104-10337-10002] FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY LZ 25 August 1993 NOTE FOR: All HRG Members SUBJECT: Briefing of HPSCI on Denied JFK Documents This is to let everyone know that HRG has been asked to brief the HPSCI staff on the 10,000 pages of JFK materials that we have denied in full (so far). The request came from HPSCI Chairman Dan Glickman, who apparently anticipates questions from others in Congress about the denied documents. Among the questions we are asked to address in the briefing are the following: - How many documents are involved (as opposed to pages)? ~ What specific types of sources and methods are we protecting? - What is the review process? ~ Who made the judgments to deny the documents? ~ Are there provisions for continuing review of the denied documents? We've asked that the briefing not take place until the week of 30 August, but HPSCI may want it sooner. John F. Pereira FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
13-00000 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 26 August 1993 CIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONS HPSCI BRIEFING OUTLINE RELEASE IN FULL 2000 JFK ASSASSINATION RECORDS I. Overview: CIA declassification program for JFK records - Sequestered files and Oswald 201 file ~ Total JFK records: Hardcopy documents: 162,000 pages Cisca enaltare\ Ratha 2 los Microfilm: 73 reels, 150, 000 pages II. Resources devoted to JFK Number of people: 15. HRG (9 staffers, 6 retirees) ° 25 indexers (overtime, weekends) 10 DO for coordination Iii. Documents Released: Oswald 35,000 pages “ ~ Sequestered files 90,000 pages” Total 125,000 pages ~ Indexing and identification forms for each document Show example of,iden form Withheld temporarily: HSCA-originated: 20,000 pages Third Agency 7,000 pages Denied-in-full - Continuing review of the DIF documents by HRG ~ Likelihood CIA will release a number (many ?) of DIF - Review Board's determination on DIF items SAN - aren) Fur Pome \
13-00000 IV. VI. VII. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Identification forms provided to NARA for each DIF Document Types of information protected in DIF items - Grounds for postponement of information under JFK Law Who made judgments on withholding documents 15 reviewers Followed procedures Senior Reviewers provided guidance Directorates coordinated Third agency coordination Issues for Review Board FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
13-00000 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY CIA SPECIAL CQIgeitenbLONS 3 HPSCI BRIEFING OUTLINE _ RELEASE IN PULL JFK ASSASSINATION RECORDS Introduction: Discuss how CIA fulfilled requirements of the . JFK Act... -Discuss the withheld documents General Remarks 1. Every JFK record will be seen by the Review Board. 2. We have fcllowed the JFK Assassination Records Act in determining which records will be postponed. (Section 6) - Our presumption was that a record would be released. 3. We made every effort to meet the 22 August deadline established by the JFK Act. The Director was committed to this. ssid. «This called for a major efrort--additional people, lot of overtime and weekend shifts. ‘ §. We are continuing to review the postponed documents, and expect to release a high percentage of them. AREHEMNFESoeE
13-00000 23 January 1996. CIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONS - Memo for Record RELEASE IN FULL Subject: - Status of JFK Records Review 2000 References: Letter from Marwell to Pereira, dtd 15 Dec 96, (same subject); Letter from Pereira to Marwell, dtd 19 Jan 96, (response to above letter); , Phone Conversation with Marwell, 22 Jan 96, (same subject) . 1. Marwell requested a figure for the number of records in the sequestered files that contained postponements. I explained that our review figures were based on pages and that there was no record count for the microfilm part of the collection. However, based on the HRG index unaudited record count (see below) of the Oswald 201 file and the JFK hardcopy boxes, I was able to give him an estimate of 28,000 records. 2. Unaudited HRG Index statistics: Total Records Records w/Postponements ‘Oswald. - 4,349 © 0 00 ST, 871 JFK (63 boxes) 28,532 oo 12,132 32,881 (154,724 pages) 14,003 The page count for the hardcopy part of the collection is within 10,000 pages of the Microfilm (163,500). Given that the microfilm contains many duplicates and similar records as the hardcopy, the percentage of sanitized documents should be close to the same. I estimate the total number of records with postponements to be approximately 28,000.
13-00000 | ne CONFIDENTIAL h. NOTE FOR: FROM: “John F. Pereira DATE: 03/27/96 05:54:53 PM SUBJECT: Phone Conversation with Susan Oullette, HPSCI As you requested, | called Susan Oullette, HPSCI Staff teday to respond to her questions about JFK Assassination records. She said that the Committee was interested in the process used for declassifying the records, the status of our review, and what criteria we use for declassification. Following are among the main topics we covered during a discussion of about 10 minutes on the STU-Ill: - A description of the JFK records held by CIA - Process of declassification (review by retired senior officers, coordination with DO, OGC, others) - Criteria for redaction - Coordination with FBI, other agencies on third agency documents. - Presidentially-appointed JFK Assassination Records Review Board — -- Differences with the Board on release of certain information a.g., names of former employees, identification of stations -- Current appeal te the White House of decision by Board to release certain information we redacted. Efforts of the Board to identify additional records, including in other countries sree ae Susan said that she may have enough information for now, but she would let me know if more would be needed. | invited her to visit us if she wanted more details or to look at the records. Ce: Brian S. Latell, J. Barry Harrelson, Fred Wickham @ 00 CONFIDENTIAL
13-00000 © “ ” CONFIDENTIAL EVENT: QUICK COM DATE: 03/27/96 TIME: 1500 ’ PLACE: 7BOO HQS STATUS: X - KEY: C/96-05672 FOR: HPSCI SUBJ: JFK ASSASSINATION DOCUMENTS RESPONSIBLE OFFICER:| _ L SECURE: 3-9940 -~~-> (PARTICIPANTS) <--- ASSOC NAME ROLE STAPF OQUELLETTE, SUSAN MARY (HPSCI) CIA PEREIRA, JOHN (DCI/CSI) BRFR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In response to a request from HPSCI staffer Susan OQuellettee, John Pereira, Chief of the Center for the Study of Intelligence's Historical Review Group, called her to discuss staff questions. Attached is his memo of that ‘telecon. QUOTE: --f called Susan Ouellette, HPSCI Staff today to respond to her questions about JFK Assassination records. She said that the Committee was interested in the process used for declassifying the records, the status of our review, and what criteria we use for declassification. Following are among the main topics we covered during a discussion of about 10 minutes on the STU-III: ~ A description of the JFK records held by CIA ; - Process of declassification (review by retired senior officers, coordination with DO, OGC, others) - Criteria for redaction - Coordination with FBI, other agencies on third agency documents. ~ Presidentially-appointed JFK Assassination Records Review Board . - - Differences with the Board on release of certain information e.g., names of former employees, identification of stations - - Current appeal to the White House of decision by Board to release certain information we redacted.
13-00000 | ~ - - Efforts of the Board to identify additional records, including in other countries Susan said that she may have enough information for now, but she would let me know if more would be needed. I invited her to visit us if she wanted more details or to look at the records. END QUOTE SUPPORTING TEAT: no further text in this document ' (U) 28 March 1996 on ~ Distribution: DCI/CSI DO/ORMS DDI OGC OCA RES chrono CL BY 620119 \ ” CL REASON 1.5C DECL ON X1 DRV FM HUM 4-82 CONFIDENTIAL
13-00000 . . vo . SECRET From the Desk of [Richard E. Schroedéy-C- NOTE FOR: John Pereira @b0 FROM: (Richard E. Schroeder/C- DATE: 03/28/96 01:19:41 PM SUBJECT: HPSCI Request for staff brief on JFK assassination HPSCI staffer Susan Quellette liked John Pereira’s 27 Mar 96 telecon on the JFK assassination issue (see attached note) so much that she'd like to schedule a staff brief for sometime in the next two weeks. She'd like the brief to concentrate on two issues mentioned by John in the telecon: --Differences with the Beard on release of certain info (names of former employees, identification of stations), and -Current appeal to the White House of decesion of Board to release certain infe we redacted. Defer to John and D0 addees to work out who'll brief (see separate note from poormg Bill McNair.) Ouellette suggests c. 1000 either Apr 2, 3, or 4, or Apr 9, 10, 11 since HPSCI recess schedule is pretty open. Jolin, pis advise your timing preference. Thanks. C9605672.D0C ce: Brian Latell Barry Harrelson Fred Wickham @ 00 William McNair @ DO (Virginia B: OKUM @ DO eae a Montgomery Regers SECRET
13-00000 MEMORANDUM FOR: Attendees at the meeting with HPSI Members on Wed: Date yf ) VO FORK 161 USE PREVIGUS - - - : 5-75 €orrions *U.S. GPO: 1989-253-195/00416
13-00000 | ie oe SECRET TQ: _John Pereira FROM: DATE: 7: SUBJECT: [ Re: HPSCi Request for staff brief on JFK assassination HPSCI staffer Susan Ouellette liked John Pereira's 27 Mar 96 telecon on the JFK assassination issue (see attached note) so much that she'd like to schedule a staff brief for sometime in the next two weeks. She'd like the brief to concentrate on twa issues mentioned by — John in the telecon: ~Differences with the Board on release of certain info (names of former employees, identification of stations), and Current appeal ta the White House of decesion of Board to release certain info we redacted. Defer to John and 00 addees to work out who'll brief (see separate note from DO/ORMS fe Bill McNair.) Ouellette suggests c. 1000 either Apr 2, 3, or 4 or Apr & 10, 11 since HPSCI recess schedule is pretty open. John, pls advise your timing preference. Thanks. C9605672.D0C I've now confirmed our briefing for HPSCI at 1030 Weds 10 April. Pls fet me know who will attend for CSI and the DO. Thanks. OCA van will depart from OHB Main Entrance at 1000. RES 1255/3AprS6. CC: Brian L ili air @ DO, (Virginia B. OKUM;@ DO, Montgomery Rogers SECRET
13-00000 | “ 8 “ ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY CS BF OS erg From the Desk ff sD Ce E ae 3 dy NOTE FOR: John F. Pereira — J. Barry Harrelson FROM: DATE: 04/09/96 01:51:24 PM SUBJECT: HPSCI talking points Thought you may be interested in seeing in advance an outline of what | plan to say at the HPSCI briefing. Of course, | will be ready to alter this according to the circumstances of the meeting! Talking Points I. Statutory Authorities of the JFK Board 1. The JFK Act states that all government records relating to the JFK assassination should carry a presumption of immediate disclosure and that all records will eventually be disclosed. Although the Act allows for the postponement of release of certain information, all records will be disclosed in full by “2017 iinless the President certifies that protection is still necessary. 2. Under the JFK Act, the JFK Board determines what is an "assassination record" and whether an assassination record qualifies for postponement. The Board has the power to direct a government agency to make available to it, not only assassination records, but additional information which it believes is necessary to fullfill its duties under the Act. It has has the power to request the Attorney General to subpoena private persons, records and other information relevant to its responsibilities under the Act. , II. Appeal Procedures set out in JFK Act 1. Once Board has determined whether a record shall be released or postponed, it must send a "Notification Letter" to the head of the agency (DCI) 2. Only recourse for an agency that disagrees with Board determination is to appeal to the President. 3. The President has 30 days from the date of the Notification Letter to reply to appeal a. White House asks that agencies submit any ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
13-00000 © ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY appeals within 7 days of receiving Notification Letter 4. CIA has never before presented an appeal to the | President; FBI presented an appeal last year but the White House told the parties to work out their difficulties. III. February 8th Appeal 1. In November and December of 1995, the JFK Board notified DCI of the release of documents that would: - implicate high-ranking (Mexican) officials in a (tel-tap) operation against - liaison (December 7) - reveal station in (December 27) = identify sensitive Tunilatéral) source in the | bervice (November 28) ' 2. On February 8, DCI submitted an appeal to the President on these issues. a. Admittedly, CIA did have problems getting appeal out on time. The JFK staff was very understanding of our time problems and arranged to give us more time. They too have recognized that the time periods set out in the Act are too short ‘to bring an appeal. b. The reason for CIA's delay was simply because the decision to appeal a Board determination to the President of the US is very difficult one to make, both on a procedural and a substantive level. As CIA never did an appeal before, it did not have an efficient system worked out. - c. Today, the procedure is as follows: Once HRG is notified of Board decisions, they immediately pass this on to OGC and the DO. The appropriate components within DO are asked whether the release would cause current damage to the national security or intelligence operations or sources. If so, they are tasked to provide a written assessment of that damage. d. An appeal package is then prepared by OGC and the DO. This package must then be approved by GC, DDO, EXDIR, DDCI and DCI. e. Although CIA's turn around time is improving, it can take several weeks to task the appropriate people, have them gather the information needed to prepare an appeal and then get this up to the DCI. 3. Despite our time problems, the JFK Staff was © cooperative in the process of bringing this appeal to the President: & ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY ney: | A
13-00000 ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY “etitep a. Before submitting appeal to the President, I faxed ~ copy of appeal to JFK Board's General Counsel with the idea that if-it presented new and convincing evidence, he would present it to the Board during its session. b. Shortly after submitting the appeal to the President, I spoke with White House Counsel and Counsel to JFK Board. We agreed to put the appeal on hold until the Board could review CIA's submission to the White House and possibly reconsider its determinations in light of additional information presented in the appeal. c. I talked with JFK Board's Counsel and Executive Director regularly about the best way to handle the appeal. I arranged with them to have the General Counsel of CIA to come to the Board's February meeting and present new information regarding the issues on appeal. d. On February 29, the General Counsel of CIA and I met with the JFK Board and their staff. We discussed issues on appeal as well as 3 other stations recently released e. Based on the information presented by CIA at this meeting, the Board reconsidered and agreed to protect all of the issues on appeal as well as 3 other stations. IV. Future appeal procedures 1. Both JFK Board and CIA agree that we should never have to appeal something to the President and we should try to work out difficult issues on our own. 2. In the last 2 months, when CIA believed that a release would damage the national security, the Board has invited us to their meetings to present additional evidence on the issue. In some cases, they have reconsidered their decision and protected the information. 3. The Board also recently released| _|station - we are arranging to meet with them at the end of nth to present stronger arguments. for protecting this station. 4. The Board is now considering the release of names of CIA employees who retired under cover. It is very important for CIA's mission that the names of its employees, especially those who remain covert, be protected even after retirement. In the spirit of cooperation and in the hopes of getting the Board to understand this, CIA helped arrange a meeting between the JFK Board's General Counsel and a retired CIA covert employee ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY vg Chey . ii
13-00000 . Oo | € citeee a ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY wich ney currently living in Europe. CIA hopes that after hearing from the employee about his objections to having his name released and the harm that may come to him, the Board will agree to protect his name, and others like him, from release. ce: SECipEP ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
13-00000 oP ‘ : . at @ ‘ SECRET HPSCI BRIEFING - JFK DECLASSIFICATION 10 April 1996 1. Nature of the records--Oswald 201, Sequestered (Wards coy firien Ve aa wb +72) | - Other records: Minutes of DCI morning meetings; working files - Third Agency documents: FBI, SSCI, Presidential libraries => 2 Pages released (227,000) - Percentage of paugs redacted; 70 % 3. Process of declassification - Former senior officers in HRG review - Coordination with OGC, DO (DO team detailed to HRG) -4.- Standards for review in JFK Assassination Records Collection . naa Sain) toy. ‘ reenrelg 5. Act, 1992 - Records related to the assassination or investigation we into the assassination ene or \e actiubres| - Law provides grounds for postponement of disclosure of records ea -- “Clear and convincing evidence“ must be pre- sented to the Board E.g., Identity of agent currently requiring protection , - Source or method currently utilized - Foreign government relationship cur- rently requiring protection Board has authority to release records unless it agrees there is “clear and convincing evidence” to support a postponement ~ Board then has to justify on the record each redaction with which it agrees - Once a determination is made, Board must publish it in Federal Register within 14 days
13-00000 - Options available: substitute language e.g., “Northern European station” - Also, summary of a record - Board has access to every document in full 6. Issues raised by Board's decisions: - Problem: Board has difficulty in linking disclosure of information that is 30 years old with damage to current intelligence operations undo ue) - Identification of stations e.g., a3 - Sept 1904 Sieg ph tae - Names of former Agency employees who retired under cover ~ Board guidelines: Protect person if retired under “ cover and now resjding qverseas, but mot iff in US ¥ _@ Yeon +e | wourde edd drm ey SOance 4 - Briefing of the Board by Jeff Smith, Central Cover, DO desk officers, O6thérs - Problem of accumulative effect of releases--eroding cover, ability to conduct operations 7. Provision for appeal to the White House if we disagree with Board's determination - President has sole authority to require postponement of a record or information -~-President required to advise the Board within 30 days of the Board's determination -- This is published in the Federal Register 8. Current appeal (now resolved) - Issues: identification of Agency asset liaison relationship \ focuwat exer os identification of station - Potential appeal: 9. Additional requests of Board to review other records e.g., history of Mexico City station, Intelligence Community Staff records - 6 e att eee " ae Noles ° Bowrd das ee cs et Pet, pl ag just Geeektece Gor Pos tpunewrent — AS Marie Qu ithe, &. f ' \ @ Bye 3 Oe FOR Widen b ko pas lee te Cheers mux } disc asewan é DVEA, apec Lee i, Vow cere. (Gan atk Tie € » pracoctan! sof Nay TEC —vpre Fata ee,
i 13-00000 | . 7 SECRET. Page 1 : .f EVENT: STAFF BRIEFING DATE: 04/10/96 TIME: 1030 STATUS: COMPLETE PLACE: H-405 CAPITOL ‘ - FOR: HPSCI SUBJ: JFK ASSASSINATION DOCUMENTS ASSOC NAME (PARTICIPANTS ) ROLE STAPF BARTON, CHRISTOPHER (HPSCI) STAFF DUPART, LOUIS H. (HPSCI) STAFF EBERWEIN, CATHERINE D. (HPSCI) ’ STAFF HEALEY, LOUISE CHRISTINE (HPSCI) STAFF LOWENTHAL, MARK M. (HPSCI) STAFF OUELLETTE, SUSAN MARY (HPSCI) STAFF SHEERY, MICHAEL WILLIAM (HPSCTI) CIA | DCI/OGC) | BRFR CIA HARRELSON, BARRY (DCI/cSI) - BRFR CIA PEREIRA, JOHN (DCI/CST) BRFR CIA [pex soca) SPRT CIA WICKHAM, FRED (DO/IMS) BRFR ——- (EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ) —— _ Following a telephone conversation with HPSCI staff in which HRG/CSI noted a number of JFK assassination declassification issues (see OCA C/96-05672 of 27 Mar 96,) CSI,DO,-and.OGC. briefed.staff on-the.status.of the JFK declassification effort, the 1992 law which established the JFK Assassination Records Review Board and the scope of the Board's authority, and the details of some current declassification issues we have been addressing with the Board. We noted the close working relationship between the Agency and the Board, and said that the Board staff is trying to understand the Agency's equities and perspectives. Some staff expressed concern about the Board's broad powers and authorities under the 1992 law, particularly regarding declassification of intelligence material bearing on identities, sources, and methods. (S) -——-( ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ) —— 1. C/CSWHistorical Review Group Pereira opened by briefly describing the nature of the CIA JFK material. The open-ended "Oswald 201" also includes material gathered after the assassination, and the "sequestered file” is that material that was assembled for the JFK assassination investigations. The material was originally sanitized and released to the National Archives in 1993. We are now reviewing the 227,000 pages and attempting to justify the material we withheld. Some seventy percent of the released material contains redactions, although later in the briefing we noted that as our experience has grown the redaction standards have evolved and now most material (up to eighty percent) is being released whole. Some 25 senior annuitants, working closely with a DO team led by Wickham, have been performing the initial review. Pereira pointed out that we are not only reviewing the assassination records, but those records bearing on the House Assassinations Committee's investigation of the assassination. Pereira identified the five academic historians who make up the Board, and said they are supported by 30 full-time Board staffers headed by former Berlin Documentation Center chief David Marwell. CL BY ‘ CL REASON 1.5C DECLON Xi DRV FM HUM 4-82 SECRET WER TSebeee pee
13-00000 © SECRET Page 2 WTC/Memorandum for the Record | Pereira said that the 1992 Act specifies that the Board must have "clear and convincing evidence" if we want to postpone release, and said that the Board requires “current justification” if we want to protect agent identities, sources and methods, or liaison identities. Under the law, the Board has the authority to release all information, and must justify in the Federal Register within 14 days any redactions. The Board sees the full text of all documents. Pereira Said that i ith the Board atio ator that the Board is making an "honest effort" to see the connection between 30 year old information and curren lamage to Agency equities. Dupart asked rhetorically whether the Board understood the concept of ongoing liaison, with Wickham saying that the Board clearly had a different perspective from the DO, and that the ADDO, General Counsel, Cover Staff and others have briefed the Board in detail to address this "problem." Harrelson pointed out that our joint teltaps had recorded Oswald himself} although we assured the clearly unhappy Dupart that we are trying to protect the fact tha’ ‘We also noted our effort to protect the identities of covert Agency employees, although we a S where the Agency employees now reside overseas. Pereira said we are concemed about the cumulative erosive effect on our ‘cover and our ability to conduct operations. He noted that the Board tends to focus on individual specific cases without always focusing on the broader cumulative impact of their discrete decisions. (S) ; 2] __hescribed the appeals process specified in the 1992 JFK Act. She also lent Sheehy a copy of the act, which he’ studied carefully during the briefing. Under the 1992 act, documents related to JFK carry the "presumption of release,” with the Board defining which records fall under the act.. We have to justify any redactions or postponements, and Board decisions can only be appealed to the President himself (which, as' ldryly noted, tends to inhibit appeals.) The act also specifics very short deadlines, with only 30 days for the President to make his decision. (This means we have only about seven days to get our appeals out of Hqs and to the White House--a practical impossibility.) Our only appeal to date involved three issues: (i) a cable implicating senio (ii) the identification of the very sensitive Btation, and (iii) the identity of a source. In fact our appeal took several months, with the Board being very accommodating about the delay, and we finally were able to give the Board enough justification and explanation that they changed their position and spared the White House the decision. Healey noted that the Agency declassification team includes a DO team (as noted above,) and asked why we hadn't been able to head off the problem. {____}esponded that new information arises for the Board to consider in making its determination, and Wickham elaborated by noting that the DO is reluctant to reveal sensitive current information to p aterial. He characterized this as a problem of "DO culture.” At the same tj ited the specific example of thet ectinng | to meet the DCI on his recent Latin American trip as illustrative of — — We later noted that the only other appeal thus far involves the FBI, and the W has told the Bureau to resolve the maiter with the Board. (S) 3. Pereira noted to the staffers that we're dealing with very short deadlines involving enormous volumes of material, and illustrated by showing the staff a bulky recent Board declassification notification which we must review to confirm we have no problem with the material involved. In response to a Sheehy question, Harrelson reminded staff that the original redaction and submission to the Board took place in 1992-3, and as noted above, our redaction standards and judgements have evolved since then. Further, we have to double-check each release to confirm we concur, and in some cases compare substitute language. Sheehy asked why we would object to such a thing as the ackn to and seemed impressed and persuaded when Wickham patiently explained that both th nd ave strongly recommended against confirming the existence.of the Station. The are very sensitive to any public acknowledgment of ourlliaison’s relationship. Wickham noted that th rying to document Oswald's travels, and wants to identify stations reporting such travel. Pereira said that we recognize the need to report the facts, but want to protect details SECRET
13-00000 | ae SECRET Page 3 WTC/Memorandum for the Record that do not add to the story but harm our equities. In response to a Healey question, Pereira said we are making progress in giving the Board staff the context and framework necessary to appreciate and support our concerns. He said the staff tries very hard to give the Board necessary background, and Wickham seconded Pereira's assessment that we have a very good working relationship with the staff. Under the provisions of the Act, the Board will be working until October 1997, dealing with CIA, FBI, DepState, as well as private individuals and even foreign governments. They are interviewing people, and as Pereira noted, "getting theories." (S) 4. Staff, even those who asked pointed questions like Healey and Sheehy, seemed satisfied. Majority Staffer Eberwein, perhaps reflecting concerns voiced by Deputy Majority Director Dupart about protecting Agency sources and methods, however, expressed c bout possibly amending the '92 act to moderate the act's bias toward release. Indeed, she contacted OCA lawyer nd asked her to draft language amending the act. It had not been my impression during the briefing that staff had been especially concerned about the act to the point of intending to modify it, and its also unclear whether Eberwein was acting on behalf of senior majority staff or the membership in asking OCA to suggest modifications to the act. (S) =A | fee. ,.e.+#see_—_— CIA Liaison Group | Office of Congressional Affairs DCVOCA/CLGIA Jamsrsaao (15 Apr 96) Distribution: Original - OCA Records 1 - D/OCA 1- DCICSI 1 - DO/IMS 1 - DO/ORMS/CAG 1 - DCV/OGC 1 hrono ~wee (FOLLOW-UP ACTION ITEMS) --—- There were no Action Items on file for this event. SECRET
13-00000 SECRET a EVENT: STAFF BRIEFING DATE: 04/10/96 TIME: 1030 PLACE: H-405 CAPITOL STATUS: X - KEY: C/96-05677 FOR: HPSCI Po SUBJ: JFK ASSASSINATION DOCUMENTS RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: | L SECURE: 3-9940 ---> (PARTICIPANTS) <--- ASSOC NAME 7 ROLE STAFF BARTON, CHRISTOPHER (HPSCI) STAFF DUPART, LOUIS H. (HPSCI) STAFF EBERWEIN, CATHERINE D. (HPSCI) STAFF HEALEY, LOUISE CHRISTINE (HPSCI) STAFF LOWENTHAL, MARK M. (HPSCI) STAFF OUELLETTE, SUSAN MARY (HPSCI) STAFF SHEEHY, MICHAEL WILLIAM (HPSCI) CIA L RRRE SON nmr of OSe! | BRFR 3 CIA ; (DCI/CST) . BRFR | CIA PEREIRA, JOHN (DCI/CSTI) BRFR | CIA (DCI /OCA) SPRT aan: CIA ' S) BRFR TE FU cae ee RE. OU Yeats OP MEL EE eR pi GERI ete ee wee ae
13-00000 | SECRET EVENT: STAFF BRIEFING DATE: 04/10/96 TIME: 1030 PLACE: H-405 CAPITOL STATUS: X - KEY: C/96-05677 FOR: HPSCI SUBJ: JFK ASSASSINATION DOCUMENTS RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: || |- SECURE: 3-9940 ---> (PARTICIPANTS) <--- Assoc NAME ROLE STAFF BARTON, CHRISTOPHER (HPSCI) STAFF DUPART, LOUIS H. (HPSCI) STAFF . EBERWEIN, CATHERINE D. (HPSCI) STAFF HEALEY, LOUISE CHRISTINE (HPSCI) STAFF LOWENTHAL, MARK M. (HPSCI) STAFF OUELLETTE, SUSAN MARY (HPSCI) STAFF SHEEHY, MICHAEL WILLIAM (HPSCI) CIA | } (pcr /oee) BRFR CIA ; (DCI/CSI) BRFR CIA PEREIRA, JOHN (DCI/CST) BRFR CIA (DCI/OCA) SPRT CIA. ; MS) BRFR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Following a telephone conversation with HPSCI staff in which HRG/CSI noted a number of JFK assassination declassification issues (see OCA C/96-05672 of 27 Mar 96,) CSI, DO, and OGC briefed staff on the status of the JFK declassification effort, the 1992 law which established the JFK Assassination Records Review Board and the scope of the Board's authority, and the details of some current declassification issues we > have been addressing with the Board. We noted the close working relationship between the Agency and the Board, and said that the Board staff is trying to understand the Agency's equities and perspectives. Some staff expressed concern about the Board's broad powers and authorities under the 1992 law, particularly regarding declassification of intelligence material bearing on identities, sources, and methods. (S) SUPPORTING TEXT: 1. C/CSI/Historical Review Group Pereira opened by briefly describing the nature of the CIA JFK material. The open- ended "Oswald 201" also includes material gathered later, and the "sequestered file" is that material that was
13-00000 assembled for the JFK assassination investigations. All is being processed for declassification, with some 227,000 pages already released. Some seventy percent of the released material contains redactions, although later in the briefing we noted that as our experience has grown the redaction standards have evolved and now most material (up to eighty percent) is being released whole. Some 25 senior annuitants, working closely with a DO team led by Wickham, have been performing the initial review. Pereira pointed out that we are not only reviewing the assassination records, but those records bearinmg on our own investigation ‘of the assassination. Pereira identified the five academic historians who make up the Board, and said they are supported by thirty full-time Board staffers headed by former Berlin Documentation Center chief David Marwell. Pereira said that the 1992 Act specifies that the Board must have "clear and convincing evidence" if we want to postpone release, and said that the Board requires "current justification" if we want to protect agent identities, sources and methods, or liaison identities. Under the law, the Board has the authority to release all information, and _must justify in the Federal Register within fourteen days any redactions. The Board sees the full text of all documents. Pereira said that we negotiate with the Board the use of summaries or generic descriptions (such as substituting "a northern European station" €ox and that the Board is making an . "honest effort" to see the connection between thirty year old information and current damage to Agency equities. Dupart asked rhetorically whether the Board understood the concept of ongoing liaison, with Wickham saying that the Board clearly had a different perspective from the DO, and that the ADDO, General Counsel, Cover Staff and others have briefed the Board in detail to address this "problem." Harrelson pointed out that our (joint teltaps had recorded swa imselfi, although we assured the Clearly unha Dupart that we are trying to protect the fact that (eeoperated in the télItaps|. We also noted our effort to protect the identities of covert Agency employees, although we are working particularly hard in cases where the Agency employees now reside overseas. Pereira said we are concerned about the cumulative erosive effect on our cover and our ability to conduct operations. He noted that the Boards tends to focus on individual specific cases without recognizing the broader cumulative impact of their discrete decisions. (S) . 2. | er nee! Tescribed the appeals process specified in the 199 ct. She also lent Sheehy a copy of the act, which he studied carefully during the briefing. Under the 1992 act, documents related to JFK carry the "presumption of release," with the Board defining which records fall under the act. We have to justify any redactions or postponements, and Board decisions can only be appealed to
13-00000 | atiently explained that both the C_ ijave strongly recommen e of the station. The the President himself (which, as dryly noted, tends to inhibit appeals.) The act al cs very short deadlines, with only 30 days for the President to make his decision. (This means we have only about seven days to get our appeals out of Hqs.and to the White House--a practical impossibility.) Our only appeal to date involved three a issues: (i) a cable implicating senior Mexican officials [in] four_joint (ii) the identification of the very a sensitive | Station, and (iii) the identity of a Nicaragua > In fact our appeal took several months, with the Board being very accommodating about the delay, and we finally were able to give the Board enough justification and explanation that they changed their position and spared the White House the decision. Healey noted that the Agency declassification team includes a DO team (as noted above, ) and asked why we hadn't been able to head off the problem. Cipriani responded that new information arises for the Board to consider in making its determination, and Wickham elaborated by noting that the DO is reluctant to reveal sensitive current information to protect old material. He characterized this as a problem of "DO culture." At the same time, he cited the specific example fof the Mexicans /declining to meet the DCI on his recent Latin American trip \as_ illustrative of Mexican sensitivity issue. We later noted that the only other appear tnus rar-involves the FBI, and the White House has told the Bureau to resolve the matter with the Board. (S) 3. Pereira noted to the staffers that we're dealing with very short deadlines involving enormous volumes of material, and illustrated by showing the staff a bulky recent Board declassification notification which we must review to confirm we have no problem with the material involved. In response to a Sheehy question, Harrelson reminded staff that the original redaction and submission to the Board took place in 1992-3, and as noted above, our redaction standards and judgements have evolved since then. Further, we have to double-check each release to confirm we concur, and in some cases compare substitute language. Sheehy asked why would object to such a thing as the acknowledgement of station, and seemed impressed and when Wickham nd | nfi are very sensitive to any public acknowledgement “raison/ relationship. Wickham noted that the Board is trying to document Oswald's travels, and wants to identify stations reporting such travel. Pereira said that we recognize the need to report the facts, but want to protect details that do not add to the story but harm our equities. In response to a Healey question, Pereira said we are making progress in giving the Board staff the context and framework necessary to appreciate and support our concerns. He said the staff tries very hard to give the Board necessary background, and
13-00000 | $ ° Wickham seconded Pereira's assessment that we have a very good working relationship with the staff. Under the provisions of the act, the Board will be working until October 1997, dealing with CIA, FBI, DepState, as well as private individuals and even foreign governments. They are interviewing people, and as Pereira noted, "getting theories." (S) 4. Staff, even those who asked pointed questions like Healey and Sheehy, seemed satisfied. Majority staffer Eberwein, perhaps reflecting concerns voiced by deputy majority director Dupart about protecting Agency sources and methods, however, expressed concern later about possibly amending the '92 act to moderate the act's hi release. Indeed, she contacted OCA lawyer. nd asked her to draft language amending the acc;>—1c-nac t been my impression during the briefing that staff had been especially concerned about the act to the point of intending to modify it, and its also unclear whether Eberwein was acting on behalf of senior majority staff or the membership in asking OCA to suggest modifications to the act. (S) DCI /OCA/CLG 15 April 1996 Distribution: DCI/CSI . DO/ORMS DO/IMS OCA OGC RES chrono CL BY {6 9 CL REASON 1.5C DECL ON X1 DRV FM HUM 4-82 SECRET
13-00000 Looe | SECRET FROM: ‘ DATE: , “SU! M SUBJECT: [ Re: DRAFT--OCA MFR on 10 Apr 96 HPSCI JFK Docs Brief Looks OK tome - | was especially pleased to read that the staff was concerned about the the presumption for release in the Act and askey fo draft language modifying the act. if Cindy needs any help, | would be very happy to give her some suggestions! | would greatly appreciate being kept informed as this progresses. Thanks “Linda \, ce: John Pereira, J. Barry Harrelson, Fred Wickham @ 00, SECRET
13-00000 - anne . SECRET TO: FROM: John F Pereira DATE: 04/16/96 02:40:06 PM SUBJECT: | “Re: DRAFT-OCA MFR on 10 Apr 96 HPSCI JFK Docs Brief The MFR looks basically fine. Two minor suggestions: Par 1.- change “our own investigation” to the House Assassinations Committee's investigation Par 1, last sent. - change last part of sent to read without always focusing on the broader cumulative impact of their discrete decisions. ce: J. Barry Harrelson - SECRET