Form DJ-96a 5 Rev. & 22-66) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TING SLIP (_] SIGNATURE (J comMENT [_] PER CONVERSATION (] APPROVAL (C] NECESSARY ACTION [_] AS REQUESTED ([] see me ([] NOTE AND RETURN = ([]NOTE AND FiLe [J] RECOMMENDATION = [_] CALL HE [J Your INFORMATION Cy ANSWER OR ACKNOWL- EDGE ON OR BEFORE oO PREPARE REPLY FOR THE SIGNATURE OF REMARKS ALLINFORY { HERE DR sik i CONTAINER ay /dac er Seanewye,) FROM: NAME | BUILDING & ROOM | COCTSA A , = “Attorney General | NW 35110 Doocld: 32999560 Page 2
ERcopmt cel ASEAN EE MRA LLAMA Manel: eek Y AaShLS Yangniniy SIFIED a , By SLE ur, 527 ft Oe) AS; 2 WGN CONTAINED EI Z| . fa] e4] i, Pade IRFORMATI WER MS “— a womnaiatet sl WARD RATE a x PERIZ mo Jas { sond A 1 , T > SIadss OIOPA ENCLOSURE ol wo] = oH TPITRY 7 L2-/6 3 » rary Care AORTA ALENT TS nm 4 OF Page 2, nat aia 8 TET . ° PI ngs STATEMENT OF an IF ereiren meenesnenninnsinn een eepeeemm arto iniren en seres sree a he sarnematetarentncn nen mae mma SwTTr a. mammemnerartvers eee wth wremenoemann mane ott ronapamaharoeararentnndanwaanerty saprapecvananae inden aaneiysessvercaniachaney Tusa (= Sse wo ce tareart a rer eM MSE ST ll Sa Oo ™. © BRB O FB MW MT wh uw ae aS FERS, Gi gadat in Bot ser RNR SENSE thee ent rt ar a Mielipe 2h inser ° pth xc wate ete ge 3 pant fared, bay ek Tatty okt hd et tig Sty eae bear yi Shey Mica atis Eee. taal
*C Rites ogee ok - t ’ a L : ‘ ‘ * oa £ c . ‘ : . N vf — P ‘INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION Rd iy cone Pn Este Thursday, December 11, 1975 pt | 5 United States Senate, ; | “ge | ‘Select Committee to Study Governmental i y . Operations with Respect to - Intelligence Activities, \ 4 ~ ; Washington, D.C. | 10 the Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:19 o'clock boa a.m., in Room 318 Russell Senate Office Building, Senator . Frank Church (Chairman) presiding. 13 Present: Senators Church (presiding), Mathias, Morgan, 14 Mondale, Baker, Hart of Michigan, Hart of Colorado and Schweiker. . Also present: William Hiller, Staff Director; Frederick 16 A.O,. Schwarz, JL. Chief Counsel; curtis Smothers, Minority Counsel. 25 sap tesupatainie os as ‘ Ke b4 tn a0 BEB inne ther ae Se th Geo LESTE LE TERENCE ERIE ALLER AB PR ie fav) je Se ee never Rake tr nd ra) an £ an? STE eS “a
an, eee SE | = SRE é w - cs ryt < € - ie r . c K ae { aon. PROCEEDINGS a é 2 The Chairman. Our witness this morning is the Honorable i ae 3 Edward H. Levi, Attorney General of the United States. Mr. | eS 4 Levi has appeared before this Committee on previous occasions ‘a : 5 and this Committee was most happy to welcome him back again ~ at ; ‘ i Ts this morning. il He has been asked to testify today about the future of ‘the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and especially its 9 domestic intelligence operations, © , 10 This morning's hearing marks both an end and a beginning 11 for the Select Committee. It is the end of a series of hearings -12 on domestic intelligence which began in September with an 13 “examination of the so-called “Huston Plan.” Those original : 14 hearings explored the relationship of the White House to the | 15 FBI and other intelligence agencies in the development of a 16 specific plan for using illegal techniques against domestic’ « ‘17 || groups. At that time the Committee learned the details of FBI 18 19 ||. black hag jobs against domestic targets which continued at leas 20 until 1963. We learned of a "do. not file” procedure in the 21 PBI for destroying the records of these operations and the Com- \ mittee was told that the FBI’ expanded its intelligence Se FF ames 8 oN ESCA " y 22 Z 23 investigations along the lines of the Huston Plan, even after ig ie ; + 3 of ° : B is Se pya the President withdrew his approval. Nes ie * i 7. ps Our next hearings in this area dealt with improper ES ae whe th o | NWS 8§ Bock: 32989560 Rage 5 Ra See, NTs
BY el eat eh Lig deleaen ia? HA Ants 8 es 9 s “4 i1 re a) ‘E. 12 sith roots 3 as ui af we sdbatg MRO ge OO | 13 L4 1s 16 Ceca rnc pacer A a RN AAR —————— HW 55110 Docld: 32589560 Page 6 ht wn bh uw activities that overlapged foreign and domestic intelligence operations. The Director of the National Security Agency:: testified that the sophisticated surveillance operations of | that agency had’ been targeted against the international communications of American citizens for domestic intelligences purposes. ‘This was done in direct’ cooperation with the FBI,. which supplied names of citizens for the NSA watchlist. . Present and former FBI officials also testified that until 1966 the Bureau undertook programs £or iltegally opening the mail of innocent citizens in the search for espionage agents and foreign intelligence. The PBI used the CIA's mail opening program after 1966 for domestic intelligence purposes, again sending over lists of ‘names of American citizens who were to be watched. . The Committee's recent hearings on the FBI itself have raised some of the most fundamental questions that any democracy must face. He have placed on the record deeply disturbing information about the FBI's COTNTELPRO activities over a period | of fifteen years; the attempts to discredit Dr. Martin Luther Ring, Jr., the broad surveillance of law-abiding citizens. and lawful activities, the practices of infiltration and dis- ruption by informants, and the political use of FBI resources by Presidents of both parties. The Committee's work in this area has been aided sub- stantially by the cooperation of the Justice Department. TI
de cay ES En vv 4 ‘ * . ‘ 1 . . . -_ ° i ; 43 7? «x : © 7 ; * @ . x 24 1 ee aS 1 would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Attorney General, to iy ees tn . . : , H a 2 express the appreciation of the entire Committee and the | Be. — : . : . . f ce 5 |} staff for your assistance in making available the materials me r ! % ; a = : 4 needed for this investigation. Our experience has demonstratec : Se Fg that the Constitutional principle of Separation of Powers has 6 enough flexibility to allow close cooperation between the paneer rat ENTS ~2 Congress and the Executive in a matter of the greatest public 8 concern, | ° 9 ~ While our investigation is coming to an end, the task ° 10 | of making constructive recommendations is beginning. We SE eR RES STIS 1i || have heard this week from former officials and from Director 12 || Kelley. We are exploring a wide range of proposals, including .13 || those being developed by the Justice Department. And we WARD & PAUL 14 look forward to working. closely with you on these issues. 15 One of the best statements of the problems we confront 16 || Was made last summer by Philip Kurland, Professor of 17 || Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. Professor 1g || Kurland spoke of the threats to an open, democratic society 19 || from what he called the perversion of our intelligence agencies 209 || into political police forces, He rejected the proposition para: é ty 2] || that we should be satisfied that these agencies will exercise a ge |) self-restraint. Professor Kurland did not deny the importance -9% || of the. individual qualities of the officeholder. But he pa stressed the greater importance of confining our intelligence ; . and counter-intelligence agencies to the limited functions they 8, aR RE SLRS EL TED “NW 55110 Doold: 32989560 Page 7
were created to deal with. Minne ewer gieeee The crucial. responsibility lies with the Congress. "If Ten mene ehtanparenroenaear ary np mnaetnnnaane resents ya] oversight by Congress is not to be the answer,” Professar Kurland declared, “it is hard to conceive of an answer." The ™ essential requirement for Congressional oversight is informatio1 about intelligence operations, and the greatest barrier is Executive secrecy. Consequently, Professor Kurland and others have urged that we establish procedures which require the Executive to provide this information to .the Congress. This may be the only way to insure the responsibility of the Executive Branch to the people through the Congress. Therefore, we especially hope that you, Mr. Attorney General, can help this Committee and the Congress develop not only standards for the PBI, but also procedures for a ve J Bo 2 i rs i a Re bin effective Congressional oversight to-assure regular account- eary ability. oR MRE iy SLR IMAL Ben TAY OEE PEGI STE Al rrr ar 55110 ocTad: 32969560 Page §
; 3 » . . . c of 1 ‘ . *  ) e moon wk STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EDWARD Ii. LEVI, ATTORNEY i . i 2 GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 4 : if = ‘ * . H ° Attorney General Levi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ; 4 Before I begin, let me say that I Gon't suppose that your Ee. 5 statenent is meant to indicate that I am committed to acreé - . A . i 6 ||. with my friend, Professor Kurland, who may not be wrong as . i: v4 often as many people are but occasionally is not correct. A x Py be . : . - ‘ ‘ : : 8 The Chairman. Mo, it was only meant that IT agree with 10 Attorney General Levi. Then I hope the matter can be 31 xplored more in depth. 12 Senator Mathias. Mr. Chairman, I think that's one of the most graceful declarations of independence I have ever heard. Attorney General Levi. ltr. Chairman, the Committee has. MWaderal Bureau of Investigation. I thought it might be heloful g Sj E 16 19 if I outline quite briefly some of the points I would like (18a.4, to make, some of the problems I, think ought to be considered, 19 and some of the steps we have taken. 4 The first point is that the statutory base for the SEA raw) oO re Lm 18 asked me to talk with you today about the futuxe of the operations of the Bureau cannot be said to be fully satisfactor?. t~o te ate 22) The basic statutory provision is 28 usc 533 which provides 23 || that the Attorney General may appoint officials "(1) to detect a 84 | and vrosecute crimes against the United States; (2) to assist -25 || in the protection of the’ President; and (3) to conduct such NW 35110 Doold: 32959560 Page
MEME dg PA he WOE TAN f S % A ian * wees - wee ae ar O° ee ea Be “O° ES. 5 4 ES 6 v4 8 9 10 11 12 e 14 s - 15 = 16 aq . e- le is Ba al "Be 23 24 2529 or domestic security investigations. The argument iis sometimes made that the Bureau's proper role, at least in purely domestic matters, should be limited to investigations of committed crimes. The basic statute for the Bureau iS broader ’ " than this, as have béen Executive orders and Presidential mandates to the Bureau. The basic statute is broader since it refers to investigations regarding official matters under the control of the Department of Justice and the Department of State as may be directed by the Attorney General. A disparity is sometimes seen among the different roles of the Bureau in crime detection, in on-going dotaestic security matters, and in-foreign intelligence or foreign counter~intelligence matters. In recent days a statement by then Attorney General Harlan Fiske Stone, who reorganized the Bureau and chose J. a) fdqar Hoover as its director, has been quoted as a relevant warning. Stone warned, "there is always the possibility that a Secret police may become a menace to free government and free institutions, because it carries with it the possibility of abuses of power which are not always quickly apprehended or understood. It is important that its activities be strictliv limited .to the, performance of those functions for which it was created and that its agents themselves be not toy . . . . . above the law or beyond its reach. The Bureau of Investigation is not concerned with political or other opinions of individuals, at, att ikipiet er mcicrrinntee se not Acnania nsinburymagnenhragen nh Ga ai Wass LeAi) & een ty
FI AEE DT TE ey ee 8 a rn nr pee ne f H bes BRE My TINT Ts SRT, Qe | cS ee 2530 Ae . ea: s os is 1 It is concerned only with their conduct and then only with such Boo e . . ‘ . . FS 2 conduct as is forbidden by the laws of the United States. he . . ee Xe) When a police system passes beyond these limits, it is dangerou e ho. A to the proper administration of justice and to human liberty, By 5 which it should be our first concern to cherish." 3 6 I should like to suggest that Stoné's warning always f 9 must be considered relevant to the proper conduct of the . i 8 Bureau's duties, but it does not necessarily follow that Ft { 9 domestic security investigations are, therefore, outside the E “10 | Bureau's proper functions. The detection of crime in some oe f Li areas requires preparation and at least some knowledge of what ie S 12 is likely to be going on. What is at issue, I think, is the ‘ 13 proper scope, the means and methods used, the attention paid 14 || to conduct and not views, and the closeness of the relations nip 15 |} Of the conduct and that which is foxrbigden by the laws of 16 || the United States. 17 Third / I realize that some proposals, since I was 18 asked about this when I last appeared before this Committee, 19 || might separate out in some fashion domestic and foreign 20 || intelligence functions from the PBI or from one another within 271 the FBI. This is, of course, an issue to be looked at. I g2 || assume it is recognized that there may be some relationship 23 || between that intelligence which is involved in foreign counter- ea || intelligence work. One may lead to the other. And there may 25 | be a relationship between foreign counter-intelligence and $9560 Page i2
2 3 4 * SEEN LRAT TSR RRS A 2 De HW 35110 forei¢n intelligence. -If the work were separated out into different agencies, I do not know if the decision about when an investigation should pass from one agency to. another always could be made easily. Moreover, even so, information presumably would pass from one agency to the other. I know that one consideration has been that it might be decided that informatio collected by some permitted means in intelligence investigationg under .some circumstances should not be used in criminal ~ prosecutions. ‘But if there is an exchange of information, this must always be a consideration, whether there are separate agencies or not, and the basic question then is one of use and not organization. The more active concern, I believe, is . that there is a risk that conduct proper for one area may be improper for another, and that the combination can work a contamination. My view on this is that-in any case we must decide what conduct is appropriate and is inappropriate. for eaci} sure tnat proper of the areas, and we must take steps to make conduct is lived up to. My hope is that the fact that the FBI which zyust be has criminal investigative responsibilities, conducted within the confines. of constitutiondl protections strictly enforced by the courts, gives the organization an 1 awareness of.the interests of -individual liberties that might he missing in an agency devoted solely to intelligence work. I know the argument can be run the other. way. I believe the dangers are greater is there is separation. Dood: 32939560 Page is
% eres a, cs Ri He en ea aes o oe "etre Ripe WW 55110 Fourth, there is a question-as to the. proper role of the FBI in crime prevention and whether or not it should be con- sidered authorized to take steps under some-circumstances to reduce the likelihood that crimes will be committed or that serious injury to persons or property will occur. Preventive action has raised serious questions and these must be dealt with, I suppose an initial question is whether it should be allowed at all. Yet I believe under special circumstances and. with proper controls most would believe this to be a proper function. | Pifth, the problem of proper controls, supervision and accountability is all-embracing. By statute the Federal Bureau | of Investigation is ‘in the Department of Justice, and also by statute the Attorney General is the head of the Department of Justice. _The history is mixed, of course, and we all have a tendency to over-simplify, but it is a fair statement that there have been times in the past when the supervision by Attorneys General, granted that the Bureau must have consider- able autonomy, has been sporadic, practically nonexistent, or ineffective. _ I hope that is not the case now. The responsibility is a heavy one. But in any event the problem of proper controls, supervision and accountability goes beyond the Director of the Bureau and the Attorney General. I have already mentioned that in my view the statutory base for the operations of the. Doeold: 32989560 Page 14
ge 1 - + ~ - x Hy x A Bureau cannot be said to be fully satisfactory. I think that 2 better controls and performance can be achieved through 3 statutory means, executive orders, guidelines, and reporting = 4.!| to appropriate congressional. committees. _ = Sixth, before I come to a resume of some of the steps ° 6 which have been taken, let me say I know we all realize that : _ 9 in the past there have been grave abuses. I am uncomfortable : 8 || with a kind of writing of history, howeverx, which sees it only | i: 5 9 in terms of the abuses and not in terms of past and present | He : 10 || strength. It is very difficult to be fair to the past in 4 , “al which many institutions of government carried a share of He: : 12 || responsibility. But more than unfairness is involved, if we 13 || are not careful, we will turn to solutions of the moment which 7 14 a better reading of history might indicate are not the best 15 || solutions. 16° I know we must seize the. moment, if I may use such a : “17 phrase ‘in this setting. I know also that this committee 18 realizes that a very important agency with dedicated, highly : 19 professional, greatly disciplined government servants is : 39 || involved. The importance is to the’ security and domestic . : | 21 tranquility of the United States. Stone's warning was given : go} in an act of creation. He was proud of his creation. In spite "93 “of the abuses, there is a proper place for pride. I take it Lie Ne SE Qa || Oux mutual work ‘should be to nurture that pride and the condi- 9g tions which justify it. CMW S511 Doold: 32589560 Page is
I turn now to a review of some of the steps which have been taken or are in progress. We have tried most diligently, under safeguards to protect the privacy of-individuals and with an:awareness of the unfairness of instant history to. give a great deal of information to congressional committees. Attorney General Saxbe made public and Deputy Attorney General Silberman and Director Kelley testified about the so- called COINTELPRO. When the FBI discovered evidence of ~ several more COINTELPRO projects after I became Attorney. General, these were revealed. One of my first acts as Attorney General, my third week in office, was to testify before a congressional committee about possible incidents of political RPGR ECARER bee GEL CRORE MRI ST ae ; misuse of the FBI by the White House in the past and about the : peers nature of FBI file-keeping systems, particularly the files kept by Director Hoover in his office suite. | Director Kelley has spoken publicly and before congres~ sional committees about incidents in the past in which FBI ‘agents engaged in break-ins to gather or photograph physical evidence in intelligence investigations. On a number of occa- Sions, most recently in testimony before this committee, I have described the history of the use of electronic surveil- lance by the FBI. We have welcomed such opportunities. 2% | . On February 26, 1975, I instructed Director Kelley to 24 | report to me any requests made of the Bureau or practices | within the Bureau which he deems improper or which present the | i | “8 | | MW 35110 "Doeld: 32939560 Page 16
ee ; @ ae ° @ > 2536, ° fh. 2 i. ie * 1 || appearance of impropriety. On February 28, 1975, Director Z E 2 Kelley ordered FBI personnel to report such requests or 3 3 practices.to him. In July 1975, I reaffirmed my February La ee . te Rear Ss a e 4 directive and also asked for a report of all sensitive investi- beak ay ™ 1G ch A 5 gative practices. ae % "6 I The Director promptly complied. Director Kelley has . a e q regularly provided information on conduct by Bureau agents and Fa : Pe oy ; i e 8: programs underway within the Bureau that could raise questions. ie Re . ~ 1S vip ne if 9 These inatters have been reviewed and discussed with the bs é s 10 | Department so that a consistent and appropriate policy can be ie : 11 || achieved. res Ba : 4 & 12° This is a continuing process. I do not assert that we are 2 : 12, I aware of everything about. the. Bureau. Nor da I. suggest. that . Ee ! x . . ae j i 14 || we ought to know everything. Appropriate communication, LR | iS 15 | consultation and supervision at this level have to be selective ieee a 16 I make this point, which I think may sound disconcerting, not « e. iy 4 if in any way to Minimize the responsibility of the Bureau to keep e 1g || the Department informed nor to minimize the Department's duty A 19 | to find out. Rather I want to be realistic about a learning % - eg} and organization problem which requires realism if it is to be a ie 21 understood and perfected.: fea cw) re 25 | With respect to possible legislation, the Department has 28 ! s a 23 | in. preparation various drafts of possible bills which may be BA ' of assistance in the area of what is now warrantless electronic; nh 25 ‘surveillance. Although obtaining a judicial warrant does not ‘NW 55110 'Doeld: 32989560 Page i7
ca ivacy Ad ™ n M {9} oc a TS : V re 0] ord ie] et 3 8 . @ orf eS un > Aw $ @ 223. . ont re} Ww “ o 3 Py . +) ue) @ 79) er 4 ca ® > re @ S a 3 Mor Ao wD wd HH, ocd Ci) © . . nH .  . . u) ie} mn MH - fe] 13) cq Oo Q, orf ee oe = es w G fo) fia} Ga’ ® re J) 4 jen se] M4 * S . 10) e) 03) fia} ne) er 6 is Y ” -O we 4 ; ed © ocd iss} 19] oO crf a Mi = ed ; a > gf 4 cf fe) fy} Le) fy ee +4) n rsa} ~ fe) a 16) ie) n uy a fio WwW on 43 >” tn. eal ra} or C0) 3 a & Y $4 (e] a - fe) 3) Oo -r a 4 H oe) MH ve 3 @ S ie kel © yo | > ! g. ro) ro fav) va) <H To) io) ~ co Q ro) mt 2 re HH. 1 o | rl co ri i co rd co ci. ON rat] ww raed ce av) el \ wy wi EM egs d LL EH BEY Bigs bey she tie, - regi J. te PRE OE Se
ore T@. ont Se e ne 7, eg eT Re ie oe aes a ore Say ry Rs TENG, 407 SESE IES EON REA TEST WE ENS eA OCR CBA De ney iar “f , a : . ales ot OR ae “NW S51L10 Dold: 32989560 Page i959 % -" Phone (Ai | | aoc Suey ee tape ed Committee's efforts at articulation will be of use to this Commit-|!! @ ‘ Y - @ . 2538 |, Finally, a committee within the Department of Justice, chaired by Mary Lawton, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in th Office of Legal Counsel, and composed of representatives of my office, the Criminal and Civil Rights Divisions, the office of Policy and Planning, and the FBI, has been working for : eight months reviewing FBI procedures in many areas and draftin guidelines to govern those procedures in the future. The Com- Mittee has produced draft guidelines covering White House x . inquiries, congressional and judicial staff appointment investi gations, unsolicited mail, and domestic security investigations It is currently at work on guidelines covering counterespionage investigations and will later consider the use of informants, the employee loyalty program, organized crime intelligence investigations, criminal investigations, and other aspects of FBI practice. The Committee's work has been extensive and time consuming. It has involved not only questions of proper safegu rdy but also of ‘ef ficiency in the proper functioning of the Bureau. it has been an effort to translate into words the complicated and important mechanisms for controlling the FBI. I hope the tee and others as it considers drafting legislation. You have received copies of the latest drafts of the guidelines that have been substantially completed by the Committee. ‘These guidelines do not yet represent Department policy. There is disagreement within the Department on some
EéaOooG” ah ORs at aw Nf y rs Ba AEM eS eae h — * ir Poe ier es { : oo @ a aspects of these guidelines. I have disagreed with the Committee recommendations from time to time, and the FBI has raised substantial questions about other recommendations, particularly with respect to the treatment of unsolicited mail. Some of the] proposals in the guidelines could be promulgated as departmental regulations. Congress may feel some ought to be enacted into statutory law. Ohter provisions would require implementation by; executive order. I would be glad to discuss these draft guidelines with you in detail in response to your questions, but a brief discussion of the guidelines on domestic security may be useful at the é outset. The guidelines begin by attempting to impose some order and definiteness to the domestic security field. To begin with these guidelines do not -deal with FBI efforts to counteract the work of foreign intelligence services operating within the United States. Standards for determining when. there is foreign] involvement sufficient to place a subject in the category of foreign counterintelligence investigation are now being debated within the guidelines committee. The domestic security guidelines also are not meant to cover security or background investigations of federal appointees or investigations of ordinary crimes. Under the draft guidelines, domestic security investigations are only to be authorized when there is a likelihood that the activities of individuals or groups I NW 35110 Doclid: 323989560 Page 20
rs whey 1 involve or will involve the use of force or violence in violatidn eval tyy of Federal law. Domestic security investigations are to be Et 3 limited to activities of individuals or groups intended to = : os 4 ‘accomplish one of five purposes: overthrowing the government mF 5 of the United States or of a State; interfering with the aE o> activities within the United States of foreign governments or “9 il their representatives; influencing government policies by ag SS 8 interfering by force or violence with government functions cee 9 or interstate commerce; depriving individuals of their civil . . B ‘Lo rights; and creating domestic violence or rioting when such 2 . L¢ tg 11 violence or rioting would necessitate as a countermeasure the ESS 12 use of Federal armed forces. There is also a provision for en ", re ne 13 limited investigation when there is a clear and immediate WAL threat of domestic violence which is likely to result in a request by a state for Federal armed assistance. Currently there is no procedure requiring the review outside the FBI-of all domestic intelligence investigations conducted by the FBI, though the FBI has a long-standing policy of reporting its investigative findings to the / Criminal Division. Under the draft guidelines there would be a comprehensive program of reporting to the Attorney General or SS iste his designee of all preliminary and full domestic intelligence investigations. The Attorney General would be required a a) 1 ts zs D4 under the draft guidelines to put a stop to any full investiga- fe. SNP Ow . oF tion whose justification did not meet an established standard.
LO LL 12 13 14 15 16 1? -18 NW 35110 @ ©. 2541 The standard would be that there must be specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the individual or group under investigation is engaged in the activities I have just Listed. Another feature of the draft guidelines is to place strict] controls upon the use of any technique by the FBI which goes beyond the gathering of information. COINTELPRO was the name ~ given the use of some such techniques. As I have said before, some of the activities in COINTELPRO were outrageous an the others were foolish. Nonetheless, there may be circum- stances involving an immediate risk to human life or to extraordinarily important government functions that could only countered by some sort of preventive action. The guidelines require that any such preventive action proposal be submitted , to the Attorney’ General. He could: authorize: the preventive: action only when there'is probable cause to believe that’ the violence is imminent and when such measures are necessary to- minimize the danger to life or property. The preventive action would in all cases have to-be. nonviolent. The Attorney General would be required to report to-Congress periodically and no less often than once a year on the use of preventive action by tne FBI. i make no claim that during this rather difficult but _interesting and, I must trust, promising period, ,we have achieved ail that might have been possible. Mh ya? Docld: 32989560 Page 22 In many ways the
rs eS 18 ey See 19 20 21 Re 23 "R4 a@ smn 2 Res mes ered ve . ‘S 2 et 3 se 4 an re 6. ic ? a ee. 8 ie ey Kea baa x 10 eas S 11 3 ay 12 ca Be ae 13 TD Hed a 14 ae a 15 ae a Pe. a ed 7 ‘risk to human life or to extraordinarily important government 155110 Decld: 32989560 Page 23 : Wohi work has been disappointingly slow. But I do think we have made advances in nurturing and helping to improve a structure which will he supportive of the best efforts of the men and women in the Department of Justice and in the Federal Bureau of Inves tigation. No procedures are fail~safe against abuse. The best protection remains the quality and professionalism of the members of the Bureau and of the Department. ‘ _The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney General. It's a very helpful statement, and does summarize the efforts that you are making to give greater, put greater order into the work of the FBI. One thing that leaves me somewhat baffled is the -- difference between domestic ‘security action, for which you have set forth the proposed guidelines, which seem to me to be good ones, and what you call preventive action. You state in your statement at page 12 and the top of page 13, after you exriticize the COINTELPRO program, which this Committee has explored in some detail, you say "Nonetheless, there may be circumstances involving an immediate risk to human life or to extraordinarily important government functions that coudd only be counteréd by some sort. of preventive action." In that case, why can't the preventive action take the form of an arrest if there are circumstances involving immediat functions? .
SDURIET MEA MIE ame { eee “DRY GF ek Aw Ere aie ert aa hg HH aFt, mw LO ae Pt ae rae ee Ll L2 Eats Gan Peony NEP ae 13 14 Hw 35110 Attorney General Levi. If it can, then that would have to be done because the guidelines specifically require that the preventive aétion is necessary and it can't otherwise be handled. ; 7 : Now, one can think of incidents -- The Chairman. Can you give us some incidents? Attorney General Levi. rE there is the likelihood of a \ violent confrontation between two marching groups on a state capitol, it is conceivable that blocking off some streets, or directing signs to some other direction in an emergency situation of that kind might be useful, and I take it that ‘is.a preventive action, and I would not think unusual, by the way, for people who are properly trained in work of that kind. - ; The Chairman. That is a good kind of preventive action. Suppose that there were two caravans instead of two marching groups; and that you had reason to believe that they were headed toward one another and there would be a violent confrontation once they met. Would permissible preventive action in those circumstances permit putting sand in the gas tanks of the automobiles so that neither caravan could move? I have to ask that kind of a question after what we found out that the FBI was up to in the COINTELPRO program. Attorney Gdneral Levi. The answer is no. Certainly there's no intention, the guidelines do not spell out, and we Doold: 329859560 Page 24 te A Eevee ied tes Saray Soa ance Vethig. x 4. pe ere aan eres foe acral Sis SEN, SE rep om SETI EG ro ey
25-44 have had discussions about that, what kind of precise preventive action might be possible or might not be possible under special circumstances. Prone (Ares 202) 544-6000 The Chairman. This'is all very vague, and suppose you ae had reason to believe that a prominent figure of some kind in Ee ek, SAAS ye Matas s a movement was about to or of a mind to incite his followers va Ze0 tae to violence. Then in that case could you undertake to give _him a drug. that would prevent him from speaking for three 9g ||. weeks? 10 Attorney General Levi: No, of course not, but I have to add that what the guidelines do say is that the Attorney General has to give permission, not only does he have -to give permission, but he will have to report to the Congress, and Since quite naturally this Committee believes’ that reports | to. the Congress are the. most important thing that any agency can. do, then it seems to me you must also agree that that is some safeguard. The Chairman. Well, that depends upon your view as to the kind of Committee that can do the job of surveillance. Attorney General Levi. Well, I don't think -- this really) was my suggestion before. tt takes a combination of control, | and what we have attempted to do here is to have a guideline ‘which strictly limits -- maybe it should limit more, preventive i action, but-admits that there is an area for it. Now, maybe we should not admit. “Nw 55110 mocTd: 32989560 Page 25
, ’ . : 2545 : . . . @ 1 The Chairman. Why couldn't :-you do it this way, Mr. 2 Secretary? Why couldn't you say that when preventive action is = || necessary, it must be open and public kind of action. 4 Attorney General Levi. I don’t think that telling people. - = - 5 . The Chairman. Now, understand what I mean. You gave an | : 7 6: open; public way of preventing two groups from meeting and ’ i ” | clashing. Well, when that is the case, the means used are i 8 likely to be reasonable ones. But when there are. secret methods | é 9 “of preventive action undertaken, that's when you get into Sp tg a eet Ee 10 potential problems, real troubles that we have seen. 4 ti Attorney General Levi. Well, we have to take that through 4 12 It may very well be that no secret ones at least beyond the i s 13 || immediate moment of doing would be required. It may be that. a oe 1A one can put it that way, but I think one of the virtues of fe 15 guidelines should be that they are sufficiently realistic .so. i . 16 that they don't have to be violated under emergency : 19 circumstances. ' There is a question, then, of how detailed one can make certain point would be good. oe £ should also say that the Privacy Act would itself prohibit dissemination of lies and deception, I think, to a considerable extent, if one goes back to the old COINTELPRO. So I think we are in somewhat of a different statutory situatio aI ‘> 18 re a9 them, but it may be that the line about secrecy beyond a ‘fex the moment anyway. But we have tried, in the guidelines, ne coal NW 55110 Docld:32989560 Page 26
“4 |) in any event, to very much limit the field. 7) Now, whether we have limited it enough, I'm not sure. 3 | The Chairman. Did you say that with respect to the domestiic “4 security activities of the FBI, that before such a project is ~ an 5 undertaken, the Attorney General must give his consent or ao 6) that he might be informed of prospective ongoing projects ee in order that he can calla given project that he doesn't find ae 7 a g || fully justified to a halt? eo / 9 I didn't quite understand your question. “40 7 Attorney General Levi: Well, he has to give, he has to 4 be informed of, I think, all of the investigations. He can 12 terminate them all. The problem is whether he -- he doesn't . 43 || Rave to authorize the full investigation, but he has to be = 14 | informed about it and he can terminate it. . . 15 The Chairman. Now, well, you have to authorize wiretaps 16 and electronic devices in such cases. Why shouldn't -- why “41 wouldn't it be well for the Attorney General to authorize the 18 initiation of programs in this particular field, new investi- 19 gatory programs? 20 Attorney General Levi. Well, I'm trying to protect, if 27 || not myself, at least my successors. I'm not sure that it makes | "29 much difference. It makes some difference. If the Attorney 93 || General has to authorize all full investigations, he will have | 4 quite a lot of work to do. If he has to authorize all of a5 || the preliminary investigations, his desk is going to be covered HW oS5110 Docid: 32989560 Page 27
mane SO | T 2847 1 with a great many things which he doesn't know a great deal 2 about. 5 | The Chairman. Don't you think there should be some outsid i. 4 check in this area, particularly where we are not dealing with : 5 criminal law enforcement as such, but we are dealing with . 6 potential violence -and you referred-to as surveillance of # 9 citizens and groups of citizens for purposes of domestic 8 security. That's a pretty fuzzy field, and we have seen how ae) great the abuses were for a long period of time, and don't you 10 think there should be some outside check, perhaps not with wt, Baste oe nek lye 11 every case, the Attorney General himself, but some outside fe %, . . . 3 12 check on the agency in this general field to be sure that they e 13 are following these guidelines? . oe 14 Attorney General Levi. But I've already said that I ” wer Nery ie want to word the scope of the domestic security investigations, | however, quite the way you have worded them, because these BRN, }! w~] . ue gee guidelines which could be in part put into statute, strictly ‘45 think that there ought to be reports’ to Congress. I don't limit them. They limit them to where there is a likelihood for ‘preliminary investigations that the activities of 20 21 individuals and groups involved would use force and violence 28 in violation of laws in particular areas. BR : And that is for 90 days, and then perhaps another 90 days, 24 | and the kind of investigation which can be done in a 25 | pretininary investigation is also restricted. When you go i NW 55110 |DocId:32989560 Page 28
s mae Nn sat 5 my ay bead BSaisaabouss at 7 =) stop and frisk standard, so that we really have come, XL think, 2 4 3 as close as is feasible. And maybe it is too restrictive; in : ar any event, as close as is feasible to the violation of law : . 5 ‘kind of penumbra, so that it would seem to me that that was - —_ 6 some safeguard. a ” Now, whether that is sufficient, I don't suppose anything . 8 ‘is fully sufficient, but I would assume that in addition,- | SO , J 9 there can be reports to Congress, and there will have to be 10 reports to the Attorney General, and I would think that that | 11} anda the lessons of history would provide quite a lot of safe- | 12 guards. If the suggestion is that one should go to a Commissio : 13 or to a court, I must say that I have grave doubts as to whethe 14 that is the proper solution, but if that were the case, it woul 15 be a statutory matter, and I would hope that my participation 1 16 17 18 “The Chairman. ‘Don't you think, given the_past history in making that decision would not be viewed as having as heavy responsibilities as those who would have to vote for it. beyond that to the full investigation, then we really have the you have referred to, that it might be a very good idea to take these guidelines which represent to me a good faith effort on your part to bring order into this general qahaos, take these guidelines and write them into the law? oo cM SA ed me ROLES SA TSE Ah ‘| ae] S5110 Doold: 32959560 Page 29
hee te st ., oye 4 ah * age a he Zl SEL Rs a ee fare. mle eee Legge wee aS v | Phone (Area 202) WARD & FAUL 11 12 13 L4 15 16 17 18 19 20 ND nD ne on 0 i Attorney General Levi. I think that undoubtedly parts of the guidelines should be made statutory. I think that the problem is, and I am sorry for this, is that it has taken so long to draft these guidelines, although I think it has been an a extraordinary effort. And the way the guidelines are written one has to -- at least it is better to see them all at once because they do relate to each other. But there may not be time for that. As I said, I know we have to seize the moment, but I do not know how long the moment is. In any event, I agree that part of the guidelines, at least, ought to be in statutory form. ‘The Chairman. Well, at the moment, this committee is. until February 29th, 1976. And we would solicit from you as much cooperation as I know you will give, baséd upon your willingness in the past, to see what kind of recommendations the committee can make, because clearly the FBI does need a generic statute which it has lacked through the years and that would be the appropriate.place for ‘guidelines at this time. Senator Hart, do you have questions? Senator Hart (Michigan). Mr. Attorney General, good morning. | First, for a number of years in the Judiciary Committee, we have been huffing and puffing with a.whole line of Attorneys General ‘in an effort to-catch them, and it is against that. long
°o ~ 4 i] ‘gee eee asians ephlaieet (#4 202) §44-6000 ae, me ro ¥ 3 & ES ORNL EAE SY ak i: Sn at RAISE “Gt im. LO Ll 13 -14 “46 1? 18 i 55110 @ °° 259 period of effort that I want this morning to first of all thank you for developing to the degree. that you now have, exactly the kind of thing we have been talking about. And even as we on the committee in those days were urging guidelines and while we might not have sounded we understood how incredibly difficult it is to put down in black and white, chapter and verse, how you respond in a whole variety of problems. _And for the first time, the Attorney General has come in with a very solid piece of work that all of us appreciate. Now in your statement, you indicate that you are working on guidelines as they relate specifically to informants and you relate that to the Department's general guidelines on “intelligence that permit the use of this. Now yesterday, as you know, we discussed with the FBI Director, the possibility of getting judicial approval for informants by you. . I think all of us understand the importance in an investi- gation of informants. ‘But we have heard some stories, some hair raising stories about the way that can be abused, that technique can be abused. And I, and I am sure others, suggeste that informants are an extremely intrusive form.of eavesdroppin in terms of what: can be reported, I know that the Supreme Court has not said that informants are unconstitutional per se under the fourth and first amend- nents, unless you. get a court warrant, but that does not preven Congress from requiring that . kind of procedure, in order ocTd: 329689560 Page 31 TU ERS TE Be moe hoist FCs ae teen
"st Seals tes” Syee, ty PRoNS (Aros 202) 544-6000" x ¥ ay) n tary nee acme “ra tether Pe Af TT a See SSS ena ns tH a to fully safeguard the rights of privacy and expression. Now what are your thoughts on such a requirement, the requirement of a neutral, detached third party, rather than the investigati branch of the government deciding when to use targeted infor- mants? Attorney General Levi. Well, I am sorry to Say, Senator Hart, that I do not think that the suggestion on balance is a good one. And that does not mean that I have a'better sugges- tion. There is no doubt that informants or paid informants can be misused, because there is an area where, if that.is done, the courts can step in; and one can have guidelines or statutory restrictions on that if you think of, again, reporting. , - But the notion that a court would have to authorize the use of each informant and how the informant was to be used, to continue to pass on that, t think would make for mal- administration. It would impose an enormous burden on the court, and while I think we always keep looking these days for a third impartial objective person, I do not really believe that it can be the court. Now one could think of a board or a committee. After all, the Congress set up, I think, a subversive activities board, did you not? So I suppose you might set up an informers per- mission board. But my impression is that you would not get very good people to be on that board and that it would not Doold: 32989560 Page 32
on 4 : * < | 2 zs a ~ Bg ae) 4 A w “5 °6 vi 8 9 10 LL J ae 4 ise Rete Be ae. 15 ne oe ee. 018 a 19 : 3 Be 20 Mees eS 21 Ge ee "23 oh 5 vi) pte 4 cay) {}- 5 "MW 55110 eld:32989560 Page 33 ne really provide the kind of knowledgable review that you would want. So I recognize the problem and I recognize why one might turn to that suggested solution. I do not want to take away from your time, but it is sort of interesting that special devices and protections were developed for electronic surveil- lance because they were said to be different from the use of _informants. And now we are.running the argument in the other: direction and saying well, they are even more dangerous than electronic surveillance because you have the human ear right there. So it is just an interesting point. - Senator Hart (Michigan). Well, maybe in defense of our’ earlier attitude, we did not know about the abuse with respect’ to the human technique, the number of occasions on which it has been used. i Attorney General Levi. I rather think that the fourth | : - ‘ - i Myra Trees amendment knew more about that than it did about electronic om Sete ey 9 s surveillance. Senator Hart (Michigan). The fourth amendment drafters did. But people around now -- Attorney General Levi. I feel for the objective, but I do not think -- I just think it would not work. Senator Hart (Michigan). We are agreed that it is a difficult balance. The national security concern here and the Q ee ory pes Ste Et ede Sect an Bhpe phic ALLRED Naga SNe pee ae athe SPN os i WEA TS Peet Ame! SORTED oat oes ok
individual's civil liberties here --— and to balance these “2 claims is tough. You say you think the court is inappropriate. 5 Attorney General Levi. I think that would be a mistake. 4 || I think it would also be a mistake to have the court pass on 1. 5 the activities of the agents, of the Bureau's own agents who 6 have ears and listen and so on. I think we have to trust 7 someone. 8 Senator Hart (Michigan). But -is the Director of the FBI ~~ 9 the fellow to trust? “10 7 Attorney General Levi. He is certainly one of the persons 11 that has to be trusted very much, and he has to be put ina NE, 2 ty Pokies a cae ri 12 position where it is known that he is. being trusted and what Og Hea ge wrath tf 13 || his obligations are. oo WANT & PAUL at, + 14 And I think if the congressional mandate and the guide- 15 lines and whatever else are clear enough, I have enough faith 16 || in human nature to think that that would be abided by. I do 17 || not think the history of the abuses shows that that kind of a 18 | thing really was abused. There was not that kind of spelling 19 out. There was not that kind of direction. There were 99 | dixections in the other way really; so that I do not think the 2] || problem -- while I do not mean to minimize the prior abusés po || ‘which were terrible -- but I do not think the problem requires 23 || the solution of the interposition at every stage. 24 Senator Hart (Michigan). If we leave the discretion with 25 the Director of the Bureau, you would agree that there should HW O55110 Docld:32989560 Page 34
ee @ a, @ ossa-2555 of oq be a ---we always use the word effective even: though we cannot © . define how you make it effective -- an effective system under which somebody other than the Bureau's Director would be reviewing the decisions he is making, as he affects this Sere ry 5 es balance. oe én . ec aCe nH ‘Attorney General Levi. I think theré have to be frequent reviews and I think one has to have a situation in the . Department of Justice where the Attorney General or his ~ oo designee can be in a position to make that review and I think id SUT, ms one also would hope and require that there be adequate presen- core aie * “10 Farr e AONE PRALINE Bh MME So a rw, a tM rE ETSY MARIE ECA A RRO oS Sai 3 a ES ee: ee: 44 tation to congressional committees. You do not want to impose “12 so .many duties on the Attorney General so that he is -- so SD oat 5 Bais 82 ta ‘that he loses some sense of distance and objectivity on the A ae fa verh yee art wtencoe el MARA, ote WAC Rape he ia atta tae eM 13 Bureau. 15 _That is one reason I said one has to realize that there ee ee aed A OSA ae DR TAN a 16 is not full knowledge and they are different offices. But I ernss a9 do think the Attorney General, I hope, is some protection and the Department is and congressional committees would be too. wate” Sawee NRL. Senator Hart (Michigan). The earlier hearings, which fs AS Trot reviewed some of the excesses, found some citing in the FBI 20 te “93 handbook regulations which directs field offices and their i . _ informants to find out and report all contacts and cooperation iy os between. a group under investigation and other groups, even if tS BA || the other groups’ are not suspected of being either extremists | os or subversives. . ; i es Petrie ale MW 35110 ocTd:32989560 Page 35
‘ dey 2557 I would think that part of the investigation would be to put that down. And that is really what’ you are talking about. And I do not know that one should want to limit that. Senator Hart (Michigan). -Well, maybe there is not: any happy solution to this, but we would be doing would be reporting on first amendment activities of the other groups that would not be eligible to be targeted. Attorney General Levi. I think the report should not be on that. It should be rather on the effort of the group properiy being investigated.to gain control. And we do have a problem as to what one does with the dissemination or keeping of information, and the guidelines attempt to address that question, whether they have done so sufficiently or not. One reason the guidelines are not all finished, when one gets to the counter or foreign intelligence guidelines and has to deal with organizations which are under active collaboration -with foreign governments, and the question is whether they have extended their influence in such a way as to impose a real threat of force and violence, I do not know how effectively oa ‘ . eg Sa NES Hy i Pe? 8s met ta Withee, ehh GY ese ature APR eRe le TE Ao Sota wT IE agate Oa, Be Be aMotas eT Aa Ne ; ‘ : G ek o3 ‘ ae eee ees " WARD & PAUL ™ : Prone (Area 202) $44-0060 S oy . . : : ; . . ; ; ; an . . . co oy : a . . ; ~ . tS aa 5 SS oop! ow : Oo OM ~@ &@:> om sp co WD FF . i; . pr er npr A NR INNO D | Cerrar a A EEL I A | i « ' 29 || one can impose restrictions. “31 We try to do it. The proposed guidelines have not been go | Worked out. One has to remember that if one goed) back to the i .2% || period when I was first in the pDepartment/ of Justice, there was i pa | considerable concern as to the ability of the Japanese and the | : 25 Nazis to gain control beyond those agencies which were clearly ue SteEPA sare oe aoe ree Pp See FS Stee o | NW 55110 | crarsoooose Page 36°
ni collaborating with them into other agencies. And I just do not a) know that I want to say to the United States government that 8 that is the kind of information that you may not get. 4 The Chairman. Senator Mathias? te 5 Senator Mathias. If Senator Hart has any question. which SBS follows right along at this point, I would be glad to yield. on Senator Hart (Michigan). No, ¥ os ils = SR 8 Senator Mathias. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ~ BG ee W i if i a} Te) join with Senator Hart in thanking the Attorney General for eee +) yr "st eh 0 es PEERS “10 |} a11 the help he gives to this committee. Whether we call on « AES oe =: ae baie And the way in which he helps us leads me almost to regret that I did not go to the University of Chicago law school. @ , 6 . “16 Senator Mathias. You have talked a little about the Vy Smith Act, and about the seditious conspiracy clause in connec-/ a "18 tion with the responsibilities of the FBI. And I wonder if you . 19 think there is sort of a dated aspect to these. ie 20 Attorney General Levi. Oh, of course there is and I want ay to say that when one talks about the looseness of the guide- PR fe qy him for philosophical treatises or for practical advice, he is a | 12 always available. I think that is a very real contribution. 13 14 15 |] Attorney General Levi. Senator, you are going to go far. lines, one ought to read the statutes which came out of “hps Congress. That is why I say that it is sort of amusing as we go around flattering each other, we all bear -~- I mean all of the institutions bear responsibility. ‘HW 55116 ocTd: 329689560 Page 37
ro ° ‘ he Oo gh ott Bane sie * Agee ee ee Pda Ned AMA ge 202) 544-6000 Prone (Area Stee oe Slate OL 6 OP Sad ae He liad tes cet, erly tly: Spgs cPOR SAE Ul Te 2 ERT " . oe 19'S a & ee oy WARE & rAUL ebabaet es br etey RASS con co Spinel «AS 10: 11 12 24 2D Hw 35110 cn @ . 2559. Senator Mathias. I could net agree with you more, and I think I have said repeatedly that I think a lot of the problems that are dumped in the courts and a lot of the burdens that the courts bear have begun right, here on Capitol Hill because we | have not carefully sculpted the laws to nake it clear what the legislative intent was. And in fact, perhaps they have been carefully sculpted to obscure the legislative intent in some ~cases. And the courts then are left with the burden of finally administering the law rather than either the legislature prescribing it, or the executive enforcing it. Attorney General Levi. Not only that, you draft>- statutes that quite clearly say one thing, the Attorney- General is then asked for his opinion which he is required to give,as to what it means to a government department. He gives it. Another House of this Congress then proceeds to make motions to hold the man in contempt for following the opinion of the Attorney General. And Professor Kurland, my good friend says do-not listen to the Attorney General, he is only a lawyer. There is a responsibility in Congress for having statutes Clear and for abiding by what they say, and if they do not like then, change them. I agree with you. eld:32989560 Page 36 : S37 a Paper oe ne ssadige Laan ty ge Set Sees ee 28 4 a 2, Ae TERReeer mene [4 PORE CAPE
Vio gde. Marana hanagett oe Lie fgg Pass ANTE RSEL SSeS StS ie eR SMOnhe (Area BH2) 644-0000 |} UE Tae a sh ek aoe WADI & CAUL aR ewaee mrt fy {i se TT EET vibaar chest 3 Sas a Pye ‘, Sf. 2 MGs oe wet eke ee Sree We. ‘ nee ere mater: i) 3 7 “ ..8,, Viarhington, 55110 Docld: 32989560 2560. I would hope that with all the admonitions - t Senator Mathias. that we are giving to other people these days that we take that one ourselves, that the laws need to be more carefully written. it is easier to see abuses oa Attorney General Levi. Yes, by others, I know. Senator Mathias. Let me say that I think we need some hel in this endeavor, that there are many cases in which the action taken by Congress are criticized later when the errors might have been avoided by some cooperative action in the process. Attorney General Levi. I meant that to be clear when I was referring to all parts of the government. Senator Mathias. But, specifically in relation to the seditious conspiracy laws in the Smith Act, the courts have - talked about the advocacy provisions of the law so strictly as to require incitement of imminent lawless action as a test and that I think does really date these acts. Attorney General. Levi. I think so. And while I want to say that in. the guidelines we tried to ettphasize that there is a question. of how much one ought to spell out the nature of the evidence, in part, because I think that even spelling it out might have a chilling effect. Senator Mathias. Now you have lead me right to my next question, which is whether we should bpt any limitations on “the type of information that is to be gathered in a purely domesticr intelligence investigation. Page 39 PER SONS Cate STAIR RACER LEI ERE IELTS ETSI TTT a ee aS era ‘s GOR LPS ORR GAR Speen araraze Retest inceeaaripolecitinrest AGT Ee LRT ATA” 8 BRR Sr SCL RLN uy uEX peta Fas te Cr aareret RAKE oe AES ee peerhs Si og TRE aaa TE” rath 7
a a - ” ie 3] seers a Epa pane oor @ @ * 2561 " col Attorney General Levi. Well it may be that one has to ies ren 2 try one’s hand at drafting them. I have. Re ren ny ee ere ret i) Senator Mathias. It is a tough one, I think, but we have " 4 seen as a result of this investigation family matters, is that A 5 _ proper? Can you prescribe it ina general way that sexual ni i 6 activities, purely legal activities, but perhaps not within the} i 7 mainstream of what most Americans are thinking of doing, per- : 8 sonal relationships, all of this kind of thing -- r 9. Attorney General Levi. Well, one can try. What we did A. 10 was, as I say, to provide a very tough and maybe too tough 3 LL standard, because it is specific. And articulable facts, 3 12 giving reason to believe that an individual is engaged in a ‘ . . 4 13 activities described in the paragraph which is force and violen e 3 . ; 3 14 to do the following things. oe 15 Now, that may be too restrictive. Now, if one starts to (16 say what kind of things can one look at which might suggest and . 17 lead you'.to see these things, I do not know. And I suppose 4 “4g || we all have to admit that public attitudes about activities and 3 19 therefore maybe the activities themselves mean different things “g { "90 at different times. — HN 1 And maybe one has to have a different set of rules created a Es 22 from time to time and one of the notions of the guideline would a £ 23 | be, I think, to do that. : a 2a i: , I am not in favor of Congress every year. deciding whether 25 it is against homosexuality or particular other aberrant sexual MW 35110 ocd: 32939560 Page 40
. L ¥ eo ‘ 1’ . @ : 255 2 , 1 || conduct. a 2 And therefore this can be included or not included as the ‘3 lt winds blow. I think that would be probably not legislatively aa very desirable. a?) Senator Mathias. Let us suppose, however, just for the™ --'6-|| sake of discussion that these activities are the proper scope % || of a domestic intelligence investigation and that that investi- 8 gation is conducted and its object is obtained and the investi- a ~ be go gation is closed, then what. should happen to this material, BS 10 given the infinite capacity of the government today to store ee , ee > iri) and retrieve information? - 12 Attorney General Levi. Well, the guidelines attempt to ue 13 |..go in the direction that after a period of time that material tf ote . - ae 14 || should be done away with. a 15 ‘Senator, you have often posed questions for me to.think ea 16 about and this is another one that I think we ought. to think : e. 17 about together: that is the destruction of information. It ‘ So 18 is also the destruction of evidence which might be used to sho a a 19 || abuses by the Bureau. li oe ee an oe . ale: aan PER ee 21 Senator.Mathias. If 'I knew the answer I would not ask ae 22 fi Attorney General Levi. If I knew the answer I would give Fa wm i> rau) on : the question. a But, I am saying, because I think it is a very important ew 55110. Doeld: 32989560 Page 41
~ se L » : . x * ‘ ra 25 63 te L “? , e Lo @ o 3 x) b4 : re _t question -- sin ; a $ 2 | Senator Mathias. I think what you suggest is a very per- 4 5 tinent, very current.consideration, that if you destroy all the E ; ck 4. files, you can do more than all the perfumes of Arabie in washih 5 out the blood. 7 6 Attorney General Levi. The guidelines do move-in that 7 direction. There is an argureht about the time for the destruc 8 tion.of information. 9 |. Senator Mathias. There is a concurrent question: if file 210 are retained for any period of time, are they open for the pur- 11 ' pose of name checks during that period, which is a related 12 but really a separate question, for background checks, for . WARD & KFAUL 13 employment checks, that kind of thing. 14 Attorney General Levi. Well you could have selective 15 sealing of files and I suppose selective destruction of items. 16 But it is a very difficult thing. 7 : Sénator Mathias. I would like to explore briefly your 18 thoughts on a subject we have discussed with other witnesses 19 at some tength.. And that is whether you believe that a bearers J : 20 warrant requirement for beginning .a domestic intelligence 7 j 21 investigation would. meet the standards inthe Fourth Amendment : - go | if it required less. than. probable cause for the issuance of : 23 a warrant, probable cause-.to believe that a crime has been or | 31 Ptist wteaoat, was. about to occur. gs Ee on heep a y =) Attorney. General Levi. I think the question really |. MW 55110 Docld:32989560 Page 42
yee Ra ieee ic i i would be what the warrant would enable the obtainer to do. 2 Under the guidelines,. just opening a preliminary investiga- 3 tion, what can. be done is not.very much. It is so much less 4 than a full investigation. So, I think I would turn the Poe . POR tars ee 5 question around. ~ eR . ee a an) I think the court would really wonder‘why you want the e is 4 warrant. And it certainly. would clog the courts. et 8 Senator Mathias. The intrusion of an informant, for i ae i . . war See 9 example, into a political discusSion,.or any other activities He Se - a 10 is a much greater intrusion than a bug or a wiretap in that ae % 121 Same converfation. 12 . Now, would. this be, would the placement of an informant a ‘13 be that kind. of. activity? "414 Attorney General Levi. Well, you.see, the preliminary 15 investigation does not really allow new informants, so, as I 16 say, it is quite limited: ie ee 17 And. I did-respond that. I understand. there is a problem 2 ae - 18 about the human.ear, the human. eye, which we discussed last Re a nat | ca “19 time. But, I doubt when yon ave. going for a warrant that in aoe es oo oe : 2 Bas 20 each one. of those cases.is feasible. ee ~ . Sos "OL And I think we have to be grown up enough not to feel that "Bo See * i¥ BY a a 20 we always have to go to the courts. .Now, that may make us feel Ne Re < ve 74 Ake ORG Hed ae wendy 23 that there is a lack of protection. But I think a greater 24 protection is to' curtail the scope of the investigations to 54 ee make sure that they are held to a high standard and to control aw) i
ae Ta ha FE eV aR core t & ey, 5 4 1. dissemination of the information. 3 2° Senator Mathias. Well, E think that is the proper test: E 3 whether you can. embark. upon.-what are obviously immature reactions fe 4 to events. . . 7 A 5 I do not. think the. Fourth. Amendment itself is subject to- 4 6 ll a test of maturity or immaturity,.but -- | , is i 7 Attorney General Levi. ‘No, I do not think the Fourth : 8 Amendment requires a warrant. : 9 - But I understand the argument that it is better, it is 4 -10 sometimes better. to put a man on the moon ,. because he will know | 11 more than a machire. So you are saying the same thing in terms of. informers. Senator.Mathias. .Finally, let.me just return to'’the Smith Act for a minute, which, as I understand it, requires incitemen} Sets iy Heeb Ww en a . Re i o w to imminent action. to overthrow the government by violence. 16 If a domestic intelligence investigation can begin with ok 17 far less, only a theoretical advocacy of some ’change ~- oe 18 Attorney General. Levi. I do not think it should begin wit a i3 . . “4 19 || a theoretical advocacy of. change. a 20 .Now,: if you asked me whether it ever does, my an&Swer is A ; “4 21 || I do not know. But I do not think it should..begin with that. “$ | : x 22 Senator. Mathias. Well, I think that between those two 43 3 2% positions, there is a.danger of First Amendment violations. And 3 oa if: IT like your. position.. I am not arguing with you -- 25 | Attorney General.Levi. Well, we wrote this domestic Pe i fe B, t 55110 Docld:32989560 Page 44
Pere aaa nee a ona ae a, ee Eee Rhee eran Sa aae Ks eS eRe PORE: ee! oe oteaet, WARE & Pau » Wessntrivron, OG. FOROS Ade Porat 10 Ll 12 13 16 1? (18 19 20 22 "23 ny > 25  ) " "  ) « 2666 security investigation guideline because I was disturbed by the prior draft as not being tough enough and I think that I may now have come out with something that is too restrictive. I am not sure. And this is a proper process of discussion and back and forth, not only here but with the Bureau and I hope -that one can get something from it that is useful. Senator Mathias. Thank you very much. ‘The Chairman. Senator Mondale. Senator Mondale. Thank.-you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Levi, I think the most faithful question that this Committee, our Congress and our government must face is whether we are going. to step beyond the Stone line permitting investi- gative agencies to go beyond matters of law enforcement, matters od * of so-called "internal security.” . If we decide that we must, then I am persuaded we should only do. so based upon unarguable evidence that an exception is needed and. then to grant such an exception only under the severest and closely defined standards, and, if possible, under| court supervision. If we fail to do that, I am convinced that this Committee has failed and. that. in another.50 years, there will be hearings just like this in which the. excesses that we have uncovered will have been repeated. And, I say that ecause I think. anything we do has to stand the test of what we have learned. And what we heve mesliO Docid: 32989560 Page 45 L a reser 7 Cea TOE EE parapet fp Se EELS FET g reryrretaconecnervsnienrmpupper peeve aerernnNmanaenanNDsaeT tae) We Se Recang psa HA PGA ATR SP WO ROP, OOPR TNO TA OK Bene SR we oe
Phone (satan 2O2) F48-6000 15 ny . , Se Log tht 847) oO boca ie [4 oe WATE @& FAL RS re he Fe pee Dp pie RES 15 ‘i6 1? 18 19 20 2 Wat RNIGIUE, $9. LODGES De hag AR trast, 25 sth” at hid Prev ve ® - ’ , @ © 2567 ° learned is that the power to use the police for politics is a seductive and irresistable one. .Na President, no attorney general can resist it. Few have. But we have now found that it is not a partisan issue. Th Presidents of both political parties, a director who served under Presidénts of both political parties, they were absolutel unable to resist the right to snoop into the private affairs off Americans not to enforce the law but in order to gain. some pol- itical advantage. ‘This is, I think if you look at human history, this has happened everywhere. Which is why we adopted the Bill of Right The Federal Bureau of Investigation was set up precisely be- cause it happened in World War I and we had the scandal of the Palmer Raids and all the rest. And when I Look at these. vaguely defined guidelines, I have to ask would they stand up under the direct orders to the contrary from. a President of the United States. Would they stand up in the face of a willful director who is angry or. hostile or suspicious about some of these political ideas, the next Martin Luther King. ~ My feeling is that based upon what we have learned, with- out any doubt, if you swept away, as. quickly as a sand castle being overrun by a hurricane, they would mean nothing. What we decide to do cannot be tested by the words, but by cur notions of. how human nature works when empowered ‘in thi Sree tre err mcmviarel avh Prat m. ae coerce TE MW 35110 Doocld: 32959560 Page 46
Prone (Area 202) 44-0000 ea) a aie e # aE ae set z Wee fs Fike eee reap”. Baie Le sf eee SS Pe, pits 8 * dy, mee ay z bt 7 VIA & FALL, ” io] c) is) % u Q ny S5L10 Doold: 32969560 Page 47 SES ESSN NE TT TST aa VRE TS OR TTETS TINT TAT ALOIS x 4 c 1 . t vad vf. ® 2568 way to play god with the American people. That is the test and it has got to be tested by what happens when the nation is in frenzy and in fear and it has got to be tested by what people do when they do not think they are going to be caught. And, for that reason; I see the step beyond'the ‘Stone Stex namely beyond the enforcement of the criminal law, is not a “step forward, but a step off a cliff, right back into the moras that we find ourselves in today. If you look at this record, it is a horrible one. I mean the way Martin Luther King was hounded and harrassed is a disgrace to every American. That this country once took all, the Japanese and put them in internment camps we now know is one of the blackest pages in American history. and it is that kind of record that whatever we do has to be tested against. And, I think for that reason we have to draw a line, the ‘line that Judge Stone suggested, and if we do grant exceptions, they have to be specifically and rigidly and unquestionably drawn, because there is no point in talking about oversight if the standards are not understandable. And these laws have to be so clear that the Attorney General and the Girector of the FBI would have to say when the president calls, "T am sorry, Mr. President, but we cannot do it, it is against the law.” If they are not able to say that, I am convinced we will a Fea, A PRAY TE 8 EOETIIIE CAEN” EA NE ROA ANION OR TA PAT BG ARGS ATE f yee S82 acta k ia Path aS “ik er 2 taal ee e 7 ere pacae. aaa) TS Perens neenrer sn: ra oF 2, area aE ainwrs pia Ss Sarre tccemenaey po aae f ~ Fabens ian Seen Savor eee SN fe a. £. = vente Eee roe oe 6 a wh Eneenh & 3 Pant deena taneanantnin orunmtesbeneaateath errs ee Levieeic gras mae UL deo ammnane em eee sem mvt gh 5 Pare is Si Pees: hake tie . pinaraas fete boy SORE TAD SEE SEN ee een ss " cs a A apy ARYA dird hiatal ee - : — . one es Py LS “) a pak i perch bes nes ies oe laren nae a ~ aan teneerre nema paterrnpy mem asenn nine be ates tntnen Tr nie ce tran nn at teen hte OTE SE ee Tage oe wes cree eh ow epee Bat an <2 fn REE Rests Tah Ee tee t wee ahs agree ven moet meee
aie “ee [ome } i i} § | se ys . . , 25691 right back here, someone will, those who follow us, 50 years a oe ‘s ave teal "4 3 fash, ts G Merle sm rene OH BOZY DAAOORD 3 Pe from now, holding hearings similar to these. 2B ars) . Would you respond to that? & -4 . Attorney General Levi. Well, I think, like the Stone 2 5 statement, it is a good admonition. As I tried to-say in my i 6 statement, I do not think the Stone standards indicates that 4 7 there should not be domestic security investigations because 8 _the Stone standard talks about items within the proper juris- 9 diction of the Bureau -.and violations of law and if you are goint 10 to have an investigating agency which is going to be at all 11 responsible in those areas, they have to know some things which} 12 are related, closely related to violations of particular kinds 13 of law. agi Aa aa Wand ae #AUL 14 . And I do not believe that the standards that have been 15 drawn up are as vague as your statement, perhaps, suggests, be- 16 cause, when one uses the standard of ‘the stop and frisk case, 1? that is the standard, very close and perhaps too close. 18 So, I think in terms of the Stone standard, it probably * . ‘ 19 meets it. i 20 | So. that I am not sure that there is this big gap, .because j ; Oy this says specifically, “specific and articulable facts giving : 22 reason to believe that an individual or individuals acting in: 23 concert are engaged in activities" described’ in that paragraph. 3 Ba Those are activities of force and violence in violation of 25 criminal statutes.
a Re i re ee i me Rae pee Fi ed ei WARD & WAGE, Bee Oe cet, ae Se = iF i @ Ban a nn it { fs Saas 4 eam: SeR834, ee oe Gee "er t "S O fe | fe>) sf Past ie Te nary i eo ~2 Re acre RRS is te Oo Sas ht _o saet ae) co) SRS n ra cat NW 55110 Ddeld:32989560 Page 49 So -~- and I should remind you, as I know I do not have to, ‘that, as we said before, Congress has passed some rather broad ? criminal statutes. Senator Mondale. Oh, yes.” Attorney General Levi. And the Stone standard is not very meaningful if you ‘do: that. ‘ Senator Mondale. Well, the question now is once we know _What- has happened, and we know the abuse that arises when peopl have this unlimited, ill-defined power, what do we do if possible to try to prevent its recurrence? That is the issue that faces you. That is the issue that faces me and I am con- vinced that guidelines written by the executive can be rewritten by the executive, and if not by you, by those who follow, And they will mean absolutely nothing against the will of a willing president, a willing attorney general, ora . Willing director, absolutely nothing. because they do not have the force of law. = ~ semanas ae rae ¥ ae Cerra ret yy eer evar! Se Bee Tor areas eae a La rea 3. eet ee ere Sy RG AS PETERS ST Oe ant Pe RRS aya eRe ThE oe
SR Tbe eae ae ee 5 . . & t _ 2571, 2 a . ‘- Attorney General Levi. There's no disagreement. I don't 4 x 2 hink I should apologize for havina ventured into the drafting, : 3 into having the guidelines drafted. It seems to me that that. é had to be done. I certainly do not take the position that parts of them should not be put in statutory form, and I certainly do not take the position that’ some of them should not be put in Fxecutive Order form. I think we ought to use all the devices, those devices ‘ where more permanence is wanted and those devices where there -10 || Might have to he changes from time to time. 41 Senator Mondale. Now, Mr. Levi, are you persuaded that. ou have personally reviewed the specific instances of abuses 12 || - pe 13 WATO & PAUL by enforcement agencies, particularly the FBI? Are you . 14 |) personally confident that your guidelines fit and meet and -- |} prevent a recurrenc -those abuses?- 15 13 ent xr rence of-.those abuses? 16 Attorney General Levi. The guidelines are not completed. 7 Senator Mondale. No, have you personally looked thraugh those materials? 18 Attorney General Levi. At all thé abuses? Certainly not. Senator Mondale. Well, certainly not, you say. ilr.. Schlesinger, confronted with a similar problem, sent a wire to all of his CIA facilities and said, give us all the examples that you know of in which our laws and our authority have been abused. Have you done anything like that? 25 Attorney General Levi. I have done several things. S5110 Doocld: 32985560 Fage 50 5 ig a 2 Abe +3 ie FY magi py nana Crake lomtaspaesiel rs hteiarnaten aes sean Ss
Senator Mondale. Have you done anything like that? Attorney General Levi. JI am trying to answer. Senator Mondale, All right, proceed, Attorney General Levi. ‘We have an investigation going on a oe te * of the COINTELPRO and COINTHLPRO-like activities. We have a BRELY communication, several from me to the Pirector, where he thinks a there is sensitive or irregular materials to call it to my attention. “le have -- so that I think that we have done both things that were done by Mr. Schlesinger. I assume that Mr. Schlesinger's behavior was purified the CIA. I really do not know. Senator Mondale. Well, let us take the most celebrated 4 3. S & : @ = 0 x £ qs z-. case of abuse, Dr. King. Has someone in vour Department read the FBI's whole file in this? . Attorney General Levi. I cannot answer that question. Three people now are going through the entire file. Senator Mondale. FBI file? nee ean ose Cy fi Attorney General Levi. Yes. 45 see! pace Senator Mondale. The entire FBI file? tetee ee Attorney General Levi. So far as I.know, yes. ot ‘ ey Senator Mondale. Are you sure of that? RyRe oA goad ae Attorney General Levi. So far’as I know, yes. If the question suqgests that they cannot get at the file, that is -really not the problem, The problem might be that there are so many Files which may be in a variety of other files and CMW 55110 DieTd:32989560 Page 51 nates rade tasat nidar-rerertteesterian Sorereveeectoowaret penne —aae Sree Sa ere pee ex ener ecm semana ecard ay reer fe EOE SRE SER ACRI TT wae a i Se oe ryroemens eR item uaa ty DW det, oe kn Cok pe = a TES te EN , bes: a * Sp pepe nyn re ee eee
aa my 3 ve 3 "3 a” . =k as “Sey ~- se 5 = “ee 5 ie 6 ® im 4 e 9 os, Li 3 vy pa a wey 12 mh 4 : Mi 13 ae on 2 14 he 7 16 t . ts “ LY 18 L9 20 22 23 * * 24 Pas) that way hecause: there is a problem of what is an impropriety’ « ' @ ; | , , ) ‘ a " references that it may be difficult, but there is not a problem about their getting accéss to the files, and they tell ne they are doing it. I have not myself done it. . | I have some feeling myself that I do not want to read the Martin Luther King file. I wanted to regard it, in fact; out of the sense of proprieties and privacy as sealed ‘because it seems to me that it was apvropriate for the sake of the “privacy of Dr. King to have that material disposed, and I saw ~ no point in ny personally reading it. Senator Mondale. In other words, you are of the understand- ing that all of the PBI and other investigative Justice Depart- ment files of Dr. King have been reviewed? Attorney General Levi. No. I, am saying that I was sufficiently disturbed about it. so that I am having them all reviewed. . ‘Senator Mondale. You said you asked the Director of the FBI, Mr. Kelley, for improprieties. Have you gotten a report on that? Attorney General Levi. "e have had some reports on where he thinks there are sensitive matters. Senator Mondale. Do you have a complete report on impro- orieties? Attorney General Levi. I do not know that I would put it c |where there are sensitive issues which he thinks may raisé a WW 55110 Dooid: 32959560 Page 52
te af rw & get, g . . ‘ lot a 4 question, my belief is that he now brings them to me. ay 2 Senator Mondale. ‘hat was your request to him? s 3 Attorney General Levi. “ell, I do not have the precise E . Eg 4 statenent. a | ao = 5 Senator Mondale. I mean, what were vou trving to get a . ih ae 6 from him? Was that evidence of FBI improprieties? A record 3 Be . he s y || O£ what had happened? i ee : . . te Se 8 Attorney General Levi. “ell, there are problems of i a misbehavi £ wh ld 2 as misbehavi ight : Ed 9 misbehavior, of what I wou reqard as misbehavior, or might is ok 10 || regard as misbehavior, and when one deals with matters of this fe fe 11 kind, it is a learning process. because the words do not always . Ee f 12 || Carry the same meaning. I was told when I came to the Department that the COINTNLPAD - BREEDS “13 14 project had been completely reviewed and exposed. After I was i 15 the Departnent, I discovered -- and I think partly as a result 16 of miscommunication to the Director -- that they had found 7 other items in the COINTELPRO project, and those were xenorted 18 to this Committee and to other Committees, but the point is that. you might have projects which go bevond the confines of Pa 20 fo Dears aE 21 Senator Mondale. Was it your testimony, if I heard vou yt toasye ty ats tte tCog Pa renorts aiven you by Director Kelley in response to your request Attorney Geheral Levi. No, I did not sav that. I said 19 the COINTEL oroject, which might still involve similar behavior. — Committee received, I believe, a letter fron me “HW 55110 Docld: 32989560 Page 53 —-
ey We TENCE ar Sent aL ea Dts 23 n € ee ae en ae 90, BN Ma tPF ay SO LONGSRS toed ana ae Gar eran ai OMS ER oe bin oe Rs SS Ji x 2 Mee Dm FeAS = LO li 12 13 14 16 17 18 . ° e . % . ; r | «2575 describing the additional COINTELPRO projects. Senator Mondale. Not just COINTELPRO. As I understand your statement on page wight, "I instructed Director Kelley to report to me any requests made of the Bureau or practices within the Bureau which he deemed improper or which the . ‘appearence of impropriety, and then on February 28 Director ‘Kelley ordered the FBI personnel report such requests or pract-| ices to him, " and I think you indicated that you have received some in response to that inquiry. Attorney General Levi, I say here, The Director promptly replied ‘he has regularly provided information on programs underway within the Bureau which could raise questions. Senator Mondale. Did you get a report to him in response to that request? . Attorney General Levi. I have gotten reports from him, That is what this sentence says, He has provided information on conduct that could raise questions. Senator Mondale. Ordered the FBI personnel to report such requests or practices to him. Now, has that been done? Attorney General Levi. Yes,.he did report them. Senator Mondale. — He ordered it. Did her get the report? Attorney General Levi. Well, I believe he did because I. think that was one of the reasons that that the additional COINTELPRO items surfaced. | Senator Mondale. Was this just limited to COINTEL? atc neabes: metre ur craeeen dioeong toe ge eter meen “noe entaearecerer seats see nding en Te 3 és ene tst Siahias’ TRS One CS OF RES Se AY ea aa Lt pin eendedon pacts aera anton STE <r ri Ce ee NES RY RS ea FUMAPUESUPMRE LOE nT Tp ENCOUN TS awd seine . eau vi ae me Ratensed PE ea reer PAY Son See a oe ETL Pe sete oe ae
Attorney General Levi. (Yo. Senator Mondale. Now, can we nave those reports? > Attorney General Levi. = do not think they are very many of then, but I assume you can have then. The only thing is that it is hard to, it is a continuing process, and there are -~ I tes : 2 ee se Ms Ey would probably not think they would raise questions of miscondu Dut more be a matter of sensitive questions. — ce ¥ Senator Mondale. Well, I would like to have the reports | re" 4s; Sev ne Sten, i Hi St ; Be a that came to Director Kellev in response. . Sane cf Attorney General Levi. Well, that I do not know about. ‘Senator Mondale. _ But, I am asking you as the head of the ‘Justice Department if we could get those reports? Attorney General Levi. Well, I do not know if you can or not, but we will certainly consider it. a Senator Mondale. Why not?. Attorney General Levi. Because I think that it is one thing to give reports of that kind-in confidence to a Committee a af of this kind and another thing to make them public. 4g Eee Senator Mondale, The CIA gave theirs to us. Why cannot at, 5 " Aint you? Attorney General Levis Well, tT am not in the CIA. I do not care to be, I do not wish to be. ‘Senator Mondale, Do vou cohsider that a good answer? Attorney General Levi. I -- yes, I consider the answer as good as the question. WW 55110 Docld:32989560 Page 535
_. 2577 4 bd a “a 4 - 1 ; Senator Mondale. Well, I think that kind of arrogance ; 2 is. why we have trouble between the Executive and the Legislative 3 Branch, Thank you, "tr. Chairman, 4 The Chairman. I understood Senator Mondale's question to 5: be whether you would furnish certain documents to the Committee,| 6 | not if you wished then to be made public er not that he was y asking that the Committee make them public. I do not know 8 that we have had any problem in the past with the Nepartment 9 in getting information of this kind. gre ies eer ones ts iver SOR 10° . Attorney General Levi. I apologize to Senator Mondale if 1 I appeared arrogant. I thought that somebody else was appearin 12 arrogant, but I apologize. 13 . The point is that if you ask agents to report on what they 14 may think is misconduct, if they think that that is going to . : 15 be made public, that would, I believe, to be very chilling. if 16 I, personally, have no reason to not want to give it to a i ity 18 17 Committee if it is to be Kept in confidence. I do not know i 18 what the Bureau's position on that would be, .and my relationship : 19 with the Bureau is that I like to discuss these matters with 20 | nen before giving a definitive answer because I am not that : 21 [ersorme, ‘98 The Chairman. Well, leaving all personal references aside, 23 I think that you know that when this Committee has asked and 24 received information in confidence, it has kept the confidence, 95 Attorney General Levi. And we have tried very hard to give ok) ene Sere 5 PaCS TU Be cnr coe wee oe MW 35110 Docld: 329639560 Page 56
‘you information, The Chairman. So that ought not to be any problem, and I would appreciate vour following un Senator Mondale's request ath ts rat Sante t because I regard it as an important one and not a frivolous wa Eieei, ea as a ee Beals oy ESS one, and in that connection let me say just before we move ‘on a ENS Sane ee t & 0 to further questions that sometime ago, in early August, you Reed Ban sent a letter to me in which you requested from the Committee - = REaAy sn this seems appropriate now because it is a request in reverse - you requested of- the Committee information that was contained in our files, transcripts and testimony which might bear upon re ty a investigations currently being conducted by this Denartment. 4 ped SPE aA x ues . DES You did not get a written reply to that letter, but, as I think ks a . . -¢ ae you will recall, we met shortly later -- and I think Judge pee 223 ft An ag oni " AN EC Tyler was present, and I was present at the time -- and this _— subject was touched upon, and I said that the Committee wanted apne we Pe SESE pore EBA, CET AS: neg: to coonerate in- making available whatever information we could Sey ay age 7 a Oe Age Sr EPR pees that would be helpful to the Pepartment and that there would be pees a follow-up in which Mr. Schwarz and Mr. Smothers would “ corroborate with representatives of your Departnent to. find out the best way for proceeding to implement the Justice Since then you have sent several more letters. Just recently we have received more letters relating to more targeted matters, including Dr. Martin Luther King matter and the Chilean ’ J ; Ee eS CORRE OTE ORS c matter. Nw 35170 Doold: 329539560 Page 57
2579: ‘ a? 1 1 ‘oa I simply want to assure you, aS a matter cf public record, WC aaa Se oe ee . RECESS at GOUG that the Committee, having considered this earlier request, fully willing to cooperate in any way, and we will see to ‘that procedures axe now worked out so that there will be further delay. Our preoccupation with the assassination ~~ investigation and the issuance of the Committee's réport has tet 1 MERAY REE: prempted our time, but we think that these requests are inportar Sd Ses Reheed! " cg and we stand ready to work with the Justice Nepartment in makinc¢ ignd all relevant information available. Laty Attorney General Levi. I am delighted to have that assur- ance. eet yr rakanee: geaeiani hon vtmencaed mh featiea ns salt = povepres) o % a Ss raat The Chairman. Now, Senator Schweiker. farts EER, Senator Schweiker. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Attorney General Levi, I am pleased to see that you have PEs announced this week the establishment of the Office of re a eo nee wa f Professional Responsibility to aid in the oversight of the peety) ee ae investigations or alleqations of misconduct by different employees within the Nepartment of Justice. — * + . ren heer BRAG ose Ths oo Ee eT Re ee eae Se I have been interested in something along this line for oe Ee acranne al some time, and I commend you for taking this lead in this area. ES I would just like to really ask you a few questions about the 2 Sastestert kind of concapt that thi ps EASY Originally, Attorney General Saxbe had sonething that at one point was labeled the Office of Special Revicw. wonder briefly how it differs and what the difference mig « NW 55110 Docld: 32989560 Page 565
3 " es ee cs oe Eee Stee Maer ST Gaerne ee a = AM ride SSR EANE: ce eae oe a MATES Ree - ae bere 13 14 15 16 19 18 aren a A er nnn nie S510 Doold: 32589560 Page 39 in terns of structure or organization? aif ih Attorney General Levi. Well, the x erences may not be as great as I thought they were when I @rafted out this new order. »ut there are, I In the dlace the Counsel will be s in .a nosition then to directly either refer them or to make a recommondation to me about them. As I read the Office of Snecial Peview, the holder of that office would not have been in a position to receive complaints unless the complaint was given to him by the Attorney General or the Nenuty Attorney General. “Mow, I thought that additional channel, while I hope it will not be the major channel, was.an important thing to keen open, and, therefore, I wanted to make I also that clear. wanted to embody in this new order the experience that we have had. We have called in-special groups ’ to do investigating as we did with the DEA when we organized a special team, and I wanted to reflect in this order that there would be occasions when the ordinary investigative practices would not be sufficien I wanted to have the Counsel put in the position where he could recommend that a special kind of review would be necessary thro 2 a different kind of a group, perhans through a, group assembied ¢ D, F r : going outside of the Department. mE AL BE Lg Ezapsen seeapermcacremte reine To ty oh oF re rehire wow tt cee ee eres Pneriny od op h Y catowengr anette ed eed = Saws oe Pas ruta ee Srna ae ne emt > te Dp ave 8 vanes om eg: ee Rape ee
ry Py te bod @ an | }@ "9581 I think this spells it out-better, although my belief no; Fi ea FOB) BAS ODOU poe] is that one could have found that probably in the prior order. It was not as clear to ne. A Finally, I wanted to be sure that there was a memory 5 in the Department and a continuation and a continual review of 6 practices and procedures and ability to get the material from y any part of the Department. TI wanted to spell that out and ~ ‘8 frequent reporting, and I also wanted to have an advisory committee from the whole NPepartment to this Counsel. aa . ay Ene: SA GO NT a RR AY Pai a at ws 10 ‘lov, as I say, as I have thought about it since, I wonder, Ay for, ate ak a aoe = 12, is it that different? I think it is different. In some respects oy, 2 11 oe te ad EOE ate Mts it is stronger, and I felt we should make it stronger. Sar te ge 12 Senator Schweiker. Will this office have the authority , ‘ 13 WANG & PAUL ee eo are A (t (e) ee go into, maybe, a program review like the GAO program audit, “14 . or will it »e focused on primarily allegations of misconduct fearety wae Bete *, tag yar file eastern 15 fever et eer wv pe 3 Du \e} rh ct ay fete 3 sw a or both? 16 , feo Men na te FIRS i x is t i) 7 \ttorney General Levi. Well, I think it will be focused 1 - ~ rag? we on allegations of misconduct and on -- it will so £ soeproe wire & eto Me Te the procedures and effectiveness of review, but it is set up marasmus ¥ so that it can reconmend heyond that, and if it wishes to 4, ade Raa 29 reconnend for the Department such other kinds of review then Lt is within the Counsel's prerosative to do that. Senator Schweiker. And what kind of staffing is anticipate Attorney General hevi. I anticipate a small staff because I do not want to build wm another hureaucracy with a large iW 55110 Dog@id:32989560 Page 60
o awe os He vin ane ~ fox) z se Bat : 9 a 10 Be il Bh 12 or aay O ee 13 Sh R ie 14 res 15 oA a 16 Be. eS . 4 19 = "20 Be 4 ee a 22 23 & Ba 25D IW 55110 ae [4- nvestigative staff. I think that, by and large, if. the Counse makes sucn suggestions we will then have to find out where to go and how to deal with it. .I do not want to set up another large investigating stati, wnich will have to be investigated, Senator Schweiker. One of the thinas that came out this week -- and I am not-.sure that this would he subject to this new connittee or office procedure or not -~ but there has been a lot of discussion ahout the personal files of Mr. Hoover that Helen Ganty nad, and I would just like to read one paragraph from the latest issue of "Zine" magazine that seems to show a little bit of twist, if I understood it, because un until now, as I understood it, there were mainly personal files that Miss Ganty went through. ‘This latest edition says, "Before secretary Ganty could look at Hr. Hoover's office, the files, the most sensitive papers were carried off in an FBI truck to West Virginia's Blue Mountain Ridge Club, a Shennandoah Mountain hideaway used by innermost FBI officials for regular poker games . -the CIA and other cronies. The pvapers were burned in the club's large fireplace. Precisely who ordered this destruction and carried it out has not.been disclosed.  ‘ The . three-story clun worth. $300,000, was burned down in a fire of unknown cause December 23rd. Wo evidence of arson has been discovered," I guess my question here -- and maybe you have this under investigation, I do not know, but this indicates to me, if it Si f ? eldad:32969560 Page 61 PO a7 EDL Ho.
o ae oad rtios: ere os Wi Py “ - "oe wo CG wy = @ uy 7) - . ~ E 3 ord pa c fe) 6) fe) : @ U) 16) My Ke ry) > _ & e) PS @ ™~™ 43 re) ee n . 13) Mp) - i) Toa | 43 s ts} s ie} ro] fs (0) mY G fa 4J “d MoM U oO “ > fo) © rf fe) ne ae G ; ri n fe) 7) o) rt ° i ic a) re} @ p G ' ii] Oo G J) roa] re oc wn) o en) “ Y-y rt un 3 lo no ‘cd 0) Mt sel a ™ WH 43 a) re ~ G (o} . Fc - re © MW w) M4 4 n fan . ’ : te © 3 re Dy r¢) Oo oO Wt - 4d cb) a ord na (e) : “4 yn a > n mo. (0) uy 4 43 fo) a) 0 “ fe) O° er . 1) ro ~N ty ie n fa) gS wi ro) & a gc. Oo fen} 4 @ (sj at cd) E. ~ 0 GC 4) fe) S Gh So ae) w fe) 4 fe) Oo < oo ® G 6 fe od @®© oo % WwW @ er] @ ica} MM oy fe) S 09) 19) oY an fe) is wo oO @ oOo w » -  P G re ° en . Hi a o) 4 mn 4 ic fa rs n c c ey rey oF) (a) oe ocd c orf re c) re 7 & a C 0 ft ow Pp DM o of bel © Q 0) fo m7 ~ ~Y 0 8 4H. BE aA s @ My 0 : ce) fo) a4 aH Ss G re) es W) fe) ey 2 M Qa ~ v ie) a) 43 4d m4 77 ct rei Hi omen} YO er kc n mQ fia} © Po a co) ! u - | fa Cc a 43 43 Q a “ Se © o> TO <o ET oS c © IEEE © EEE > EE = EE SE <P, -~ 2m + » © fF wo om 9 Fe N BW NS GS 8S AR A ke Rh Re Ae RM. A ifs , wi ws 4, aE ey ae erate? Mate za
ae he 4 pie Fe we . el sed bt - eg oe o) ro ~ mod fer) . ° egg nse pnre carmen ete en ee pe eee, Attorney General Levi. I have asked the Criminal pivision to investigate any and all of the items relating to the Depart- ment of Justice which have come before this committee. And, of course, one reason that they are rather anxious to get this material, and this: certainly will be part of it. Senator Schweiker, Can you give us any indication whether that account is accurate at this point or not? Attorney General Levi. Well, I really cannot because I have to say that it does not -- it does not conform to my memory of the documents that I have seen, But I cannot really - answer that question. | Senator Schweiker. On the matter of the office of Pro- fessional Conduct, will it have the right to go in anywhere it feels it should go in terms of pursuing its job, as I under- stood what you said? In other words, following an investiga- tion, within the Department anywhere in the field so that it should pursue it subject to what restrictions in that aspect? “Attorney General Levi. I think it. will. not be subject to restraints. I think it may have to be subject to negotiation Senator Schweiker. And it would have access to all of the material in its original form if need be? Attorney General Levi, I: think the negotiation. might be whether, if need be. I can understand that there might be some sensitive information which there vould be resistance to giving and so on. But I think that anything it needed it ‘WW 55110 Docld: 32989560 Page 63 | if eee 4 SANS eet PEE PE t aa Siem, NTRS vg
Paren fee Se yversy eget 2. ors oe 3 ~w atts ie Be Neycavew Venu wea GQ) 4, * + ‘10 ‘ 1 ee St arr rag a te . SOAS ig Bathe tot Pa Nal LL San WARS me watt, Me, > aR 12 [eoeg a 4 . “pte ty 4 Pa ee » Be Bombe Pade 13 14 15 ‘16 1? - we oettts, Sh EA A ae dle re. -O Aw] ol MW_5511 :32989560 Page 64 , Ti! “is open to negotiation at this point in terms of working some- e Hs ® oases, would get. Senator Schweiker. Would material such as their reports, would you envision that a new joint committee of Congress charged with overseeing intelligence activities might have ! access to that information or not? ‘Attorney General Levi. Well, I think that is going to be dependent ~~ that is a touchy subject because if it is going to be public, then the way the material is obtained and the way it ~ Neila is written about will be in a certain way. If it is going -to a ‘k iP “He . x be kept confidential, and we know it is going to be confiden- tial, then there are less problems, I.am not*sure. Senator Schweiker. So as far as you are concerned, that thing out that would meet the guidelines you have in mind? - Attorney General Levi. Well, I think so. There is no joint committee at present, and of course, that is one of the problems. Certainly one would hope that a reasonable exposure to what was being done would be available. But I do not really believe ~- I do not really think that it is appropriate for a joint committee to be on top of exploring the files of the Bureau. . Now I know there is a great difference of opinion between some members of the committee at least on that. I think that is close to the line of managing the Bureau and I think .its management really is not a legislative function. But certainly
are Sites v La faba We sg , me fess oe sigh TEST ike Te ye = ess sueoNal i ~ . . | elite By g¥ aie gp ate tates sh Sef etyae 4 844-0600 a ar WHONs (Area ROZ ce WANG & PAUL ™ 10 12 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 Lg ‘BL 22 2) HSL Dole Sogo 56o Page 65 . ® ; e . 2586 |, to be advised, to have that kind of appropriate oversight to be helpful on that, I think would be fine. | The Chairman. Would the Senator yield? Of course it is not an appropriate function of the Congres to mandate the FBI or to second guess their investigation of ongoing cases. But assuredly, it is part of the responsibility | of the Congress to investigate wrongdoing and if we have reason to believe that there is wrongdoing, within the Bureau, it may ~ be necessary to get to the raw files in order to ascertain that. And that -- if that does not go to the heart of the oversight function, I do not know what does. evan cehneneceoveCunrmemeense ats * is ag “see Attorney General Levi. Well it is like many of the ques- Me, na ef af ome mee gemye E tions. that we have discussed earlier. “One has to be very sensitive to. the limitations because if you have an open investigation and there is the. possibility of any political aay ie + ey co influence, either to act or not-act, then I get very upset at poem PG the notion of thosé going to a congressional committee. And I think everyone can understand that kind of problem. fear sao een tame weit SES Si RL OS it HAT .So it has to be balanced. ese aratd Sy ee ys ee aay Senator Schweiker. Well, Mr. Attorney General, I can. rathinn wnat understand protecting informants and protecting raw files. I eg eatery pie ten ie eee Cee think that is legitimate. That is something that we would have a responsibility in the Congress to do. But I do have trouble assuming that can be worked out, and I think that is a very important point, particularly from the administration of the
~ Aw Leneen FO) BAW Guo og eaes WAFER? me PALL . 7 . . - 8 " . en . . - . s . . s a ma semenotentar edna bre Ba ah nie Rt nets A NAN Erna TNO tar beh saattean tah, Bbw aie ss deisel manos ctpesuoneee te say cebvort east ters At > P . one: nm ob moe ierieerin’ ea phists Suerate AO tae 2 wet ARN RDG, EER Lab i sity Zs eA EATAR INO SSTNGE AE eee MI ad SOE SMBR EN PAAR enya pliers cnet 1 2 Soettatvtn ne at Le gs LO 11 12 13 . 4 15 "ag 4“ 18 19 20 21 22 ee) rs , 1: : eo «4087, Department of Justice and the FBI. But assuming that can be worked out, I do not see how you can possibly be protected; tha what we just saw happen in the last 30 years will not happen again, and that your inspection force will work, or that any oversight committee will work unless we do have that kind of prerogative. on the basis that I outlined, it just seems to me we are sort of deluding ourselves in view of what-has happened, not to have that access, first 7for you, but secondarily for some responsible element of the Congress that would be guided by certain restrictions protecting that. | Attorney General Levi. My only suggestion is that it may be that the Attorney General should be able to see things which ma the congressional committee ought not to see. And I just think] ' we have to think that through. Théré are stages. They are- all problems of privacy. They are all problems of exposing individuals .to obloquy. I think we have to take all that into consideration. Senator Schweiker. That is all I have. The Chairman. If we haa not had access to the raw files, we would never have discovered the FBI's plan to discredit ' Mr. King and pick his successor. And you recognize the responsibility of this committee and we have worked out pro- cedures which have enabled us to reach this basic evidence.in ways that did not reveal informants or did not reveal agents. MAES Uesew ovgeorsets ey wish, S ve pees, a | sesrgemer:  ~eere feteseaseses steqmreenenes 5 eum So St Se Terrence esere Gig My pee 4 x at a T, Bae RAN EY it at: & ey Yo es te eS Sony eae vores fee” pay Zier. aie Rea nan sities 2, Tle 1 on * yee sey
Y 2588 And I think the guidelines of that kind could be worked out between a permanent oversight committee and then Attorney Generals so that the committee could get its job done. So I really do not believe that the problem is insuperable, and the a fact that we have been able to get to the raw files when we oa needed to demonstrates that it can be done. Senator Hart? Senator Hart (Colorado). Mr. Attorney General, I would Sea a ~ ri es Oo like to pursue this last question one minute further, and that id Sarees pet pemrneerey ye amen Pee fe 10 has to do with raw, files. It is my understanding that in the ae « . 11 |) recent GAO inguiry into Bureau activities that they worked En . " KN 12 almost exclusively, if not totally exclusively, from Bureau or car eee : oe ne rE ee Te eet ered aint satan nm ee opiate gts erate reece % pS - SAR IM, oe tia ob ao ik So wire . Departmental summaries. Is that correct, in their investiga- y 14 tion? i Ba a 15 Attorney General Levi. Well, that is what I understand. Speoqeonneiber atti lM ttpeler dialer ahaa Le os A a Plat i, SOUS BR ut ot “ 4) a . 16 Senator Hart (Colorado). And what you are saying here Be 2 17 today is that in the future, if there is established an over- ; - sight, a permanent oversight congressional committee, that “49° your recommendation would be that raw files reporting under 1 20 some restrictions would be available; that it would be the ' 21 || Same guidelines and the same kinds of investigation that the _ Le : 3p . GAO ‘does. : Attorney General Levi. - I did not mean to assert that it Pay would have to be based on summaries. No, I did not. I just think we have a problem as to the proprieties of what the Wi 35210 Poocld: 32969560 Page 67
Se oe AR A oS IS reas 3 as <3 rs = 4 SE sheng Ww RAST Be me be ib T RS Bbeae ere RAHI, Maged dt WAT oie Ob bys eit iow. ina Ghee Cyn ean a ae ALE Re Me Ads Gay Gailey eevee 4 an a LO 11 12 13 14 15 16 1”? 18 19 20 | e oe @ “ 2589 a joint committee -- if there is a joint committee -- would want, and what we should appropriately give. I have to say that there might be a temptation on the part of our Department of Justice to give more than it wanted cs to, and in later years that might be a problem. So one has to balance that. Your committee, this committee did not ask for all of the King files. And I rather suspect: that this committee had the same, to some extent at least, the same feelings of sensitivity and propriety which I had when 1 said I did not want to look at them because there are materials there which I really think should be regarded as secret. And that is the kind of problem one has to get into. . . Senator Hart (Colorado), But as a basic proposition, you are willing to go beyond that to some degree?’ Attorney General Levi. Yes, I am. Of course the Bureau might not like the idea. Senator Hart (Colorado) . Oh, I am sure they will not, Yesterday I asked Director Kelley about the letter we received from one of your assistants, Mr. Pottinger, in connec~ tion with investigation of the King case internally. And he asked. us for FBI records and documents, all materials was I think the phrase he used. -The Director seemed somewhat puzzled by that, but I guess my question is: why is the Justice Department contacting this committee for FBI records? old: 32989560 Page 65
2590, ‘ Attorney General Levi. Well, I cannot imagine why, unless you were given the only copies, Senator Hart (Colorado). I would be surprised if that happened. ve Attorney General Levi. But.if the suggestion is that he can only get them that way, and not directly from the Bureau, I think that is really incorrect because it just happens: that I have specifically asked Mr. Pottinger whether he had access to ~ all the materials and he said yes. But it may be that our form ’ ry of record keeping is such that you have things where we do not | know where the copies are, and you have a great deal of material ‘Senator Hart (Colorado). But you have no doubt that you will get everything the FBI has on this matter? “14 Attorney General Levi. I have no doubt that people 15 investigating it for me will get everything the FBI knows that 16 it has. i7 |. As you know, it is possible that there are materials in 18 other files somewhere, 19 Senator Hart (Colorado) . Well, I am talking about 20 conscious withholding. | 21 Attorney General Levi. I do not believe there will be 22 " conscious withholding. if: 95 Senator Hart (Colorado). If or when you depart from the Riga Seobay BES 24 Department of Justice, will you do so with any degree of fear a Af, 25 of an overly independent FBI in the future? Leaving aside the SW S5110 Doold: 329699560 Page 69
S. S o a ~ « * Star dbvEalonbian abit iS Hone (Aree 202) 944-0000 etn ief hi thatren Ade pecs SL 2 sebebah Fata Lnlea bis lueuntletebionatebaas obs LO Li 12 \ ‘ Saar MENU TE TR SoD RUTTER One COCO 13 WARD & PAUL 16 ia soba: 1? 18 19 20 21 BR NW 55110 Dogid: 323989560 Page 70 ) fs : @ ‘9594 question of the relationship that exists now, but is it a matte of concern to you about your successors; that the Bureau is too independent of the. Attorney General? Attorney General Levi. Well, I have already said that I think that there is a certain amount of distance and indepen- dence. It-is probably desirable. But, of course I am concerne s of course I am concerned. I am concerned not only about the future but today. . Senator Hart (Colorado). And therefore you would suggest that Congress ought to also be concerned about that? Attorney General Levi. I have said so. I agree. Senator Hart (Colorado) . In connection with these guide- lines that we are talking about, as you know one of the very puzzling areas that this committee is in is thé Huston Plan, Operation CHAOS and so on, back in the ‘60s and early *70s; the tendency on the part of both the Department and the Bureau and many in the White House to fear that. domestic protest groups, particularly in connection with matters of race or the Vietnam War, had some outside or foreign domination or guidance or direction or support. What,.do you think these guidelines should say for the future about separating genuine domestic, domestically : oriented and controlled protest that is legitimate and consti- tutional,. from the kind of official governmental harrassment that did in fact go on with very, very little substantial:
a ® . . e « 2592, 1 support for the proposition that it was foreign dominated? What 2 ean be done about that in the future? 3 Attorney General Levi. It is terribly difficult for the 4 very reason of your last phrase, in which you correctly empha- 5 sized that we do not have the guidelines on the foreign dominated 6° ff organizations, The question is how close one can come to y barring evidence of that domination when the purpose of the. 8 investigation in some sense has to be to obtain that very data. ‘9 So I suppose that one would try to-do is to use some kind of a to || likely standard or something of that sort as-one approaches it V1 and then a reason to believe or some such thing which we have | - 12 come to temporarily on the domestic security ones, the stop and 13 frisk standard which is a pretty stringent standard for inves- - 3 < - & 5 g é. 3 14 ||: tigation. 15 But I think there is a problem. 16 Senator Hart (Colorado). But not with judicial approval; 17 I think that is your strong recommendation? Attorney General Levi. I’ do not whether it is strong or 19 ‘not. a 80 Senator Hart (Colorado). It is consistent. El 21 Attorney General Levi. I just do not think that is the E a uy : ‘99 most desirable path. I think it puts an enormous burden on a 23 the court. I do not know how the court will exercise it. [I iL 2A doubt if it is the best way. - But it may be one way. i 25 .- Senator Hart (Colorado). Zina hypothetical situation, ‘’ , gNW 55110 Doeld:32989560 Page 7i
pS geo 2 hoa artes maga tba tah Pah tatty a ora fra” WARD & PAUL = s¢ PNR I apse 4 Fi yas a & so 3 a £ : 4 a4 rr 4 x * z “3 ifs Vroane (Atm 2OZ) BA4°R000 SS 10 il 12 13 (14 15 26 1? 18 19 20 ~ fA PAV) Ww 24 my) ma Ww 35110 a 32989560 Page Y2. where you as the ultimate decision maker as to whether a wire- tap should be implanted and surveillance, all of it, and the rights of the individual who would be jeopardized, the consti- tutional rights of that individual or that group would be jeopardized by the proposed surveillance, wiretapping or what- “ever, what would be your own personal judgment on that where there was an absolutely even question; there was no question constitutional rights would infringed upon or even violated, ana yet the balancing consideration was that there might be some evidence of criminal activity or subversion or whatever? Would you come down on the individual or group's side, or the other way? Attorney General Levi.’ Well, I must believe that there is a misunderstanding between us because I do not authorize anything where .I think there is a violation of constitutional | rights... So I think I must be misunderstanding. | Senator Hart (Colorado). Well, I am trying to get inside. the mind of an individual who is going to have this authority; that you do not want an officer of the court to have, about what -outweights what, where you do not know what information you are te ras looking for, and the Bureau agent is recommending a-wiretap or a mail search and he is just saying I think there may be some evidence here that we might need, and so on and so forth. PAPA ISR IO NYY SAY LOST TRI EIEN AI APT nee ne G is Re reat i Select cig imap ernrteamigh hl Qutanteerttmnnny cepeetrrs Yor Siete So I have to put it ina hypothetical -~ 5 Attorney General Levi. You see ~~ | ay
7 6 mr 7 Maths te 2 <i a Diiftch sate on WARD & PAUL San a eC aa z 10 Li 12 1s 14 15 S5110 Dpold: 32989560 Senator Hart (Colorado). Do you resolve differences in favor of the individual? ; Attorney General Levi. I do want to say something about the hypothetical. In this first place, under Title III, the wiretaps -is judicious and the legislation that we are drafting on electronic surveillance which is not a Title III matter, we are suggesting because of reasons which I think I stated. before “to the committee, our judicial: approval. As to mail openings, it seems to me that, at the present time at least, that would require a warrant so that-- Senator Hart (Colorado). Well, t am talking about a national security area where there-is no judicial a Attorney General Levi. I do not know of any national security authorization. I.do not.want to get into that area. But I do not know -of a present authorization which would permit me to, without a warrant, authorize the opening of mail. Sol think one has’ to weigh: the individual rights very seriously and obviously give them emphasis. But I do not like to be suggesting by my answer that in those particular hypotheticals that the decision would be made without -- or could be made or would be made without judicial review because I think in those particular.examples there would be a warrant -- there would have to be a warrant. Senator Hart (Colorado). Well, I am talking about the area where there are no warrants. But I cannot frame the Page 73 tet i - [aire a ee Savina aeree o cS = p Data stay RANE FOS ERT PRI PN OLE ROT oar ERTS EIR TEAM OED OS RE DTN i LEAT Ie “greys EE Rs aoe praanes gr ammenest payee oy PE fe age ee!
¢< ‘ L x . H oa 2 cr oe @ a ; 3 a ft if Bs. aa tte rr Ep aha Mad abo Lap hae RPS er. Raton Rta aig. eho wete AT het atten fe wantin wal ft oO LO 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 15 tape 616 Bina 1? WF 18 19 20 al RNA, 22 23 24 iw 55110 11 25. hypothetical clearly enough. -Attorney General Levi. Well, it has been framed in terms of the use of informants; and where I do ‘not think there should be a warrant, and there is not a warrant, as far as I know, and there does not have to be,in terms of constitutional require- ments, at least at the present time. I think one does have to _be very sensitive. I think Stone was correct and if you are _going to have an agency of this kind, and it is going ‘to survive with the proper discipline and so on, it has to be extremely sensitive to individual rights. The Chairman. Senator Hart, do you have further questions Senator Hart (Michigan). Yes, Mr. Chairman, on specifics really. : s - On this business of congressional oversight, we have been ‘going back and forth with you and with others earlier on the standards and guidelines of investigations. eld: 323989560 Page 74
SARA i as tyi WARD & PAUL TO ee 2 oe UK oS a to Prone (ares 202) Bae Goad, Ie EBA TOOT NA ARR H EAD OR A RE RSS ol TY ewe Rate sy ‘ae 14 i5 1? 18 19 20. 22 “23 55110 16 ULE a oa —— ’ ' 1 Xa 2596 This morning you indicated that sone of the guidelines might well be in statute and others in regulation, and you suggested Precutive Orders, and that gets to the point that even in the area where statutory definition of guidelines is appropriate, no matter how skilled the @rafter, it will leave unanswered certain thinds. So, it also will have to be imple-. mented hy Departmental orders:‘and guidelines, making even more explicit the dos and donts and safeguards, ; Should not those requlations, which you or you and the Bureau or the Bureau issue to implement or elaborate on whateve we do by statute, be subject to debate and approval, at least by the Oversight Committee, which everybody assumes we will nave, if not by the Congress? Is not that really the starting voint for a useful oversight? Attorney General Levi. Well, I think a useful oversight can involve debate and, hopefully, it will involve approval,, but if you mean “by that, formal approval by a committee as a new form of additional legislation, I think it raises Constitu~ tional questions, and I really do not know why one would want SOA to raise those questions because it does not seem to me essenti r Senator Hart. (Michigan) Well, it may be unconstitutional tb require the elections commission to come in and tell us what thel propose to do to implement the rules of criminal procedure. Attorney General Levi. Well, Senator Wart, I had been ~ a acassaamel asked how Constitutional I am in various ways, and I think the ; } Ge A s beTd: 32989560 Page 75 WE
we Constitution applies and should be followed, and I think there = cae woe eget” hists je a ‘ tae ods Sp, aeoetss ra) is a Constitutional question. t may be we should changé the Vexiwe tution and have a form of subsequent legislation through }- Const secon & Congressional committees. I think there is a problem. There is an abuse. I happen aw’ to think that the affirmative action legislation, if you an x siege “2: trace affirmative action legislation hy the Congress to roids Executive Orders and then to the Labor Department, you have a - 7 oo rit o horror story. It hapnens to be a horror story that some people oO i . ‘ & 2 ‘LO like, but I regard it as a horror story hecause the deviations: | ll || are quite great. ; i a ". *. * e _ * i Le So, it is possible that here, if you have very general “a8 wr) ° gt 13 || legislation and then you have Executive Orders and then, you i 14 have other’ orders, the deviation may be very great, and I understand the problen, and I would hope that an Oversight ‘Committee could look at it, but to have the Oversight Committee then have a veto power or a new subsequent enactment power seems to me to be a strange creation of a sub-house of, I do not know what, the Congress, and I regard it as probably not legislation, but rather an executive function. ; ; If it is going to be legislation, ZY think it should be PETS legislation. ~l Tae 3353 Senator liart. (Michigan) I am not wise, but I am wise enoug! ak ence ctl See 24 linot to pursue a Constitutional issue with you. I am almost tempted paeesS wee ¥ ane Beat RSET wr rere ere ee ators secgeemesor mi 89 i 25 || to have you ask the Department and the Bureau who does. those 2 SEER es ee | Ww S5110 Dbeid: 32959560 Page 74
with resvect to the point am suqgesting, reviewing and approving guidelines, interpreting statutory direction with respect to the Bureau, but not unconstitutional for us to dlain, as we do and have, the right to veto rules of criminal procedure, but the Director has been burdened enough. Attorney General Levi. We could put it back and require enactment. You could have a procedure in which after the ; statute, the regulations would be put before the Congress and require enactment in order to be effective. Senator Hart. (Michigan) That would certainly be oversigh ° t 1 , % . ‘ i : » : eo : @ 2598 things to give us a memo on why it might be unconstitutional es ( This follows up an earlier point of discussion. When we do pass statute, we can see how the courts and the agencies are applying them because of the agencies' ,actions and. the courts’ decisions are public. It would not readily affect safequards in this area, require that the Oversight Committee be able to see the kind of documentation that had been given to you, or if it is a case | g y of going to a court, seeking a warrant, that underlying material really would be the best basis for an Oversight Committee making the judgment as to whether the Attorney General appropriately eo Re fi nay, 3 ® g |. was supplying what was intended. a a _Do you agree that oversight, how the statute or your % : e guidelines or others' guidelines requires that kind of access? -24 I know this looks way down the road. a) on _ Attorney General Levi. Yes, I think it does. Well, the : } | bow S510 Dold: 32959560 Page 77 ,
DIE Shone cee Wen eyes z WAM & PAUL 3: cary niacin betinaibah a pel ded Mobos catepiant Pein aings bien as'yated athe . ee Ae Behe bh We Meee dial Heb nbs tnonibeesed psa wovncee: ng s ‘ ¥ @ , 1 facts of life are that you cannot look much because you will 2 not have the time, and the facts of life are that at least 3 I do not think it is good administration to have Congressional 4 investigators plowing through an agency. So I think one has tol] 5 think about. those questions, 6 I do believe that with proper safeguards of confidentiality 2 a Committee could get such material, 8 | Senator Hart. (Michigan) As my question implied, it would 9° to me that unléss we knew the kind of argument and evidence thai ‘10 an Attorney General is finding adequate to meet that standard, 11 || we would not know whether our standards were-- 12 ' Attorney General Levi. That is right. There might be 13 || some problems. - Every once in awhile. there? is something OF 14 such sensitivity that it might be in a special category, I 15 || am sure. 16 ‘Senator Hart. LY illance you Sais some weeks ago the standards to be used with aj|« 18 citizen, 19 where he with an American citizen, would be, would depend on —~ is here or overseas. Perhaps that does not fairly 20 summarize what you said. 21 Attorney General Levi. No, it dones not. 22 Senator Hart. (Michigan) All right. I will be a‘little bit more rau) ‘ OF 25 | you said. 55110 Doold: 32989560 fair, You said the different standards would apply 2A | when the citizen was an agent of a foreign power, which is what Is it your view that the same standard which really Page 76 (Michigan) On the matter of electronic surve me Pe ie pe
~ ' @ ae |  ) ' 3600 is to say does the Fourth Amendment apply equally to an Americar citizen, whether he is.operating at home or abroad, in terms of the electronic surveillance that can be used by our Government, or at the request of our Government? on Attorney General Levi. I do not think it is absolutely clear, but mv answer would he ves, but I do not think it is clear in the decisions. at i 8 Senator Hart. (Michigan) What are the .present policies a 9 regarding dissemination of the product of electronic surveillan Fs 3 10 || when it is targeted on an embassy or a foreign diplomat, but s, & the device picks up non-criminal communications as to Americans pe] ps ses . . . i ye || Specifically, sunpose an American is talking on the phone to is ; a g 13 || an embassy of a Middle ERastern country, and he is discussing 14 || plans for political activities to lohky Congress for support 15 || of action which he and other Americans plan. They might even 16 17 18 T£ vou have a national security tap on an embassy and rh s that es iw 19 air game for sending to the © un that conversation, 20 White House simply because the tap was legal? % Attorney General Levi. bel roe ig answer is no. Sanator Wart. (Michidqan) On the matter of future ceterren of unauthorized activity, we have been talking what snould he RN SE ERA Ae BEL A set A BEAR Labs SYR 0 ATK LY AEA EIS EPS, EER, ee ED Oop Cate ON erp fab ne eh SY 1orized and how to set wo procedures. ilo tau.cter how brilliant! woe te draft our statutes and guidelines, the pronlem of human
> a «< « ¥ /€ ‘ 2 " 6. v ia vy rn @ 2601 do 9 f-] 2 a? . 4. frailty will be there. Tho hest systen will not elininate . i 2 temptation or occasional Succumbine to temptation : - _ A o Or transqression. Should there he Specific crininal penalties ‘4 for government officers vho take.or approve unauthorized action a) in this area? 6 Attorney General Levi. In the areas of what? 7 Senater Mart, (Michigan) Government official who ignores, 8 | averts, or violates a guideline, 9 Attorney General Lavi. “ell, there are all kinds of 10 || penalties now, and all kinds of hreats of damaga suits, and ‘ll || whatnot. I think it is a question of how serious the violation J ; - ‘ 12 | 1s,. how willful it-is. tf think I would have to know more : . a e g 13 |} about it,. 3 14 Senator Hart, (Michigan) ‘Would a good. stiff. penalty on 15 || the books serve as a deterrent for possible abuse? 2 16 Attorney General Levi. It depends upon the kind of anuse ‘17 |} One is talking about, and, as I indicated hefore, the privacy 1g || Statute in itself imposes penalties now. If we are talking Peers as K 19 || about the grosser acts of some Presidents, let us say, or 20 || others making illegal, unauthorized operations or uses, well, 21 || t do not know what the penalty would be on the President, and £2 || Somehow or other I have a feeling that I am not sure that is 23 || where a great penalty would make a difference, B24 Senator Mart, (tichigan) Let us lo y at it from the 25 ||/point of view of the follow wnose privacy has been invaded ‘WW 55110 |[DocId: 32989560 Page 6&0
and elin violations notwithstanding, statutory or guid should he be aqiven standing to sue for damaces? Attorney Ganeral hevi. ‘fell, as to whether he ha and should be able to sue, where the concuct is illicit is no @ouhbt that there will be snits. ™here are suits. Senator Hart. (Michigan) But my notes say that the court has held that unless you can show specific damages, which is a tough thing under the First Anendment, that you are barred from challenging investiqation. Attorney General hevi., But I think that there is not, really is not any real damage. I am not sure that damages shoul iy! i Q < @) Ha ° iat 12 really do not -think that is the way one can -- 13 'Genator Mart. (Michigan) Now about standing to seek an ¥. a vi oF WARD | FALL, injunction? Mfven though there is not reason for damages? Attorney General Levi. An injunction so that the court would be operating that segment? I woulé think that would be another prohlen as to the senaration of powers, really; an f injunction related to that varticular person mayhe. I do not » think a class action telling the Department of Justice that . they could never use this, that or the other device toward Senator Hart, (Michigan) Well, there is not about seeking injunctions against the Attorney General or ether devartments from doing something, so T am curious about s . what we do about someone who is being ta oy }-> led, fo5i16 Dodd: 329689560 Page 81 _.
By a OOO TN Attorney General Levi. Mell, I thought that you were thinking about not the problen of danages so much, as to the pronlen of controls on the operation of the Department, and Iwas looking at it from that standpointe. I think there is a provlem about damages, There is a problem about the rights of veople who may have been injured and whether they should be notified, and I, frankly, do not know the answer to that _question,.. Senator Uart,. (Michigan) And you do not know the answer yet on that one? Attorney General Levi. I think it is a véry mixed questio and it may be that they should be notified. I do not ‘know how they would be notified, what the basis would be.’ It is not mag ne PRE SEI oat Sara Rae WARD & PAUL something which I care to. express myself. Senator Hart. (Michigan) Well, the mechanics of notifying somebody whose mail has heen opened, that is not complicated. Attorney General Levi. I am not talking about mail open n Ioam talking about such things as in the COTNTELPRO, possibly. Senator Hart. (Michigan) Let me read you the full questio to make suré we have covered this. I really thought that you had under study methods which might respond to the abuses ~ in terms of, at least alerting American citizens whose privacy Aad been invaded upon. ’ Attorney General Levi. ‘le do, but I am just saying that I do not know what the ansver is.
EEA EE CEAt CL AULA ee "2604 Senator "ark. (Clichigan) You are studying and Actorney General Levi. Yes, o 3 2] tox liart. (iichigan) Well, vhy is Why is the search fo of those who have the subject of COTITEL files? 1 ‘they will read about it through these hearings, h Attorney General Levi. There has heen a lot of reading about it. There a re Preedon of Information Act requests which, obviously, reflect a knowledge on the part of some people, bu all I am really saving is that that is one of thase- matters Hh 1 I think one has to explore. The first reaction, and, ceartainly.my reaction, is that in some way they should be . , xe 3 GRACO Air SEY STN OR REP NRT PN oz age. notified. hen I come to the cuastion of how do'we know who xu IRE ay are. Suppose notning actually occurred. Is then the kind of case where ALTA tee , there might be embarrassment to the EON 1 is conceivable, and so on? Is it appropriate rey Nepartnent, itself, to make a tentative judgment as to MBE rh (e) ty cf, He) vi] whether there was any injury or not, or is that inappropriate? ei There are lots of questions in there, and my own inclinatior is that they should he notified in some way, but IT think it i ao TE Aa os worta some thougnt. Senator Hart. (tichigan) And that thought is being given? HW 35110 pola: 32989560 Page 83
: . . eta A AS a SERIE a hina ic i bana CIE lint T So cba  a cn Lt mene A et TT ISCAS a AD NTRS A is AI NAS ERE STM Eh rr 10 z _ f Attorney General Levi, Oh, ye Prone (Area 202) S84-600% QS «. Senator Mart. (‘tichigan): So that Martin Luther King ol who would have known about a lot of things that vere going on, anc a lot of people whose names will never surface in connection with this Committee, who have had similar ~- wall, not sinilar, 6 | but experiences which might very well give risa to a clain. 2 How soon do vou have to be able to figure out what, if anything, 8 the ne Denartment's obligation is toward them? peceerere SE TeT ST red Attorney General Levi. Senator, I really do not know. I have called together a groun on that, in fact, two groups. eas NET ee Se 11 |} = think whatever ansiver is given by the Department may well have 5 . i 12 llto be the same answer that is given by other parts of the ° ; : % 15 |l|Government. That seems to me to require some further discussion 14 |iand one has to try to think through, as I say, the consequences. s : % ; . : 15 |ito notifv a person that he or she was the subject of COIMNPELPRO i 16 lat this time many years later may actually cause, nerhaos, it is <= ° x oi? Sstrangetothink this, but it might actually cause embarrassment 18 lito that person hey nov who would rather not know it, and if ance, if it had no. consequence, is that a good al ' Let me tell you, I was told when I came a xelieve this or not -- but I va 23 lene recinient of a COTNTNLPRO letter, but mora re ZMT cently, since 24 10 have ordered a review of all the COTNT™ELPRO files, I have had 25 this letter confirmed to mea, ;89110 Doetid: 32989560 Page 84 gW,55110 Dobld:32989560 Page 84
SoG Wace at na o 9 » [e] 1° ¢ 1 When I was President of the University of Chicado, g 2 2 ly an anonymous letter was written, I gather, claiming é é 3 some »orofessor was a Communist, an? I do not Eno what £ A supposed to follow fron that, but, in anv evant, there 5 and I do not know whether the letter was anonymous, but 6 pyronably was. 9 Tf Eo got the letter, T would have thrown it away, 8 Mave had no consecmence, and I have no recollection of 9 if there is such a letter and persons exist, then notif ac 7 -10 eof that person, is that desirable? TI just do not know, Li 12 13 WARD & PAUL 14 . i 4 i 1? : 18 ‘19 ©. 20 aL 22 » to On ce 24 Sup Subst “es 25 Routine top Mw, 55110 Doeld: 32989560 Page 85 t
, Spine i Lisle Ginol URE TASS Lee cue prcd Rely oe “¥g:mLo ' ; ~ ; ) cot - ' @ © 2607 ay 12/11 Boy 1 Senator Hart (Michigan). I would suggest that the Depart- sage bts a a Oem ne sea tib Nag el 2 ment ought not make the judgment as to whether, to use your 3 expression, it had no consequence to the subject. I think that SAVE Coke we BURY AAG Peed; that would be a decision that more correctly should be made by on ne the subject in his mind, and not the Department of Justice, as 6 you go through that file. 7 I would hope there could be a resolution of which you would say to be the right answer. | 9 Attorney General Levi. I have thought of suggesting the 10 || Congress establish some kind of a claims division. But, in any 7 @ 11 || event, it is something we are thinking about, Sd PREG tc ag OP WON PATI TES OBER whe EAU AUIS IC Bt Ne Tee TT hid 4 Kea hth NSA AEE 12 Senator Hart (Michigan). Well, I hope we can come out of 13 this with some teeth in what we do because you suggest perhaps WAHD & PAUL - y4 || criminal penalties would not be very effective, and you “45 describe the difficulties that attach to civil remedi¢s, and - ie you suggest that no matter how carefully drafted -- 1 Attorney General Levi. Well, there are civil penalties 1g || now, but I hate to think that, if guidelines are drafted and < ‘19 is a violation of one of the guidelines, that the consequence 99 || is a criminal penalty. Somehow or other’ that seems to me_ we pA AVA net Amey nT, gt Meme i elf, WATER IAS BRE OE hin ete Pot meth ee OR 21 || an inappropriate way. 202 Senator Hart (Michigan) . It would not be a criminal 93 | penality unless the person knowingly took action in violation 24 _of the guidelines. And if you are paid by the taxpayer, why 25 should you not be subject to sanctions of that kind? saree NW 55110 mocld: 32989560 Page 86 i
iy mehr saat RROD CS SG PE SG REAP IS ke 4 nN 2y 544-6009 Attorney General Levi. I do not really see why payment by the taxpayer -- Tre bea toate aie *PHNGhY tarea 25 Senator Hart (Michigan). Well, .why should you not be subject to sanctions if you knowing break the rule? . Attorney General Levi. I think my problem is that I think you have problems of.discipline in any organization, and I thin one ought to be careful not to cover the field of administra- tive. discipline in a government with criminal ‘penalitdes which I think is self-defeating. So, that is the only reason. The Chairman, Just two subjects, Mr. Attorney General, and then I am finished, and I will conclude the hearing. Yesterday I asked Director Kelley about the amount of time and money and general imposition on the overall resources of the FBI that was’ represented in the many investigations they routinely make that deal with appointees or nominees, and , people being considered for federal employment. And he said he would supply those figures and give us some idea of how much of the workload this represented. It is my understanding that the FBI does these investiga- tions only for sensitive civilian jobs, and wherever a name eM ee Tunes etme set check digs up information from FBI files indicating a possible. security risk. In other words, the FBI name check is there if AED a ee whey 2hy ere there is an allegation in the FBI files that a person might ' . o, . 2 have once been associated with a subversive or. extremist organization or something like that, or if the position to NW 35210 |) DocId: 32989560 Page 37
a BoE ESTATES ORS Le SUPE RNA) rl EON eee em! Tepes ire sn he OF A Yor 3 oF Ve, & . me which the nominee is to be appointed is regarded as sensitive, te 2 Then the FBI does the investigation of the nominee, Otherwise, Ct Prone (Area TOD) 944-6000 it is done by the Civil Service Commission. 4 I am wondering if when it comes to guidelines, that. .not 5 sought to be a good place to look pretty carefully to see how 6 much of this is really necessary. My impression in the past ” has been that there are many FBI checks being done for posi-— 8 tions that could not possibly be regarded as sensitive as far 9 as national security is concerned, and maybe we just have over- 10 || done this back in the period when we were terribly frightened, FEO FERRER T Wie TARGET igh DOO AN eRan vline & oy cae AS ENAL dante? = cae SRE RE See Dae eat onl ae 11 || in the McCarthy years, and it has never been looked at rare et 12 || sufficiently since to see if it still is all that necessary. Tepe WARD & PAUL 13 Attorney General Levi. Well, I agree and a good place to 14 || begin is with the executive order that has been modified many Fee Pea Sa POA 15 | times on suitability for employment. 16 The Chairman. I do not know whether it is feasible to try | coer eer ae | "49 | to legislate here, or whether there could he a way that legi- 18 | slation might be helpful as a part of the basic or generic FBI 19 |} law that we hope to draw up.concerning this phase of the FBI's 20 | activities. But I wish you would give some thought to that, 21 | would you please? 22 Attorney General Levi. Surely. . 23 The Chairman. The other matter that I want to deal with | 24 is that time and! time Pete in our investigation of the intelli “3s gence agencies, including the intelligence aspect of the FBI's HW 55110  Pocld: 32989560 ‘Page 88 WW 55110 Wocid:32989560 . Page 6B
i. Ge Sie \ pay LSaGO tay ena: ae NaN py sng yee rie 0 arte at a ve BUCO SY a Ou Ets WOME LK: “EX LIES eal Te Fy Wen ial omielah ataieiiade FA BAA SAN SEB CHAISE TTA I ARY OMA eaten oot Lan RON Reta DE ee tag A os REG ome wt a etree te tae ered ge g i : % » < é t ‘ . z ¢ £ g i e r 2 ¥ i 4 2 s i ro _ Lo 11 12 13 14 15 16 1? 19 20 21 22° 25 | cxassesonne ' an @ ‘2610 | ‘work and the counterintelligence aspects, we are up against the problem of accountability. And with the FBI, of course, we have had the additional question of the president putting the agency to his personal or political use; and a difficulty which I think Senator Mondale rightly referred to -- the difficulty, no matter what the regulations may be, and even perhaps | erates Secs mot een as tree fick shoes ene tet eNO RC AR TIES Rs : oe ade Satopia poe ate See Be eae many ay iene ane as contrary to positions of the law, of refusing to do the presi- dent's bidding. You know, the order of the president or the Gesire of the president can be easily rationalized or some kind of plausible excuse can be given for it that ‘it sounds like it might fall within the purview of the law. | | ana neither an attorney general or a director of the FBI is in very much of a position.to argue with the president. And | then there is a feeling of who is going to find about it any- way. I asked Director Kelley yesterday if he thought that orders should be transmitted to him from the president through the attorney general; and secondly, if orders are transmitted to him to undertake an investigation.in which the president has expressed some interest, they ought to come in writing, and a permanent file be kept so that the accountability is there. for review of-a congressional committee or for whatever. He said that he thought that such directives should be in writing and that a file, a permanent. file of them should be kept ’X would like to ask you how you would respond to those
SARIS T OUTER AAI adn OOP OED ba NORE SER POC SLSR RE ASIN CRRA rs @ mos , 9611 | aed S \ w - questions. And I put the questions in this order: first, do you think that if the president wants the FBI to go out and mak an investigation for him and report back to him, that that Prone (Arsa 202) 544-6000 order should be transmitted through the attorney general? And secondly, whether you think orders of that character coming from the president should take the form of a written order and permanently maintained in the files.of the Bureau? | ~ Attorney General Levi. Well, I think the orders probably should be written. Now as to the first part of your question, the hypothetical case’ might be that the president has decided . 5 etitikat itd aa at endanger Rae dCi nS Aad eo Sant Sadi eg Sib sta ato ent sag ce Bs that he wishes to appoint a certain person to the cabinet and 12 he wishes a full field investigation. - Under the guidelines, 13 the president, the counsel to the president or associate 14 counsel could ask the Bureau to do that. I would think, unless there is some particular reason, 16 that the attorney general should be notified as to what is 7 going on. I think any suggestion of any other kind of investi- 18 gation of an organization or something of that sort, which I 19 thought you were suggesting, should not come from the president 20 to the director, in any case, and if it did come, it certainly should come in writing and the attorney general should be al . 92 notified. 23 I certainly do not want to say that the president cannot - VWIARD & PAUL b nn a on HO why he should not be talking to members of the Department of }F | speak to anybody he wants to speak to and there is no reason’ . NW 55110 Dg@cid: 32989560 Page 36
fan Teer wae aa a ae iter at oR pra = UF PUTT ea ha onan eRe oS IE WARD & PAUL TARR Te ERG BUQROW II 0 hpi Racgh Thaw ROAR! . , ‘ 1. N SLORY ERA SOUT 10 Li 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 _ 20 al ge | © 5 " r . 2612 , Justice. I do think it is a desirable thing when that occurs, unless it is discussing the criminal activity of the attorney general, that the attorney general be notified. | Now I think in fact, at the present time, and I maybe I would be the last one to know, but I think the communications are through the attorney general, except for the kind of inves~ tigations for appointments which might or might not come to me. The Chairman. But it is possible that that too might be the subject of that kind of procedure, the very kind you have outlined can be the subject of a statute. And if it were, do you think the president-would be bound by’ it? Attorney General Levi. Oh, he might not be, but in fact he would, IT would think, wish to.adhere to it and it would make it easier for others to suggest that there was kind of a propriety about it. The Chairman. Before you leave, and I want to express tha gratitude of the committee for your testimony today and for your continued cooperation in this joint endeavor, but I also want to say that Mike Shaheen, who has been the liaison with the committee staff, has done an excellent piece of work and the staff wishes for me to express its appreciation to him. Attorney General Levi. I would thank the committee and thank you, and I hope that -- you can tell Senator Mondale that I am not half as arrogant as he thinks I am. “The Chairman. ‘Thank you, Mr. Levi.
Rag fisiah Miers cowncrsrNers SF ane ERAN Eady? EPPA SDA TAPP eA ve NAT rete Fae 544-6600 1 (Whereupon, at 1:00 o'clock p.m., the Committee adjourned, ag z subject to the call of the Chair.) | : iLL : 14 . | { | | yuet 2O2y eF Bis © [oe] % “ Puans (f ol ee AR Ret te TAM tay Loe) WAT & PAO SOR tee ee ow ee ot ae A RTE, We re er “16 oy, ” 18 ate Pyle wee : ie Ae A ae $4 eke Np RAR fe cra’ ne non rc err ce vee penne emnerremenenererns rmeeancenenrerennre 19 eae eee \ bos we Se ae ‘ : ue MW SS5110 DoclTd: 32989560 Page & aD Bay) ray) no nw 1d on bs ol tw ke oO
‘ : 7 ‘ Se y % ‘ « ‘ sel FORM NO. 1 y § * ‘ 7° vr 6g Tt NO. 10 ; ’ MAY 1962 EDITION x fom aA GSA FPAR (41 CFR) T01—11.6 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT Asser. rr : ep. im. Memorandu 1 - Mr. Mintz Dep. AD Inv. Asst. Dir.; A Ni (} 1 - Mr. Wannall Admin. Ad ff WEE aN L - Mr. Cregar Comp. Syst. ‘ . ae . Ext. Affairs TO -Mr. J. B. Adams DATE: 1/2/76 Files & Com. 1 - Mr. Hotis ren: Inve FROM > Ve rm 1 iad Mr . Daly qebection =k Fi He im = Intell ~ * Legal nome fi a ried rand Lega roe (- re: Plan. & Bval. SUBJECT: cpnSTUDY 754 \ Spec. Iv. . toe j Training pe ) Telephone Rm. __ " Director Sec’y __. if ‘Attaches a copy of the testimony of.the Attorney | General dwaxrd Hs evi before the Senate Select Committee on “Intéerri¢ ence Activities-on December il, 1975. The attached copy was furnished to us by Mark L. Wolf, “Special Assistant to. thé’ Attorney General in the Department. fi Ly RECOMMENDATION : t Be eS For record purposes. (] agp" i Hi AUdert . ! ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED Enclosure HERE! Yy}S UNL ASSIF OW) tae YO? s ¥ BAIR Hs A wl ba ese (DU) LES ES. | mls f : sta is aN g 1976 RENEE NORTE Ng F ; 1aa “AY 8 ill 18 org Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan AW 55¢aRi0 Dood: 32989560 Pace
-Mr. J. Bi Mr. J. &. Mr. Je W./R. Wannall a . “12176 a pe Mr. W. R. Wannall | me Sell lk oll onl tebe. hae ) od © a pot pet pe a DUSTUDY 75. “AukINORMATION CONTANED - 4 | ' Leg al Courisel. to Mr. J. ‘B. Adams memorandum 12/30/75 — oe reported intention of Houge Select Committee on Intelligence ] | . (HSC) to take depositions. from former PBI Special Agents (SAs) _ Joseph William Magee and Joseph Leo. ey concerning — pT Ue! S. Recording Sompany purchases. made by the. FBI, | oo ‘Pursuant to’ Recommendations 2 and 3 of. the above- ~ .. geferred-to memorandum, addresses and telephone numbers were obtained fron the personnel files and furnished to Supervisor P. V. Daly of the Legal Counsel Division. on the morning of 1/2/76.so that he might orally advise the HSC of the’ current | _ ‘whereabouts of Magee and Gormley,--Prior to furnishing of — a information to Daly, SuperVisor S$, F. Phillips of the © . Senstudy 75 Project had telephone. conversations. with both | — |. Magee and Gormley, also on the merning' of 1/2/76, for the ee oo purpose of alerting them to. the HSC interest and with the ss Suggéstion that, if they are contacted, they might call the © Legal Counsel Division for further assistance. Both indicated ‘that they would take such action and expressed appreciation for being alerted in advance. In addition, Magee advised of . . certain information which is being ¥ecorded yhereinafter for | information purposes. ar 2G BIS Magee advised that on. a hic 9/18/75, he was telephonically contacted by a Mike Zpstein of the Senate ae Select. Committee on Intelligence (S88€) who. indicated a desire . oo to talk te ‘him inmediately. Magee told Epstein that he was . i SD 624116464 . a , ) : "AAP. sie re ABO. a oO 62»116395 (Senstud tudy 7 67-123249 File Former SA JosoghWilliametagee) 1 - 67-129682 (Personnel File Former’ SA Joseph Leo Gormley) - LL = 67+ (Pexgonnel. File Former 34 William C, Sullivan) | _ SFP;lhb ee a __SONTTATED = “OVER © 8 4.JAN9. OO . Nw 55210 Docld: 32989560 ‘Page 94
Memorandum to Mr. W. R. Wannall Re: Hotstudy 75 62-1L1G464 Z ra quite busy and would net be able te see him immediately. The only infermation Epstein gave as to the reason for wanting to interview Magee was to get information about the early organization of the FBI Laboratory. There followed some further telephone calls between the two but they never got tegether for an interview at that time. However, Epstein again called Magee early during the week nf 12/28/75 and asked Nagee to appear for interview Tuesday, 1/6/76. The only information uUpstein gave as to the subject matter of the interview was that it would be about the eperations of the Bureau. Nagee amreed to appearing for the interview. it was explained to Magee that the same procedure relative to an SSC interview would apply as that for one of the HSC, and it was sugsested that immediately after completing the conversation with Phillips, Magee telephone the Legal Counsel Division for further information, particularly as to waiver of the confidentiality agreement he has with the Bureau. Magee said that he would immediately call Mr, Mintz' office. AS a matter of interest, Magee also advised that, when he was first contacted by Epstein September last, he asked Epstein where the latter had gotten his name and Epstein said it was from Bill Sullivan. Magee then told Phillips that he could just not understand seme of the things which he has been learning about Sullivan and he expressed dismay at some publicized reports that Sullivan had been making statements derogatery toe the Bureau and the late Mr. Hoover. Nascee said that at the time former Acting Director L. Patrick Gray left the Bureau, and before lr, William D, Ruckelshaus was named to succeed hin, Sullivan contacted Magee. Sullivan told Magee that he, Sullivan, fully intended to become FRI Director and that, CONTINUED - OVER "NW 55116 Docld:32989560 Page 35
wd Memorandum to Mr. W. R. Wannall Re: Houstudy 75 62116464 if he did, he wanted Magee to return to the Bureau to serve as Assistant Director in the Laboratory, ‘he tenor of Magee's remarks was that he thought Sullivan was talking rather wildly in making such a job offer to him and that this applied as well to the idea of Sullivan becoming FBI Director. RECOMMENDATION : Yene, Far information and record purposes, » 3 MW 55110 Doocld: 32989560 Page 96 ;
6 ® es i CONTAINED Sean Seda.) CHANGED 10 bo [ELOY ~ LbFK 2 Ga Docld: 32959560 Page 37
Me. QA. Mintz Mr. W. R. Wannall Mr. J. G. Deegan Mr. W. 0. Cregar Mr. S. J.Miller ‘. 4 et et et 73 1 27 Ff The Attorney; General December 31, 1975 v Director, FHI oO UG. S. SENAFE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELL} ENCE ACTIVITIES (SSC) : Enclosed is the original of a memorandum, with 2 attachment, reporting the results of an interview of FBI of Special Agent Neil P. Shanahan by SSG Staff Members. -Also aan enclosed is a copy of the memorandum, with attachment, for A forwarding to Mr. James A, Wilderotter, Asseciate Counsel to the President. -, Enclosures (4) ALL INCOLYYTIOH COR LAINED ) yh - 62-116395 an02 AGOO. iy SHAUN ' 1 - The Deputy Attorney General ’ Attention: Michael E, Shaheen, Jr. ~ Special Counsel fer . intelligence Coordination ‘yy 1 - 67- (Personnel File SA Neil P. Shanahan) 4, . sautstnbfhb Rees ft Il BF ~~ IAB GX a Assoc. Dir. | Dep. AD Adm. — .% ‘ Dep. AD Inv. — f . } Asst. Dir.: ; i \ fy Admin, —____ N\ \ Comp. Syst. —— : é \ Ext. Affairs —— —_ Files & Com. — ® Pa . Che Gen. Inv. ———.. AS we Ident. : Ce } \ aw . Inspection too. a . wet Li ry 4 Intell. " i } l Laboratory . - ‘ "4 A Z Plan. & Eval. — uaF v : aw oh Spec. Inv. Xe Pe ye . , Ss ca Training Ny 4 { t Legal Coun. ——. NN ’ 4 Telephone Rm. — Director Sec’y —. MAIL ROOM TELETYPE UNIT [_) GPO : 1975 © - 569-920 |
~ | A. Mintz ~ Mr. W. R. Wannall Mr. J. G. Deegan Mr. W. 0. Cregar - Mr. S. J. Miller 1 food ft ft et et By 62116395 Lecember 31, 1975 U. S&S. SENATE SELECT COLMETIEE To STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES (ssc) BE: WIERVIE OF PSI SPECIAL sGGir (SA HEIL P. SHANAHAN BY SSC START MEeRS The following concerns an interview on November 21, 1975, of FRE SA Neil P. Shanshan by SSC Staff Members. Shenahan's repert of the results of the intervie «S$ contained in a memorandum dated Nevember 26, 1975, a copy of which is attached. Cnelosure 1 ~ 67- (Personnel File SA Neil P. Shanahan) ._/ SIM: hb lhb (es @) By deny 7 "NOTE: The LHM setting out Shanahan's report of the interview was furnished the Bureau by Philadelphia’ airtel 11/26/75 captioned "Senstudy 75," Assoc. Dir. . nS Dep. AD Adm. — vt Dep. AD Inv. {} Asst. Dir.: Admin, —_-—__. oF Ident. Inspection ___ Vreoeion IP ’) fa Plan. & Eval. — Spec. Inv. sr Training Lega! Coun. Telephone Rm. Ax oy _ 123 q¥ Director Sec'y — MAIL ROOM[__] TELETYPE UNIT[__] (1 ae PS 21915 0 - 569-920 HW 35110 Docld: 32989560 Page | a9
< ‘FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIO?F in Reply, Please Refer to ile No, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania November 26, 1975 UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES {SSC) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RE: GARY THOMAS ROWE ; At 11:06 a.m., November 21, 1975, Special Agent NEIL P. SHANAHAN of the Philadelphia Division of the FBI ; was interviewed under oath by two staff members of the above styled committee in the Old Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. Present during the interview and doing most of the questioning was Mr. ROBERT KELLY, and Mr. JOUN BAYLY, who identified themselves as stait . members of the *Sanate Select Cormittee {SSC}. . | Prior to any questioning, it was explained by | - Mr. ROBERT KELLY that SA SHANAHAN would be testifying ‘ yoluntarily and that he had a right to be represented by counsel if he so desired. Alsce prior to any questioning, ; ‘Mr. KELLY explained that he had previously interviewed GARY THOMAS ROWE, a former confidential informant . for. the. | FBI and would be asking questions prompted by information furnished to him by Mr. ROWE. | i i After responding to questions of a general informative nature, such as when SA SHANAHAN handled Mr. ROWE, and the general dates oF Mr. SHANAHAN's . employment and assignments with the FBI, certain specific areas were covered and recalled by SA SHANAHAN as follows: This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property or the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. ALL SINS UN CONTA ba’ al ND oh nergy eminent stra Tr Ie BET ARN ERENT oe - oe teranneneernmnemmensin = G2 1G 39S (239k2|
UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES (SSC) A question was asked concerning activities ‘taken by SA SHANAHAN wpon receipt of information from Mr. ROWE that the Ku Kliux Klan was going to immediately engage in some form of violent activity. SA SHANAHAN responded that upon receipt of such information, it was immediately reported to his superiors, and evaluated to determine what immediate action, such as dissemination to local authorities, etc., Was required. A question was asked in this urea directly on the issue of whether anyone in the FBI instructed Mr. ROWE to engage in any violent activities. tr. SHANAHAN responded that at no time did he, or anyone else to his knowledge, instruct Mr. ROWER to engage in any violent activity. In fact, he was often instructed to avoid engaging in violent activity. * € et Rs, . Z e ° é < rd . I i r t ., ry . + . : g . a . e 7 PERS RATT SO PATNTEA RUE BESO HOUT TSIEN Ye TROY PE EUOIED ION SSP TONE TE MIRE OS I Eaten tae tersat os: : m™ + : SYaT atey oi a a re a ELT RCI LIE ASTIN YO TITY OF AREAL HE SELEY OO He HOR SEE ARE HI Way ooeerree : ; ATRYN ETRY TECROnEToTn eens | TRI SF STH RY TN D8 NNER NE TREO RE TURER rt “ At one point in the interview, Mr. JOHN BAYLY ~ asked questions concerning whether SA SHANAHAN could express his opinion as to the morality or ethics involved . dn certain activities which Mr. ROWE had reported.that he ‘. had engaged in. This question was re-phrased several times by Mr. BAYLY because of SA SHANAHAN's reveated statements that he did not understand the extent of the information sought by Mr. BAYLY. LT adaenan staid pith LE . Another critical areacf questioning dealt with "a statement made by Mr. ROWE that at some time during the trials of three members of the Ku Klux Klan, for killing Mrs. VIOLA LIUZZ0, he had advised Mr. JOHN DOAR, b Assistant Attorney General,-that they. had been introducing f testimony from one Mr. LEROY MOTON, who was identifying H himself under oath as the man present in the automobile : with Mrs. LIUZZO when she was shot. Mr. ROWE had advised Mr. DOAR that Mr. MOTON was not the same man who was in , cif LEO TNA TS en eevrnay at FRO OR OREO CORNOIR ARE ReAS (11th be * te nee . renee ee. ie bret Ps PT Li Sb on the auto with Mrs. LIU2Z0 when she was shot. In response me t { way ER aaechoatnne ed Ao rs he. pe tre Ae tee jer: “WW_55110 Docla: 32989560 _ Page 101
UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGEINCE ACTIVITIES (SSC) to these questions, Mr. SHANAHAN testified that Mr. ROWE had at some point during these trial proceedings, seen either in person or a photograph in the newspaper of Mr. LEROY MOTON, and had advised Mr. SHANAHAN that this man was not the same man he had seen riding in the car with Mrs. LIUZZO. At the next opportunity, Mr. SHANAHAN contacted Mr. JOHN DOAR and had Mr. ROWE relate to Mr. DOAR his opinion concerning the identity of LEROY MOTON as the man present in the car with LIUZZ0O. Mr, SHANAHAN further testified that he did not know what, if any, impression this had on Mr. DOAR and the further content of the trial. At a point the interview appeared to be over and Mr. KELLY and Mr. SHANAHAN conversed off the record, during which conversation Mr. KELLY related that Mr. ROWE had currently had some difficulties with Mr. DOAR and the Department of Justice after the FBI had relocated him in another part of the country and that some of the statements being made by Mr. ROWE concerned his treatment by the Department of Justice after he was no longer under FBI control. Mr. SHANAHAN mentioned that he recalled that GARY THOMAS ROWE received a written agreement signed by Attorney General NICHOLAS D. KATZENBACH, which outlined what agreement would exist between Mr. ROWE and the Department of Justice. Mr. KELLY asked Mr. SHANAHAN to go back on the record and relate this under oath, which was done. Mr. SHANAHAN testified only that he had been present during negotiations between Mr. ROWE and Mr. DOAR about this agreement and had seen the agreement furnished to Mr. ROWE prior to Mr. ROWE's testimony during the Federal trial in Montgomery, Alabama. —3%*- NW 35110 Docld: 329699560 Page i102
die. SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE BEFORE COMPLETING. wa *% CLASSIFY AS APPROPRIATE tS TO: Tatelligence Community Staff FROM: : |. ATTN: Central Index FBI SUBJECT: Abstract of Information Provided to Select Committees i 7 | HOW PROVIDED (check appropriate term. If a document was made available 2. DATE PROVIDED for review but not transmitted, so note.) [occoneur | [emverine [a [renview | [vestiwowr | Jorwer | _12/31/75 AAW. Aan ue a. sDewemens os ecinenntns + TO WHOM PROVIDED (check appropriate term; add specific names if appropriate) The Attorney General with a copy for forwarding to the White House . SDENTIFICATION (provide descriptive data for.documents; give name or identification number of briefer, interviewee, testifier and subject) Memorandum reporting results of an interview by SSC Staff Members of incumbent SA Neil P. Shanahan . ‘5. IN RESPONSE TO (list date and item number if in response to formal request, other- - CLASSIFICATION OF wise state verbal request of (name), initiative, subpoena, etc.) INFORMATION (enter U, C, S, TS or Codeword) U NA . KEY WORDS (enter the appropriate key words from the list provided separately; if key words not Listed are used underline for emphasis) . Information handling ALL IG CRA TOn CONTAINED — Intelligence collection HEREIN ISHINGLASSIF tp a DATE or Satta — . SUMMARY (see reverse side before completing this item) Interviewed regarding his handling of the former confidential informant, Gary Thomas Rowe. “The questions 1 were prompted by infoFmation furnished by Mr. Rowe. ~ ‘ 62 -116395 MK: foi (4) ORIGINAL VEA LIATSON TO CENTRAL COMMUNITY INDEX (. + IN CONNECTION WITH SENSTUDY 75 , ¥ CLASSIFY.AS APPROPRIATE’ CA-//63 3791 (6-75) NW 35110 Docld: 32989560 Page i103 —— . {1 . Ste we ot eitemmmeetantineme Basel Sa nettentitinte natalie ind bmnheiinetonte mrcktnmue tmrrateerinmhiimeriaRetan ts malin quad Mektes ainehinus sete Lemma nts ninchit weheMnestins tint mate antieiesmmananenmtstetnns telstemnmbicbungadhe eet nut att adeiGechend Pete memiele Sint nin eener shee etnmsnte nmsssheom abe as 95 [2.3 Vk d
i. A, Mintz \ mm W. R. Wannall J. G. Deegan Mr. W. 0. Cregar Mr. S. J. Miller The Attorne General December 31, 1975 b Director, jFBI Of Med s. SENATE SELECT witins (s ’ ALL INFOR SATION CONTAINED INTE , ACTIVITIES (SSC) HEREINJSLINCLASSIFIE rs / pate E00. BY SBA Enelosed is the oviginal of a memorandum, with 7 attachment, concerning an interview of FBI Special Agent . Garry G. Lash by SSC Staff Members. Also enclosed is a A}, 7. copy of the memorandum, with attachment, for forwarding i} rcs » ’ Ft fet et 3 3 t¢ 1~=85 ' te Me. James A. Wilderotter, Associaté Counsel to the = President, cr 1 Enclosures (4) ~ 62-116395 ST, 15. * 1 - The Deputy Attorney Genera REC-5I L 4 Mee 05. ta aa Attention; Michael B, Shaheen, Jr. VU SM LY I2 2X Special Counsel for tons © LY intelligence Coordination 5 yan... oO 1 - 67- (Personnel File SA Garry G. Lash) a oe FO ° | ; SJM:Lhb | if . s | cn (10) Po [~ Assoc. Dir. \j ie “3 ( pr 40 n= Wager Asst. Dir.: Admin. Comp. Syst. —— yA , iB ‘ . AN WI Paley Ext. Affairs —_ Te \ ~ \'r Files & Com. — / ray) - ’ , Gen. Inv. . LY . ‘ . Ident. Inspection Intell. Laboratory Plan. & Eval. _. . : PA : . 7 f Spec. Inv. Y ~? am CE Training s \ Vv “ fa ‘ Legal Coun. . \e ‘ Telephone Rm. — y ‘ . M . Director Sec" TREO TELETYPE UNIT (__] GPO : 1978 O - 569-920 . mB JAN 2 BRO eo sac Page 104
1-M J, A. Mintz . lL + Mr. W. R. Wamnall a 1 +Mr. J. G. Deegan “os 1 - Mr. W. O. Cregar 1-Mr. S. J. Miller 62-116395 Becember 31, 1975 U. S&S. SENATE SELECT COMHITTER TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES (SSC) RE: NQERVICW OF FEL SPECIAL AGENT (5A) GARRY G. LASH BY SSC STAFF MEMBERS The following concerns an interview on Movember 20, 1975, of FBI SA Garry &. Lash by SSC Staff Members, Lash's report of the results of the interview is contained Im a memorandum dated November 26, 1975, a copy of which is attached. Enclosure 1 = 67- (Personnel File SA Garry G,. Lash) SJM:Lhb | hb ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED (9) HEREIN IS.UNCLASSIFI, DATE {fe BY eo) NOTE: SA Lash furnished the LHM setting out the results of the SSC interview by airtel 11/26/75 captioned "Senstudy 75," 3 ( Assoc. Dir. —_— A Dep. AD Adm. — 7 Vv Dep. AD Inv, — e / Asst. Dir.: j } Admin, ———_—_ > soe Comp. Syst. —— a Ext. Affeirs —— 4 Files & Com. — 4 N 1) Gen. Inv. . e i) Ident. ——_____— , Inspection : Intell. Laboratory {2 oa Plen. & Eval. — RG f Spec. Inv, i 4 Training Legal Coun. —— Telephone Rm. — , Z _ Director See’'y —- MAIL ROOMCL_] TELETYPE UNIT 2.2 UY | o24 x GPO : 1975 © ~ 569-920 W 55110 Docld:32989560 Page 105 = i
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION In Reply, Please Refer to Buffalo, New York File No. November 26, 1975 UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES (SSC) RE: INTERVIEW OF FBI SPECIAL AGENT GARRY G. LASH BY SSC STAFF MEMBERS ANDREW POSTAL AND JEFF KAYDEN ON NOVEMBER 20, 1975 Interview of Special Agent LASH by SSC Staff Committee members was conducted in SSC office space. The interview lasted from approximately 11:15 AM until 1:15 PM. Prior to the interview SA LASH was advised of the identity of the interviewers and that he was free to exercise his rights at any time as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. SA LASH was advised that he had the right to have an attorney present and the right to have a United States Senator present, SA LASH waived both of these rights. He was also advised that the scope of the inquiry would concern the handling of MARY JO COOK, a former FBI informant, exclusively. A court reporter was present who dictated into a cassette recording machine during the interview. SA LASH was not sworn. As follows are the questions directed to SA LASH and the answers that he provided according to the best recollection of SA LASH: : cee Reg DA aCe MCE Lt Lod te SAS NOROREAATI COT 7 EMME ' a La Oe tide . wis Py Le, Oey nL SIFU more LODO. ni vA Doceld: 32989560 Page 106 Tos fe : | O- OSA
. i ? Pa * : * . z « UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON @ INTELLIGENCE ACTIVIT ANDREW POSTAL SA LASH POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH POSTAL — LASH POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH TES SA LASH, what is your present employment? Special Agent of the FBI Where are you assigned? Buffalo, New York Were you assigned there during the Summer of 1973? Yes Did you specialize in any type of investigations? Yes, Internal Security investigations Did you have occasion to recruit Mary Jo Cook as an informant in an organization known as Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) (€Characterization of which is contained in appendix hereto)? Yes Would you state why the Buffalo Chapter of the VVAW was being investigated by the FBI? I do not feel that I can answer this question within the scope of the current _interview. POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH NW 35110 Docld: 32959560 Page i107 Who was your supervisor at the time you handled Mary Jo Cook? Francis Jenkins Who was your SAC at the time? Richard Ash Would you describe for us the methods — of recruiting Mary Jo Cook. Upon discovering that Mary Jo Cook had attended some meetings of the Buffalo Chapter of the VVAW, I interviewed her concerning her attendance and indicated to her that I wished her to become an informant for the FBI. ~%O- _ 7 - _ oe -
a ® @ UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES POSTAL Specifically, what instructions did you give her? LASH I told her to become a member of the Buffalo Chapter of the VVAW in order that she might gather information concerning violent or radical activities engaged in by the organization. POSTAL What specifie area was Miss Cook assigned to work in? LASH Initially she became a member of the women's group of the VVAW. POSTAL Was this group of the VVAW engaged in any specific type of activity at the time? LASH I believe at this point in time they were trying to develop various . programs they could implement in the future. POSTAL Did you tell her she was to obtain background information concerning individuals in the group? LASH I told her to obtain information concerning members of the VVAW. POSTAL What do you mean by "a member?" LASH The VVAW did not have membership cards as such, however, I considered a person who attends meetings of the Chapter or gives financial. or other support to be a member of the organization. POSTAL What type of background information did she obtain? LASH She obtained physical descriptions and other types of background information such as residences or employment which would allow me to differentiate between that individual and other individuals in the Buffalo area. NW 55110 Docld: 32989560 Page 108
* ¢ * . , , ® . of « UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVIT POSTAL LASH JEFF KAYDEN LASH POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH NW 35110 Docld:32939560 Page i105 TES Did you have her provide any other information concerning individuals in the organization? I asked her to identify those individuals who had a capability of engaging in radical or violent activities. What is the difference between violent and radical activities? Radical activities that are not violent are those which are illegal or infringe upon the rights of other citizens. Did you have another Agent present with you when you recruited Mary Jo Cook? Yes, I did. For what reason? It is a FBI regulation that two Agents be present during initial interviews with female informants. Did this Agent become a handling Agent of Mary Jo Cook? No, he did not. He was merely present during the initial interview. When did you first contact Mary Jo Cook? June, 1973 Did Mary Jo Cook attend meetings of the VVAW with her boyfriend, whose name we shall not mention? I believe she did. Did she and her boyfriend ever give joint reports? I ean not discuss that matter within the scope of this inquiry. ~ 4.
Py t . 4“ - * . . ‘ * UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH MW 55110 Docld: 32999560 Page 110 Miss Cook stated that the objectives of the VVAW were as follows: To end the war in Viet Nam, to obtain better veteran's benefits, to upgrade bad conduct discharges, to obtain drug treatment for veterans. Is this correct? I believe they embraced those objectives but they also had others. What were the other objectives? As she deseribed them, the destruction of U. S. imperialism and the replacement of our form of government with a socialist government, probably modeled after the government of Red China. Did the VVAW ever engage in violent activities? Yes. Could you cite some examples? The first meeting she attended, for example, concerned the planning of a disruption of a U. S. Marine Corps Armed Forces Day display in Buffalo. On other occasions actions were planned which were illegal and disruptive. Can you give any examples of violent activities by individual members? I recall on one occasion several members in this organization told Miss Cook that they felt the actions of an individual who was arrested for a bombing on the University of Michigan campus, which resulted in death, were justified for political purposes. Do you know of any violent activities that VVAW members actually engaged in Since the foregoing could possibly be rhetoric? On several occasions members of the ~5-
e ~ ” t * ‘ « s « UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES LASH VVAW have physically assualted members of other subversive groups in the Buffalo area. POSTAL Miss Cook has indicated that you told her that you were interested in attempts: by other groups to take over the VVAW. Did this ever happen? LASH According to information provided by Miss Cook, the Revolutionary Union (Characterization of which is contained in appendix hereto) was attempting to take over the VVAW. I was interested in this. POSTAL What is the Revolutionary Union? LASH The Revolutionary Union is a Maoist- subversive group. POSTAL Was the Revolutionary Union attempting to take over the Buffalo Chapter? LASH According to Miss Cook, they were’ trying to take over chapters in several areas of the country and she said that they were taking over the New York City chapter, however, I cannot recall specific attempts to take over the Buffalo chapter while I was handling Miss Cook. POSTAL Did the Revolutionary Union ever take over the VVAW? LASH I eannot answer that within the scope of this inquiry. POSTAL Did you consider the VVAW to be a subversive organization? LASH Yes POSTAL Do you know anything about "Cointelpro"? LASH I cannot answer that within the scope of this inquiry. Page iil
UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES POSTAL Did you ever use information provided by Mary Jo Cook in any cointelpro-type activities such as getting members of VVAW fired from their jobs or telling the parents of members? LASH No I did not. POSTAL Did you ever take any actions against . Mary Jo Cook or her family? LASH No I did not. POSTAL Did you ever engage in any disruptive or neutralizing action against the organization? LASH I engaged in no disruptive activities, however, if I learned that the organization was planning something illegal I would alert the local authorities and sufficient police officers would appear at the scene to prevent trouble. I feel this neutralized any planned illegality by the VVAW. POSTAL Did Miss Cook ever provide you with mailing lists of the organization? LASH Miss Cook provided me with any number of lists, whether they were described as mailing lists or membership lists, I cannot recall. POSTAL Did she ever provide you with any contribution lists of the organization? LASH Not that I can recall. POSTAL Did you ever tell her that you were interested in determining if the organization was receiving funds from foreign sources. LASH I cannot specifically recall telling her that. POSTAL Would you be interested in knowing if the VVAW was receiving funds from foreign sources? -7- NW 55210 Docld: 32989560 Page 112.
. 2 a > « ‘ vr 4 - tid “ ‘ UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES LASH Yes I would. POSTAL Did you ever find out that the VVAW was getting funds from foreign sources? LASH No. POSTAL What did you do with the names that were contained on these lists? LASH I would review the lists to determine if there was anything significant contained in them and a great deal of them I would do nothing with and merely return the lists to Miss Cook. She provided me with a lot of material that I had no interest in. POSTAL Did she ever provide you with a defense pamphlet? LASH Not that I can recall POSTAL Did she ever give you any information concerning VVAW defense strategies? LASH I believe she gave me material such as reprints of articles from "Psychology Today" and from a magazine called, "Counter Spy" and other information of that nature. POSTAL Did she tell you that she was working with the Attica Defense Committee? LASH Yes POSTAL What is the Attica Defense Committee? LASH It is an umbrella-type organization in which individuals who are interested in defending Attica prisoners as well as individuals seeking their own ends have gotten together. POSTAL Did Miss Cook ever indicate that the VVAW was a conduit of mail between the Attica Defense Committee and prisoners in order to get letters in and out of Jail? LASH Io don't recall her saying that. - 8 = WW 55110 Docld:32989560 Page 113
, I t ‘ * : « hal « 4 UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH POSTAL Did she ever talk about courtroom tactics or witnesses to be used by the Attica Defense Committee? Not that I can recall Did you ever give any information she provided to the Attica prosecutors? None whatsoever Did you ever give any kind of information regarding the Attica Defense Committee to others outside the FBI? I would pass on information concerning demonstrations, rallies, etc. to the local authorities. Did she ever talk about demonstrations in the courtroom itself? Not that I can recall. Did she ever provide logistical type information concerning Attica demonstrations? Yes, on one occasion she was even a "parade marshal" at a demonstration. Was there ever any violence at Attica Defense Committee Demonstrations? On one occasion another group which was marching in a demonstration planned to march out of the parade and trash the Chase Manhattan Bank in Buffalo provoking the police. This information was brought to the attention of the police and it did not occur. And as I recall, I also told Mary Jo Cook about this plan and might have prevented it from happening. Are any of the individuals who are actually connected with the defense of the Attica . prisoners known to be violence-prone individuals? -9- NW 55110 Docld: 32989560 Page 114
‘ © @ c i. ' ? ? < . . > < UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES LASH I cannot answer that within the scope of this inquiry POSTAL What was the method of her providing you with reports? LASH She would provide me with information either in person or by telephone, which I would dictate to a stenographer, have reduced to writing and have her sign. POSTAL Did these reports contain background information regarding individuals? LASH Yes POSTAL What type of background information? LASH The same type I described before, physical data, place of employment, residence, etc. POSTAL Did she give you follow-up data on this background information? LASH Yes. If a person changed his residence or employment she would tell me. POSTAL Did she make conclusions in her reports? LASH She reported information factually, however, I believe she did make conclusions regarding the propensity for violence for individuals in the organization. POSTAL Miss Cook indicated that after a while she began to give you reports wherein several meetings would be reported in one report if these meetings concerned a central theme. Is this true? LASH As best I can recall, Miss Cook gave me reports on each individual meeting she attended. POSTAL Did you ever indicate to Miss Cook that you had specific questions for her from Washington? LASH I cannot recall saying that. - 10 - NW 55110 Docld: 32989560 Page 115 ——————Z___ << —— &&& ++ |
UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES LASH No. This would have been to conceal the fact that she was an FBI informant. POSTAL Did you get Mary Jo Cook a job? LASH I aided her in finding employment. POSTAL What were the circumstances? LASH Miss Cook indicated that she was being criticized by members of her group for being a "lumpen proletariat" (PH) for not being gainfully employed. This is a Marxist term for anyone being supported by their parents or Welfare, etc. She indicated that it would be necessary for her to find, a job and I contacted a social acquaintance of mine who is employed by a Buffalo area bank, who advised that the bank is always looking for tellers. I advised Miss Cook to go to the bank. She did and she got a job as a teller. POSTAL Did Mary Jo Cook feel she was an Agent Provacateur? LASH No. On the contrary, I feel if anything she was a non-provacateur since I instructed her to act in such a way as to prevent any violent or illegal act that might be discussed in her presence. I think she understood this and acted in this way. POSTAL Why did Mary Jo Cook act as an informant? LASH Mary Jo Cook was an actual member of the . VVAW as well as being an informant for the FBI. She reconciled this in her mind ‘ by feeling that she was providing the FBI with information that was objective and true about the organization, as well as preventing violent individuals from taking over the group. : POSTAL What percentage of the group did you feel! was violence prone? LASH I do not think I can answer that.
UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES POSTAL LASH KAYDEN LASH KAYDEN LASH KAYDEN LASH KAYDEN LASH WW 35110 Doold: 32989560 You cannot give some approximation? According to Miss Cook there were individuals who were not interested at all in violence, as well as individuals who were interested in taking up the gun and fighting in the streets as a defensive measure assuming that.a violent revolution would be started by the establishment. There were also individuals who were interested in initiating violence themselves to bring about their political goals. What percentage of the group each of these factions represented, I cannot say. Could you indicateé the number of violent activities that the VVAW was involved in during the period you handled Mary Jo Cook? I aannot recall. Was it 2 or 25? Between 2 and 25. Mary Jo Cook indicated that the VVAW members were the most loving and good people she has ever met. Did she ever indicate that fa, you? Yes. If she indicated that these people were so loving and good, how did you feel that they could engage in acts of violence. I do not mean to be facetious, but I have read that the "Charles Manson family" in California claim to love each other and are very interested in ecology and other good things. But I believe they certainly seem to be capable of engaging in violence. ~ 14 -
Ld od > ° ° @ os € *. a UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES POSTAL Miss Cook indicates that she felt there were other informants in the group. Did you ever discuss other informants with her? LASH On one oceasion an individual came to Buffalo from another part of New York state who was suspected of being an informant. The group wanted to take action against him, however Mary Jo Cook told them they should take no action, but rather should check with VVAW members in his home area to determine if he was an informant. I believe at the time it was necessary for me to ask her about this situation immediately after it happened and she therefore suspected we had other informants in the organization. POSTAL Did you indicate to her that if she were to quit you would put other informants in the organization who would possibly not be as truthful about the VVAW as she was? LASH Yes. I believe I did indicate this to her. POSTAL Why did she quit? LASH Because she indicated that she was having nightmares and suffering actual physical afflictions due to her fears of being discovered as an informant. POSTAL She has indicated that she has had long political discussions with you where you disagreed with her on political issues. Is this correct? LASH Yes, this is correct. POSTAL What prompted these discussions? LASH She indicated on many occasions that as a member of the VVAW she was only hearing political perspective from the far left. She asked that I present her with an alternative perspective which I attempted to do. I attempted to point out that there are two sides - 15 - HW 55110 Docld:32989560 Page 120
MW 55110 Do a @ . UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES LASH (Cont. ) POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH Page i121 to every question. For example, I recall on one occasion she was told by the VVAW that Bethlehem Steel in the Buffalo area had permitted a worker to die rather than shut down a blast furnace after a worker had fallen down into the furnace area. I checked on this and told her that the true story was that the worker had had a fatal heart attack before falling into the dangerous area and that immediately after his fall everything was shut down for his rescue. Did she indicate to you that she was especially concerned about the atrocities at Attica Prison? Yes, she did. Did you ever indicate to her that you talked to someone who had been there and said there were no atrocities? I indicated to her that I had talked to a physician who had been there after the rebellion had been put down who had told me that the individuals he treated had been injured during the period the prison was in the hands of the rebellious inmates and not during’ the suppression of the riot. Did she ever discuss political parties with you? The only thing I can recall is her telling me that at some time in the future the VVAW will be a grassroots socialist party in the United States. Did she mention an individual named Martin Solestry (PH)? Do you mean Martin Sostre? Who is he? He is a prison inmate I believe in Auburn Prison. - 16 -
c ed ‘ UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON @ INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH POSTAL LASH Nw 35110 Doold: 32939560 Page i22 Is there a Martin Sostre Defense Committee? I believe so. Did she ever give you any information about the Martin Sostre Defense Committee? No When she wanted to quit did you try to keep her as an informant? On several occasions I convinced her that she should remain an informant but at the time of our last contact I felt that she had truly made up her mind~- and I made no further attempt to convince her to remain an informant. Did it bother you that she was reporting to you on the political activities of these individuals? Is it Bureau policy that informants report on political activity? I don't feel that I can answer either of these questions within the scope of the inquiry. -17 -
vy \ APPENDIX VIETNAM VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR/ WINTER SOLDIER ORGANIZATION The Vietnam Veterans Against the War, formed in 1967 by Vietnam veterans to protest United States involve- ment in the war in Southeast Asia (changed name to Vietnam Veterans Against the War/Winter Soldier Organization (VVAW/ WSO) in 1973 to include non-veterans as members), has spon- sored numerous anti-government demonstrations, some resulting in violence. The VVAW/WSO National Office (NO) and some key chapters are infiltrated and influenced by the militant Revolu- tionary Union (RU) organization, and VVAW/WSO leaders have told members that VVAW/WSO is a revolutionary organization, not “just another group of war veterans.'' The current Marxist-Leniniste Maoist oriented NO, which promotes education of the membership _ in Marxist-Leninist-Maoist doctrine and directs the organization i into political growth along the same lines, has at VVAW/WSO National Steering Committee Meetings (NSCM), in 1974, portrayed VVAW/WSO as a mass anti-imperialist organization and a vanguard of the revolution eventually created by the masses. VVAW/WSO leaders voted at the December, 1974 NSCM to align VVAW/WSO with the RU, which organization follows a strict Maoist line designed to bring about violent revolution in the United States. , ats “ S5110 Doold:32969560 Page i233
a ft ae ied 2 1 - . " a [sara ncrnenmernmmient? e Oo | : | APPENDIX REVOLUTIONARY UNION The Revolutionary Union (RU), founded in early 1968 in the San Francisco Bay area, is a militant semi- covert Marxist-Leninist revolutionary organization ideologically oriented towards the People's Republic of China and the teachings of Chairman MAO Tse-tung. Its objectives as set forth in its theoretical publication, "The Red Papers," and in its monthly newspaper, "Revolution," are the development of a united front against imperialism, ? the fostering of revolutionary working class wnity and leadership in struggle, and the formation of a communist party based on Marxism-Leninism-MAO Tse-tung thought, leading to the overthrow of the United States Government by force and violence. Members of the RU have been identified as collecting weapons while engaging in firearms and guerrilla warfare training. As of July, 1974, RU national headquarters was located in Maywood, Illinois. APPENDIX ‘NW 55110 - Doclais2ss9560 Page ti:
ferzenn .—— aa = . * .* ? | = cay = ——— = = — 7 ; 5: SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE , CLASSIFY AS APPROPRIATE BEFORE COMPLETING. = TO: Intelligence Communi ty Staff | ATTN: Central Index SUBJECT: Abstract of Information Provided to Select Committees 1. HOW PROVIDED (check appropriate term. If a document was made available 2. DATE PROVIDED for review but not transmitted, so note.) | | vocument | orterins | X Jiwreeview |" [restimony [former | 12/31/75 3. TO WHOM PROVIDED (check appropriate term; add specific names if appropriate) The Attorney General with a copy for forwarding to the White House . 4. IDENTIFICATION (provide descriptive data for documents; give name or identification number of briefer, interviewee, testifier and subject) ; Memorandum reporting the results of an interview by SSC Staff Members of incumbent SA Garry G. Lash IN RESPONSE TO (list date and item number if in response to formal request, other- . CLASSIFICATION OF wise state verbal request of (name), initiative, subpoena, etc.) Codeword) NA U . KEY worDS (enter the appropriate key words from the list provided separately; if key words not Listed are used underline for emphasis) » . . P . 4 . . _ ALL Wi aa a tee CONTAINED : . . . as e oe ies . Sort , Information handling HERE: Wane Us SING “BYS Intelligence collection 8. SUMMARY (See reverse side before completing this item) Interviewed regarding his handling of the former confidential informant, Mary Jo Cook, in connection with her membership in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. 62-116395 FMK: fmk_ (4) °° _ ORIGINAL VIA LIATSON TO CENTRAL COMMUNITY INDEX i InN ‘CONNECTION With SENSTUDY 75 3791 (6-75) ; NW 55110 Docld:32989560 pt ate A ae nettanre + canner ne Aninte cavemnetenh tune aetiide Quvhthanelcniy Auehemmed tas enetebnerrht, Mantes daceran bem Sintdins ebachentat anne ath nae mani steed tnpretbnnnutts maenenton = dnnte ene maunans ebrenen atalsmnadawinbdmieaustae x wane « doe Vani an ene fens sn hens he antes sane ante 16 oa one ener teehee wt rons idan
TO FROM SUBJECT: OPTIONAL FORM NO. 10 . . d MAY 1962 EDITION, © GSA FPMR (41 CERI T01—11.6 ' uu UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT mt © Assoc. Dir Dep. AD Adm. Dep. AD In: Memorandum adh 8 7 RE ? : Comp? . Ext. Affairs Mr. J. R Adams pate: 12/31/75 Files & Ce Legal Ch noc fl ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED lore j HEREINAS WN vi ee DATE SENA 7 SELECT COMMITTEE ON “Telephone Rm, — ,oBivector Sec’y __ At 9:25 a.m. on December 31, 1975, Jack Fuller, spetial Assistant to the Attorney General, telephonically requested assistance in locating copies of three documents previously sent to the Attorney General by the Director. Mr. Fuller said that he is compiling for the Attorney General materials relevant to questions that were asked by the Senate Select Committee concerning reports made by the Director to the Attorney General regarding sensitive matters in response to “the Attorney Gene instructions that such reports should be made to him by the Director. The documents are not réadily available to’ ‘Puller j in the Department due to difficulties in locating them in their filing system and he only had the following general descriptions of the documents: 1. Memorandum from the Director to the storey, General dated June 4, 1975, captioned "John Caputo and Others, Bribery"; 2, A memorandum from theDirector to the Attorney General dated November 21, 1975, concerning allegations that an FBI Agent was in violation of the gun control statutes in the Baltimore, Maryland, area; 3. A memorandum from the Director to the Attorney General dated July 22, 1975, which concerned Communications Intelligence Programs. This memorandum was referred to ina subsequent communication dated September 3, 1975. Recs: DWAR 3 8 oS 1R34 1 - Mr. Wannall aGh. guy 22 caine 1 - Mr. Walsh ur. Daly yearby AN 2 1976 _1- Mr. Cleveland ay “1 = Mr4 Mintz b get be 39S — JAM:mfd wr SH i (5) 7p | CONTINUED - OVER al 2 6 1976 Buy U,S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan lies DocId: 3298956 Page
S5L10 Docld: 329689560 Page i127 Pe » . oo : od . @. ; > by e iol % . 3 Memorandum to Mr. Adams Re: Senate Select Committee Item 1 appears to be a matter that was handled by the Special investigative Division; item 2 was handled by the Administrative Division; and item 3 appears to be a matter concerning the intelligence Division . RECOMMENDATION: That the concerned divisions identify the requested documents and furnish Legal Counsel a copy of each for transmission to Jack Fuller by close of business December 31, 1975.
SUBJECT: 8 (wG:jam (19) NW C7 ia wae as07 ¢v 8 NW S52B00 Doold: sooese Page i Pi Dep. ADYAdyi3 £ OPTIONAL FORM NO. 10 ‘ & @ MAY 1982 EDITION GSA FPAIR (43 cen) Wt-11. be UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT - Assocs Dir ai ; Dep. AD I§v. : a" um Asst. Dir.: Admin. Comp. Syst. Ext. Affairs . : Mr. Moore , DATE: 12/3 0/75 Files & Com. __},” “Gen. Inv. oat / Ident. d Ins pectiow > J. H. ot els Intell. 2 Laboratory Legal Coun. d Plon.& Eval. —_ DIRECTO (.. ' S APPEARANCE Spec. Inv. Training BEFORE-SENATE SELECT. COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES, 4 a4 ALL INFOR?- “ICM CONTAIN DECEMBER 10, 1975 BERENS LAC: vrs For record purposes, attached are (1) a copy of the prepared statement which Mr. Kelley read at the outset of his December 10 appearance before the Select Committee on Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate and (2) a transcript of the questions which were asked Mr. Kel a by the Committee members, together with Mr. Kelley's respdn es to those questions. S Telephone Rm. —_ Director Sec’y —_ On December 10, each Field Office and Legal Attache ~ was sent a copy of Mr. Kelley's prepared statement. A copy of the transcript of the questions and answers is being sent to. each Field Office and Legal Attache today. : BoUE * 5%) —1A.35/ sT. 115k gl a ik z. “ian 1976 For information and record purposes. RECOMMENDATION : : : Enclosures (2) bpaAHe 395 [G.VIT4— Mr. Callahan - Enclosure Vlesclt aut www) Mr. Jenkins - Enclosure Mr. Adams - Enclosure Each Assistant Director z y) DD (Sent direct) Ww es G9 2bLé spe‘ ey * v a el ee raft San ww N28 00° (Yj a, aso/ée | US. Savings Bonds Reeular he Fayroll Savings Plan
e oe a . . 8 OFFICE or THE DIRECTOR @ * . . r : y UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20535 FOR RELEASE 10 A.M., EST . WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1975 STATEMENT OF CLARENCE M. KELLEY DIRECTOR 4 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ALLINFORMAT ONS CONTAINED > ‘BEFORE THE HEREIN}: SIF] DATE AE By SAE, | SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES U. S. SENATE WASHINGTON, D. C. DECEMBER 10, 1975 4 Cle Uy S peees Ss ed — \ 4 Ne f sw ‘S5110 BDoold: 32989560 Page 129
I welcome the interest which this Committee has shown in the FBI and most particularly in’ our operations in the intelligence 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 insistence, 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 EE Ae “eer ees ae as Director of the FBI 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 en adete emt, le eth tite Congressional oversight. This Committee has completed the most exhaustive study of our intelligence and security . 4 operations that has ever been undertaken by anyone we Abetibheaae MW 55110 Docld: 32999560 Page 130 3 5 q
MW 55110 Doold:32989560 Page i131 . + " - . ; 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. . I believe we have lived up to those promises. The members and staff of this Committee have had unprecedented access to FBI information. You have talked to the personnel who conduct security-type investigations and who are personally involved in every facet of our day-to-day intelligence operations. You have attended numerous briefings by FBI officials who have sought to familiarize the Committee and its staff with all major areas of our activities and operations in the national security and intelligence fields. . In brief, you have had a firsthand examination’ of these matters that is unmatched at any time in the history | of the Congress. . | As. this Committee has stated, these hearings have, of necessity, focused largely on certain errors and abuses. I credit this Committee for its forthright recognition that the hearings do not give a full or | balanced account of the FBI's record of performance.
NW 35110 Doold: 329589560 Page i323 ° » It is, perhaps, in the nature of such hearings to focus on abuses to the exclusion of positive accomplishments of the organization. The Counterintelligence Programs which have received the lion's share of public attention and critical comment constituted an infinitesimal portion of our over- all work. ‘ A Justice Department Committee which was formed last year to conduct a thorough study of the FBI's Counterintelligence Programs has reported that in the five basic ones it found 3,247 Counterintelligénce proposals 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 they 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 siege to military, industrial, and educational facilities; and killings, maimings, and other atrocities accompanied such acts of violence from New England to California. 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 Nl arora nae an cee nace tan Cae TT ne ee ne 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, enya rNar ert arpa Rantt cated: ooecastats PPO, SSL Ea ecm tibia ret i re i 2 HW 35110 Doocld: 329599560 Page i133
[ . . ' . ® ‘ 8 initiated actions designed to counter 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 Counterintelligence 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 investi- gative and intelligence-gathering agency ~- and take affirmative steps which are needed to meet an imminent threat to human life or property. In short, if we learn a murder or bombing is to be carried out NOW, can we truly meet our responsibilities by. investigating 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 becausé of an immingnt threat to human life. Where there exists the potential to penetrate and disrupt, the Congress must consider the question of HW 35110 Doocld: 32959560 Page i34 ~ 3 -
Z 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 can be developed in cooperation with pertinent 4 Committees of Congress to insure that such measures are used in an entirely responsible manner. Probably the most important question here ' today is what assurances can I 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 substantial 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 in the decision-making process which insures that no future program or major policy decision will ever be adopted without a full and critical review of its propriety. MW 55110 Docld: 32989560 Page 135
MW 35110 Doeld: 32959560 Page 136 . . » . noe ~ Participatory management has become a fact in the FBI. I have made it known throughout our Headquarters and Field Divisions that I welcome all employees, regardless of position or degree of experience, to contribute their thoughts and syggestions, and to voice whatever criticisms or reservations they may have concerning any area of our operations. The ultimate decisions in the Bureau are mine, and I take full responsibility for them. My goal is to achieve maximum critical analysis among our personnel without in any manner weakening or undermining.our basic command structure. | The results of this program have been most beneficial...to me personally...to the FBI's disciplined performance...and to the morale of our employees. In addition, since some of the mistakes of the past were’ occasioned by direct orders from higher authorities outside the FBI, we have welcomed Attorney General Edward Levi's guidance, counsel, and his continuous availability ~— in his own words -- "as a ‘lightning rod' to deflect improper requests." Within days after taking office, Attorney General Levi instructed that I immediately report to him any
e « . . requests or practices which, in my judgment, were improper or which, considering the context of the request, I believed presented the appearance of impropriety. I am pleased to report to this Committee as I . have to the Attorney General that during my nearly two. and one~half years as 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 for a moment consider honaring 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 practices. These are discussed openly and candidly in order that the Attorney General can exercise 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 Director and every member of the FBI under him. NW S3110 Doold: 323989560 Page i37 © uns ao Ton FINE BYR ADD ene enon,
a . . . o I am proud of the 19,000 men and women with whom it is my honor to serve today. Their dedication, their professionalism, their standards, and the self- discipline which they personally demand of themselves and expect of their associates are the Nation's ultimate assurance of prpper 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 been 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. The 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 NW 35110 Doold: 32999560 Page 136