Dale Milford (D-Tex.) glumly summed up the demoralizing events of the day. “The FBI,” he sadly; predicted, “is probably going to flunk: out as a TV star on tonight’s news.” - nena enemeniee) ! “With the passage of the Voorhis.Act_. [ ; ‘
sae RATS po ye” ee ite “Al oy eis ‘ete Bf em x ai we ¢3 4 Me PEA ve 3 riaptyrestss eae aN ig vee ee x a SBOE PS eh Ore atk. Pt ey AN Re Be lest EO RNS ARON eeu 5 quiet he BAS es a BENS Sen eRe ER Srey tes A Se. Beene ABE Mie ees me len 4 Fs ¥ te is Yee Me Wy y ® ¥, . : fh Wp es. & | cee Rd BE Steen A CRE aa OG atten ree Martin Luther King and co-workers at Memphis motel day be -assassin's bullet struck. New evidence of FBI’s plots against King points to government role in murder. ‘ uy ne Wasa . eee * mal Cemeemarmengannets oa 2 NW 34959 Doocld: 32909498 Page 354
Under questi MW 54959 Docld: Saanaega ane branernnal Ran “s ices jae - ad WittanuGi Peter Camejo, Socialist Workers party presidential candidate, details-FBI attempts to_ disrupt Black and socialist movements. To his left is Lori Paton, who was investigated by FBI because she wrote to SWP for high school research project. & . > tan a a eee OK ee Muitant/Cindy Jaquith gain irom House Intelligence Committee, FBI men were forced to 2 ck vocate violencé or _ennade in iNanal arts ennensmmen
Routing Slip (Copies to Offices Checked) O-7 (Rev. 12-17 6 TO! SAC: TO LEGAT fi Albany (Cj Houston (J Oklahoma City C7} Beirut . mJ] Albuquerque [77 Indianapolis Omaha C7] Bern “1 Alexandria ey Jackson (_} Philadelphia {"] Bonn rT Atichorage i__} Jacksonville Phoenix {-] Brasilia ul Atlenta Cj} Kansas City 7) Pittsburgh {_] Buenos Aires a) Baltimore =| Birmingham (Lj Knoxville Las Vegas {—} Port] and {_} Richmond L_] Caracas (-] Hong Kong Boston 7} Little Rock Sacramento a | Buffalo to Los Angeles i St. Louis = London (_1 Butie (7? Louisviile (_]j Salt Lake City (_] Manila r—} Charlotte (_] Memphis ((} San Antonio [| Mexico City ri Chicago (i Miami (C] San Diego {_] Ottawa rT} Cincinnati (_] Milwaukee (_] San Francisco (_] Paris a Cleveland {__] Minneapolis LC} San Juan (—] Rome ry Columbia EC Mobile CO Savannah C4 Singapore ft} Delias {_] Newark (_] Seattle’ {—j Tel Aviv LI Denver _| New Haven LJ Springficld [_] Tokyo c_} Detroi {7 New Orleans ij Tampa {1} Ei Paso (] New York City ] Washington Field (7 Honolulu m1 Norfolk (3 Quantico 1/5 re: DIRECTOR'S APPEARANCE pate _ 1/5/76 BEFORE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES DECEMBER 10, 1975 CL -2¥8Y-87 . SEARCHED ...,.9. INDEXE! . Retention For appitpriteeD ex FILED For information ‘"} optional ([[7] action [ (a Shipp, b a 2) _ The enclosed is for vour information. If ubed in a futsire renextyy ‘{_] conce al all sources, [7 } paraphrase contents. 7 Enclosed are corrected pages from report f SA “dated By routing slip dated 12/30/75 and captioned as above, all SACs and Legats were furnished a copy of the transcript of Mr. Kelley's 12/10/75 appearance+before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities. Although the data contained in the transcriot may be made available to news media representatives, used in answering questions received from citizens, and other- wise treated as being of a public-source nature, the transcript itself should not be reproduced for, or given to, anyone ou ey, 3 e the wD - CochViwr & re PY ty De Bufile Remarks: Urtile AR A-C NW sacsdF pocras 9498 i
Routhiystip 0-7 (Rev. 7- TO: SAC: C Albany (_} Aibuquerque {—j Alexsndria (_j Anchorage Atlanta Baltimore (_J Birmingham (_} Boston (_) Buffalo Cj Butte [_j Charlotte [_] Chicago {_] Cincinnati (_} Cleveland “| Columbia rr {_} Detroit 7] El Paso (-} Honolulu ; RE: 11-75) Copies {~J Houston {1} Indianapolis {_] Jackson {__} Jacksonville {_] Kansas City C_J Knoxville (_) Las Vegas (] Little Rock CJ Los Angeles (_} Louisville C_] Memphis (_j Miami L_} Milwaukee {_] Minneapolis (_] Mobile (C] Newark L_] New Haven New Orleans [_] New York City (_] Norfolk r “fices Checked) i] Cklahoma City Omaha t— Philadelphia {_.] Phoenix Cj Pittsburgh C_] Porand (_} Richmond Sacramento _ St. Leuis f—] Salt Lake City {_} San Antonio [Cj San Diego San Francisco {_J San Juan (_] Savannah [_] Seattle (_] Springficld {_] Tampa Cj Quantico DateDecember 4, 1975 HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE Retention oO For information (_] optional (7) The enclosed is for your in? rormation. If used in a future report, [7] conceal all * sources, [_]j paraphrase contents. Por appropriate Tj action C3 & (Cj Enclosed are corrected pages from report of SA dated Remark s: [_} Washington Field urep, by —____. 0 LEGAT: (ci Bern {7} Bona CJ Brasilia {~] Buenos Aires {_"j Caracas Lj Hong Kong (Cy Juondon (_] Madrid CJ Manila Cj Mexico City [_j Ottawa (~_] Paris L_} Rome {_j Tel Aviv (_] Tokyo For your assistance in responding to local press inquiries, attached is a copy of unedited excerpted remarks by Assistant to the Director-~Deputy Associate Director James B. Adams while testifying before the Senate Select Committee on 12/2/75, concerning anti-FBI allegations made by Gary Rowe, former FBI informant. Bufile Urfile | l Bre. (1) 4 Ac AN NW 54959 PDoolId: 32989498 “C2 FILED pacaee
EXCERPTS OF REMARKS MADE BY ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR -- DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR JAMES B. ADAMS TESTIFYING BEFORE THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE PERTAINING TO THE KU KLUX KLAN, GARY ROWE, FORMER FBI INFORMANT, AND PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS OF THE FBI TO PREVENT VIOLENCE DECEMBER 2, 1975 MW 34959 Doold: 32959496 Page 356
QUESTION: MR. ADAMS : -+..you do use informants and do instruct them to spread dissention among certain groups that they are informing on, do you not? We did when we had the COINTEL programs which were discontinued in 1971, and I think the Klan is probably one of the best examples of a situation where the law was ineffective at the time. We heard the term, State's Rights used much more than we hear today. We saw with the Little Rock situation the President of the United States sending in the troops pointing out the necessity to use local law enforcement. We must have local law enforcement use the troops only as a last resort. When you have a situation like this where you do try to preserve the respective roles in law enforcement, you have historical problems. With the Klan coming along, we had situations where the FBI and the Federal Government was almost powerless to act. We had local law enforcement officers in some areas participating in Klan violence. The incidents mentioned by Mr. Rowe--everyone of those he saw them from the lowest level--the informant. He didn't see what action was taken with that information as he pointed out during his testimony. Our files show that this information was reported to the police departments in every instance. We also know that in certain instances the infor- mation upon being received was not being acted upon. We also disseminated simultaneously through letterhead MW 34959 Doocld: 329594969 Page 355
QUESTION: MR. ADAMS: memorandum to the Department of Justice the problem. And here we were--the FBI--in a position where we had no authority in the absence of an instruction from the Department of Justice to make an arrest. Section 241 and 242 don't cover it because you don't have evidence of a conspiracy. It ultimately resulted in a situation where the Department called in U. S. Marshals who do have authority similar to local law enforcement officials. So historically, in those days, we were just as frustrated as anyone else was, that when we got information from someone like Mr. Rowe--good information, reliable information--and it was passed on to those who had the responsibility to do something about it, it was not always acted upon as he indicated. In none of these cases, then, there was adequate evidence of conspiracy to give you jurisdiction to act. The Departmental rules at that time, and still do, require Departmental approval where you have a conspiracy. Under 241, it takes two or more persons acting together. You can have a mob scene and you can have blacks and whites belting each other, but unless you can show that those that initiated the action acted in concert, in a conspiracy, you have no violation. Congress recognized this and it wasn't until 1968 that they came along and added Section 245 to the Civil Rights Statute which added punitive measures against an -~-2- MW 54959 Docld: 32999496 Page 360
QUESTION: MR ADAMS: QUESTION: MR. ADAMS: NW 34959 Doold: 3259589496 Page 361 individual. There didn't have to be a conspiracy. This was a problem that the whole country was grappling with-- the President of the United States, Attorneys General--we were in a situation where we had rank lawlessness taking place. As you know from the memorandum we sent you that we sent to the Attorney General the accomplishments we were able to obtain in preventing violence and in neutralizing the Klan and that was one of the reasons. -.-.-A local town meeting on a controversial social issue might result in disruption. It might be by hecklers rather than by those holding the meeting. Does this mean that the Bureau should investigaté all groups organizing or participating in such meetings because they may result in violent government disruption? No sir, and we don't.... Isn't that how you justify spying on almost every aspect of the peace movement? No sir. When we monitor demonstrations, we monitor demonstrations where we have an indication that the demonstration itself is sponsored by a group that we have an investigative interest in, a valid investigative interest in, or where members of one of these groups are participating where there is a potential that they might change the peaceful nature of the demonstration. This is our closest question of trying to draw guidelines to avoid getting into an area of infringing on the lst Amendment right, yet at the same time, being
aware of groups such as we have had in greater numbers in the past than we do at the present time. We have had periods where the demonstrations have been rather severe and the courts have said that the FBI has the right, and indeed the duty, to keep itself informed with respect to the possible commission of crime. It is not obliged to wear blinders until it may be too late for prevention. Now that's a good statement if applied in a clear-cut case. Our problem is where we have a demonstration and we have to make a judgment call as to whether it is one that clearly fits the criteria of enabling us to monitor the activities. That's where I think most of our disagree- ments fall. QUESTION: In the Rowe Case, in the Rowe testimony that we just heard, what was the rationale again for not intervening when violence was known about. I know we have asked this several times--I'm still having trouble understanding what the rationale, Mr. Wannall, was in not intervening in the Rowe Situation when violence was known. MR. WANNALL: Senator Schweiker, Mr. Adams did address himself to that and if you have no objections, I'll ask that he be the one to answer the question. | MR. ADAMS: The problem we had at the time, and it is the problem | today, we are an investigative agency; we do not have police powers even like the U. S. Marshals do. The Marshals MW 34959 Doocld: 32959496 Page 362
NW 34959 Doold: 325959496 Page 363 since about 1795 I guess, or some period like that, had authorities that almost border on what a sheriff has. We are the investigative agency of the Department of Justice, and during these times the Department of Justice had us maintain the role of an investigative agency. We were to report on activities. We furnished the information to the local police who had an obligation to act. We furnished it to the Department of Justice in those areas where the local police did not act. It resulted finally in the Attorney General sending 500 U. S. Marshals down to guarantee the safety of people who were trying to march in protest of their civil rights. This was an extraordinary measure because it came at a time of Civil Rights versus Federal Rights and yet there was a breakdown in law enforcement in certain areas of the country. This doesn't mean to indict all law enforcement agencies in the South at the time either, because many of them did act upon the information that was furnished to them. But we have no authority to make an arrest on the spot because we would not have had evidence that was a conspiracy available. We could do absolutely nothing in that regard. In Little Rock the decision was made, for instance, that if any arrests need to be made, the Army should make them. And next to the Army, the U. S. Marshals should make them--not the FBI, even though we developed the violations. We have over the years as you know at the