Vros01a6-10021]° a UVR i GAL a a \ 7 a : Co sues | 31 August 1978 | OLC HI LSIEY) MEMORANDUM FOR: Mr. Scott D. Breckinridge Principal Coordinator, House Select Committee on Assassinations Office of Legislative Counsel FROM. : Norbert A. Shepanek Policy and Coordination Staff Liaison and Oversight Control SUBJECT : Referenced Request for DDO Reaction to HSCA Suggestion Concerning Public Testimony on CIA Files REFERENCE : OLC 78-2598, 25 August 1978 1. The injunction against trusting Greeks bearing gifts might find suitable application in evaluating the motivation of prosecuting attorneys trying to bolster a publicity-hungry, bankrupt Cong~essional Committee on the eve of elections by offering alleged PR benefits: to ; the CIA. The only advantage from public exposure of our filing system and procedures, which we can envision, would accrue to hostile intelligence services and terrorist organizations. It would provide them with an insight into our records system and methodology and the inherent limitations of the system. Obviously, any records system will have inherent weaknesses and limita- tions. Knowledge of, the specific-system used by the CIA could render us ang ecurity of the nation more vulnerable. 2. Ihave discussed reference offer with Chief, IMS and DC/PCS. Our collective and individual reaction is that Mr. Cornwell's "kind" offer be firmly and flatly rejected on the grounds that any meaningful discussion of our records procedures and system would inevitably lead to the revelation of classified intelligence methods which the DCI must protect. orbert A. epa att ae CONCUR: KDUG ee RETURN TO CIA Background Use Only CONFIDENTIAL Not Reproduce
14-0000 toe ; ' Fe See metman ma ae OR ET 7% fon - ‘ ma - 31 August 1978 Aide Memoire SUBJECT : Issues in Pending HSCA Subpoenas 1. CIA has restricted access by HSCA representatives to two sets of documents, which led to the Committee's voting a sub- poena shortly prior to the recess by the House. Two other items of information that were included in the subpoena had been reviewed by HSCA representatives prior to voting the subpoena. So far as we know no action has yet been taken to serve the subpoena ' formally. Its reported date of return is 6 September. 2. The two files on which we have restricted access deal with two separate subjects, as follows: a. An operational file involving a sensitive Covert Action program, in which a person of interest to the HSCA was one of a number of targets. .The HSCA has reviewed the 201 file of the person in question for the period January 1973 through May 1964, but the separate operational file has not been shown. The nature of the operation has been outlined to Mr. Blakey and his deputy, Mr. Cornwell. The presentation emphasized the sensitivity of the operation and its lack of relevance to the HSCA inquiry. 04 b. The history of the Mexico City Station for the period (194741969. It covers all activities of the Station over a period of time almost entirely irrelevant to the purpose of the HSCA investigation. Only a few references in the Mexico City Station history can be considered relevant to the issue - of President Kennedy's assassination, and these have been seen by HSCA representatives. Substantial sections of other. portions of the history have been shown the HSCA Chief Counsel and Staff Director, Mr. Blakey, and to his deputy, Mr. Cornwell. _ . 3. The grounds offered for withholding these documents ‘are a mix of sensitivity and relevance. Traditionally the . Agency claims the sensitivity of subject matter as a basis for giving special handling to materials shown external investigators, ‘while Mr. Blakey asserts that the Congress reserves the right to judge relevance. There is something of an anomaly in these positions, because the evolution of the working agree- ments with HSCA has to a degree compromised the basic position of both parties.
14-00000 4. The original Memorandum of Understanding, executed in August 1977, commits the Agency to provide access to material ‘that bears upon the study and investigation authorized by Hi. Res. 222," which we see as referring to relevance. It also recognized the limitations placed on access depending on "the responsibility of the DCI to protect sensitive intelligence sources and methods."" An amendment to the original agreement was negotiated in January 1978, the language of which throws into question the unqualified right of the DCI to withhold material because of sources-and-methods considerations, but leaves in- tact the original position on relevance. , 5. Our practice, under these provisions, has been to agree to requested access to material we feel probably irrelevant, if it is not judged sensitive. When considerations of relevance and sensitivity combine we have opposed unqualified actess.- In the face of the HSCA representatives' assertion of the need to verify our statements about relevancy , ete., we have tried to employ the original commitment to the DCI by Mr. Blakey to not disclose anything shown him personally, when the matter becomes an issue, letting him review the material personally. This serves to demonstrate good faith, at the same time that it has permitted verification by a selected HSCA person. 6. If the HSCA decides to force the present issue, for whatever purposes, there would be some confusion in outlining just what the Agency's position is. The agreements can be presented as compromising the legislated responsibility of the DCI to protect sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure. This considera- tion has led us to follow the practice of tying relevance (preserved in the original agreement) to sensitivity, avoiding assertion of the right to protect material on the grounds of sensitivity alone. As an example we have given extensive access to intelligence sources and methods as employed in Mexico City, where it was relevant because it explained CIA coverage of the Oswald visit in September- October 1963. 7. Discussions with Chairman Stokes, assuming there will be an opportunity to have such an exchange, should be reasonable — rather than technical. While we believe our grounds sound (the material at issue is not relevant to the inquiry, and is sensitive) the arguments in support of it may prove confusing in public controversy.